What is the evidence that humans are causing or speeding climate change

[MigL]

The science of global warming due to 'greenhouse' gases is relatively simple, and well understood.
If you have trouble looking it up or understanding it, I , or any other member can easily explain/clarify it for you.

Similarly the levels of these greenhouse gases has steadily increased during the last several hundred years of industrialization.
That being said, they are not at the highest levels ever on the Earth. This means that runaway global warming, which would turn the Earth to a Venus-like planet is not possible. The Earth will survive global warming; whether humans do, is another question altogether.

Everyone realizes something must be done about it. Our survival, or at the very least our way of life, depends on it.
Some of the proposals to mitigate global warming, however, would have little or no effect, mainly redistribute wealth from developed countries to non-developed, or drastically change our way of life ( to avoid changing our way of life ).

And that is the biggest issue. Not that global warming is a fantasy, religion or conspiracy ( it is quite real ).
But how to tackle it without adversely affecting people's livelihood and way of life.

[rangerx]

5 hours ago, Suzie said:

You neglected to include what it is that you understand you know the evidence.

What part of carbon dioxide mixing with seawater creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

In your denial of human activity contributing to climate change, what part of man made carbon dioxide is inert?

[Suzie]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Nope. YOU have made specific claims in this thread. I don't believe them. So it is up to YOU to provide evidence for those claims.

 

There is a high-level summary of some of the evidence here: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

Note that it is about 30 pages and only touches on some of the types of evidence. So, as I say, providing evidence in a forum post is not practical.

This is a report put together by hundreds of experts (*) on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA. I think it is about 1,000 pages in total. So feel free to come back with questions after you have read it:

Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov

Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov

And then there is:

• https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/
• https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
• https://climatechange.insightconferences.com/events-list/evidence-of-climate-changes
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/
• https://www.ipcc.ch/data/
• And so on and so on

But perhaps you think that all of these experts from different countries, universities, political beliefs, religions, sciences, etc are all in some massive conspiracy to trick you. If so, this might be more up your street: BBC R4 "A History of Delusions" 

The claims I made are that none of you can articulate what the evidence is that humans are responsible for climate change.  Links don't count for squat because I can provide links proving bigfoot, nessie, aliens and a hundreds links disproving climate change.  I do not want a link war because nothing on the internet is verifiable as I just pointed out.  The fact remains that no person can articulate how glaciers formed and melted without human help, but now all climate changes are caused by humans.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The science of global warming due to 'greenhouse' gases is relatively simple, and well understood.
If you have trouble looking it up or understanding it, I , or any other member can easily explain/clarify it for you.

Similarly the levels of these greenhouse gases has steadily increased during the last several hundred years of industrialization.
That being said, they are not at the highest levels ever on the Earth. This means that runaway global warming, which would turn the Earth to a Venus-like planet is not possible. The Earth will survive global warming; whether humans do, is another question altogether.

Everyone realizes something must be done about it. Our survival, or at the very least our way of life, depends on it.
Some of the proposals to mitigate global warming, however, would have little or no effect, mainly redistribute wealth from developed countries to non-developed, or drastically change our way of life ( to avoid changing our way of life ).

And that is the biggest issue. Not that global warming is a fantasy, religion or conspiracy ( it is quite real ).
But how to tackle it without adversely affecting people's livelihood and way of life.

Now explain how the single thousands of feet thick glacier that covered most of North America melted without human help?

You can't except to deny that this ever happened, or to be a denier of science

8 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

We're seeing multiple indcators trending upwards with no end on sight.

We are not trying to stop the climate from changing, but rather stop our highly damaging contribution.

Presently not all the glaciers are gone. Melting not melted.

 

Science is not about belief. You can review the evidence yourself and draw your own conclusions. Not even hard these days

 

Oh redtide around most of the state...

Huh coral reefs aren't doing so great...

Hmm this house was not in fact offshore before...

It's like the religious tale of the man that god sends all kinds of help to but the man refuses to accept and ends up drowning. What sign is it going to take?

How can an ice core be dated without knowing how many years of surface ice have melted?  Or are you claiming that no melting occurred?  Are pictures of people coring ice evidence?  Of what exactly 

Some people see climate change in the photo below, it's not.  The photo shows an example of air pollution

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Which is irrelevant to the discussion of whether we know that we are the drivers of the current episode of climate change. We know, and we are.

 

 

When did the current warming trend begin? 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to knock this off. We don't allow religion in the mainstream science sections. Here, evidence supports theory. Faith is believing in things you can't know, and has no place here. Further posts breaking this rule will be Trashed.

 

Are you saying that if someone has faith in science, that this is wrong and you will not allow this???

Edited December 4, 2018 by Suzie

[Ken Fabian]

9 hours ago, Suzie said:

And please refrain from saying all scientist agree, because that is no different then saying all Christians believe in Jesus and all Muslims believe in Allah. 

Why would I refrain from saying there is high level of agreement amongst scientists? It is true. Experts always know more - with more accuracy - than non experts. Trust in experts is not about blindly believing them because they are experts but because of trust in the institutions and practices, the codes of conduct and professional standards within which science on climate is done. Being able to convince you or not is kind of irrelevant as well as, I expect, futile; we get similar posts with similar points quite often at this site. That there are things you don't understand, can't understand or choose not to understand about climate change does not make any difference to whether the mainstream science is correct. I would note that science based knowledge and expertise is almost always what courts of law use for deciding cases of negligence, reflecting that common sense truth that expert knowledge is not made false by refusing to accept it; if people with fiduciary duties - holding positions of trust and responsibilty - ignore expert advice they can be held negligent; "I am not an expert and I don't trust experts" will not get you any credit in court and it won't here.

The kind of faith I think is most at issue here is good-faith in this discussion; I could attempt to explain, for example, why your claim that science hasn't considered past historical climate change is incorrect or why what is likely to happen over the next decades and centuries is far more significant to people of the present and near future than climate changes of the pre-civilisation, pre-human past. But -  will you read and give real, thoughtful consideration and responses to arguments I or others make?

 

[Suzie]

3 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Why would I refrain from saying there is high level of agreement amongst scientists? It is true. Experts always know more - with more accuracy - than non experts. Trust in experts is not about blindly believing them because they are experts but because of trust in the institutions and practices, the codes of conduct and professional standards within which science on climate is done. Being able to convince you or not is kind of irrelevant as well as, I expect, futile; we get similar posts with similar points quite often at this site. That there are things you don't understand, can't understand or choose not to understand about climate change does not make any difference to whether the mainstream science is correct. I would note that science based knowledge and expertise is almost always what courts of law use for deciding cases of negligence, reflecting that common sense truth that expert knowledge is not made false by refusing to accept it; if people with fiduciary duties - holding positions of trust and responsibilty - ignore expert advice they can be held negligent; "I am not an expert and I don't trust experts" will not get you any credit in court and it won't here.

The kind of faith I think is most at issue here is good-faith in this discussion; I could attempt to explain, for example, why your claim that science hasn't considered past historical climate change is incorrect or why what is likely to happen over the next decades and centuries is far more significant to people of the present and near future than climate changes of the pre-civilisation, pre-human past. But -  will you read and give real, thoughtful consideration and responses to arguments I or others make?

 

So you believe in what the supposed scientist say, and accept this without a single fact, just that they are in agreement.  If this is wrong just say in one sentence why the glacier that covered North America could have melted without help from the industrial age

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, Suzie said:

When did the current warming trend begin? 

Can’t give any kind of precise answer, especially since you didn’t specify how precise an answer would be acceptable.

[Suzie]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can’t give any kind of precise answer, especially since you didn’t specify how precise an answer would be acceptable.

The current warming trend began at the high point of the last ice age, when the ice began to melt.

Now you know, do you think any scientist can dispute this scientifically?

I give precise answers

Always

Edited December 4, 2018 by Suzie

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Suzie said:

The current warming trend began at the high point of the last ice age, when the ice began to melt.

Now you know, do you think any scientist can dispute this scientifically?

I give precise answers

Always

When was that? 

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, Suzie said:

So you believe in what the supposed scientist say, and accept this without a single fact, just that they are in agreement.  If this is wrong just say in one sentence why the glacier that covered North America could have melted without help from the industrial age

Abnormal temp rise correlates with the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Carbon dioxide output with population growth since the industrial revolution:

https://populationeducation.org/how-does-population-growth-impact-climate-change/

Edited December 4, 2018 by StringJunky

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, Suzie said:

The claims I made are that none of you can articulate what the evidence is that humans are responsible for climate change. 

Whether individuals here can describe the evidence or not is irrelevant. (I could. It is my job to do things like that. But it is not worth wasting my time with someone like you.)

What is important is that evidence exists and has been replicated, reproduced and reviewed. You can keep denying the evidence exists but you are either dishonest or wilfully ignorant.

43 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Links don't count for squat because I can provide links proving bigfoot, nessie, aliens and a hundreds links disproving climate change.

But none of those will be based on peer reviewed science. If you think videos by crackpots have the same weight as science then you may be in the wrong place.

43 minutes ago, Suzie said:

The claims I made are that none of you can articulate what the evidence is that humans are responsible for climate change. 

No. You have made multiple specific claims about climate change and about climate science. I think most of these are lies. I see no reason to take any of your arguments seriously unless you provide evidence for them. For example:

• "Why are million year old fossils scientifically relevant and only the last 150 years of temp matters, because the statement that climate is changing faster now is NOT scientific until the past is evaluated" - Please provide evidence that climate science only looks at the last 150 years.
• "If the temp dropped enough to cover all of Canada and half of America, this denotes massive climate change." - Please provide evidence that this is relevant today.
• "So why do scientist want the climate to stop changing" - Please provide evidence that scientists want climate to stop changing
• "What is gradual about glaciers covering two thirds of north America melting, or those glaciers forming due to massive temp drops?" - Please provide evidence that this was not gradual. Please provide evidence of "massive" temperature drops.
• "Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted. " - Please provide evidence that the change was faster than now. Please provide evidence that the causes are the same.
• " In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened.  " - Please provide evidence that scientists do not describe their methodologies.
• "But since all scientist agree" - Please provide evidence that "all scientists agree"
• "You can prove this wrong with evidence that massive climate changes did not happen before humans.  " - Please provide evidence that anyone has claimed that climate change did not happen before humans.
• "Now explain how the single thousands of feet thick glacier that covered most of North America melted without human help?" - You are the only one claiming that it melted without human help. So it is up to you to explain that. And provide evidence
• "I give precise answers" - Please provide one example of a precise answer from you

 

56 minutes ago, Suzie said:

How can an ice core be dated without knowing how many years of surface ice have melted?

Are you being deliberately dishonest?

 

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Are you saying that if someone has faith in science, that this is wrong and you will not allow this???

Different things: 

• Religion is not based on evidence. Science is.
• Religion does not work (in a practical sense). Science does.
• Religion demands unquestioning belief. Science always questions, tests and probes.

(Both religion and science can be emotionally satisfying, so they have that in common)

[Suzie]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

When was that? 

Any answer that I would give would offend the climate nazies that burn any book, article or internet post that does not agree with Hitlers climate change agenda.  That said do the nazies that ban all opinions different than their own really care about the truth?

[swansont]

31 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Any answer that I would give would offend the climate nazies that burn any book, article or internet post that does not agree with Hitlers climate change agenda.  That said do the nazies that ban all opinions different than their own really care about the truth?

That’s not very precise.

[MigL]

At first I thought you guys were being too hard on a new member.

Maybe I'm just naïve, but I continue to overestimate their moral/intellectual integrity.

[beecee]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

At first I thought you guys were being too hard on a new member.

Maybe I'm just naïve, but I continue to overestimate their moral/intellectual integrity.

Hmmm, observing this so far, my reaction was this sounds like the poster that called himself Olin....perhaps some checking would not go astray? just a thought.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Hmmm, observing this so far, my reaction was this sounds like the poster that called himself Olin....perhaps some checking would not go astray? just a thought.

As females go, "she's" certainly aggressive.  

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

When was that? 

The last ice age occurred from approximately 110,000bc to 12000bc.  It is not thought contrary to scientific agreement that Neanderthals rubbing sticks together to cook their antelopes melted the glaciation.  Prior to this ice age there was also the so called snowball Earth when there was ice even at the equator, the reasons for this if explained by scientist are lies because the reasons for this are just not known.  However the climate nazies who ban all thought not in agreement with the new world agenda know everything, just ask them.

[beecee]

40 minutes ago, Suzie said:

The last ice age occurred from approximately 110,000bc to 12000bc.  It is not thought contrary to scientific agreement that Neanderthals rubbing sticks together to cook their antelopes melted the glaciation.  Prior to this ice age there was also the so called snowball Earth when there was ice even at the equator, the reasons for this if explained by scientist are lies because the reasons for this are just not known.  However the climate nazies who ban all thought not in agreement with the new world agenda know everything, just ask them.

The climate Nazis banning all thought not in agreement? And yet here you are, preaching your fanaticism and nonsense on a science forum! Not to mention the deniers that are airing their views every day on TV Radio etc....

So you want evidence that human induced climate change is happening? But so far you have rejected all the evidence. What evidence would suit you?

And what world agenda are you on about? And more to the point, what is your agenda? I mean such aggressive fanaticism, screaming and yelling, tells me you are not totally impartial to the evidence that tells us human induced climate change is happening.

Sometimes a picture, well two pictures,  tells it far better then a story.

 

And here's a graph that amply illustrates the problem at hand.....

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

 

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20^th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.¹

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.² Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.³

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

---

Global temperature rise

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.⁴ Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. ⁵

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Suzie has now been banned as a sock puppet of two other accounts, and so this thread is now closed.