Jump to content

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


Suzie

Recommended Posts

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.  So be cognitive that all scientist who are in agreement have actually formed a religion.  Be aware that I know that climate change is happening, and has always been happening even before humans knew that the Earth was a planet and for 5 billion years before that.  98 percent of all Earth ice was melted by the year 10,000bc, no matter if Mann only wants to look at the last 1000 years, which is like looking at life as it began 1000 years ago.  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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll need a climate scientist to explain it properly then...  but since the industrial revolution I think there has been a kink...  a knee in the curve upwards that points to FASTER climate change since we started burning fossil fuels. It is actually a lot more complex than that... but in short - scientist known that climate change has always happened, that's not in question....  it's the acceleration of this change brought on by anthropological activities that people are pointing out.

That's my take on it anyway - you might need to discuss it with those that have studied the science better for more details and actual references - I know there are those that have them to hand and know the best references.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes 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.  So be cognitive that all scientist who are in agreement have actually formed a religion.  Be aware that I know that climate change is happening, and has always been happening even before humans knew that the Earth was a planet and for 5 billion years before that.  98 percent of all Earth ice was melted by the year 10,000bc, no matter if Mann only wants to look at the last 1000 years, which is like looking at life as it began 1000 years ago.  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

5

given the power of the oil lobby, the chances are...

besides Why not adopt pascal's wager?

Quote

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

1

For

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have evaluated the past. Ice cores being a mainstay.

Normally climate change is real gradual. Things bob up and down slightly or gradually move in one direction or another. We're seeing a transition from hills to Everest though.

There isn't something like an asteroid or sufficient volcanic action to explain such a sudden change.

Science is evidence based so it isn't a matter of faith llike the religions you mentioned. You can(and for your own well being should) review the multiple lines of evidence yourself.

Locally my state is seeing land vanish and the long summer/late winter effect. Kind of past the time to debate. Trying to figure out ways to minimize the personal impact at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DrP said:

You'll need a climate scientist to explain it properly then...  but since the industrial revolution I think there has been a kink...  a knee in the curve upwards that points to FASTER climate change since we started burning fossil fuels. It is actually a lot more complex than that... but in short - scientist known that climate change has always happened, that's not in question....  it's the acceleration of this change brought on by anthropological activities that people are pointing out.

That's my take on it anyway - you might need to discuss it with those that have studied the science better for more details and actual references - I know there are those that have them to hand and know the best references.

 

 

It's a lot more complex than that you say, and since you are a scientist you can not explain it.  You are describing religious faith, not in God but in the scientist that have never explained this, which does not matter because you choose to believe.

If the temp dropped enough to cover all of Canada and half of America, this denotes massive climate change. Then it warmed enough to melt this we have more massive climate change, all without humans.  So why do scientist want the climate to stop changing, isn't that like demanding that volcanoes stop erupting

16 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

We have evaluated the past. Ice cores being a mainstay.

Normally climate change is real gradual. Things bob up and down slightly or gradually move in one direction or another. We're seeing a transition from hills to Everest though.

There isn't something like an asteroid or sufficient volcanic action to explain such a sudden change.

Science is evidence based so it isn't a matter of faith llike the religions you mentioned. You can(and for your own well being should) review the multiple lines of evidence yourself.

Locally my state is seeing land vanish and the long summer/late winter effect. Kind of past the time to debate. Trying to figure out ways to minimize the personal impact at this point.

What is gradual about glaciers covering two thirds of north America melting, or those glaciers forming due to massive temp drops?

Bye the way taking ice cores of already melted glaciers is not possible, nor is it possible to be credible and not account for this melt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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. 

It is difference because there is a reason for the scientific consensus: the evidence.

As there is a large amount of evidence, and many thousands of papers published on the subject, it is not really practical to summarise it all here. If you have questions about specific papers or evidence, then you could ask those here. 

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Be aware that I know that climate change is happening, and has always been happening even before humans knew that the Earth was a planet and for 5 billion years before that.

The difference now is the scale and rate of change. Here is a good summary of the changes of 20,000 years (lei since the last glaciation): https://xkcd.com/1732/

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

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

The climate has been looked at over much longer than 150 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is difference because there is a reason for the scientific consensus: the evidence.

As there is a large amount of evidence, and many thousands of papers published on the subject, it is not really practical to summarise it all here. If you have questions about specific papers or evidence, then you could ask those here. 

The difference now is the scale and rate of change. Here is a good summary of the changes of 20,000 years (lei since the last glaciation): https://xkcd.com/1732/

The climate has been looked at over much longer than 150 years.

You neglected to provide either the evidence or how it was gathered.  Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted.  In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened.  But since all scientist agree, which they do not you accept bogus unverified evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Suzie said:

It's a lot more complex than that you say, and since you are a scientist you can not explain it.  You are describing religious faith, not in God but in the scientist that have never explained this, which does not matter because you choose to believe.

Wot are you on about?  I said I was NOT a climate scientist...  so why would you expect me to be able to explain it? How do YOU explain the knee in the curve? What is the cause for the 'sudden' increase in speed of warming?   It isn't a religion....  I used to be far more sceptical about it than I was now. If people didn't think it would destroy the planet then I wouldn't give a shit about it.  I used to be very sceptical about it...  mainly because my pastor at church said it was a conspiracy... but the more I read about it the more I 'think' they are probably right. Religion...?  nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Suzie said:

What is gradual about glaciers covering two thirds of north America melting, or those glaciers forming due to massive temp drops?

Bye the way taking ice cores of already melted glaciers is not possible, nor is it possible to be credible and not account for this melt

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.

greenland_drilling.jpg

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Suzie said:

You neglected to provide either the evidence or how it was gathered. 

As I said, there are thousands of papers and vast quantities of evidence. It is not really suitable for a post on a forum. I'm sure you could find the evidence, if you wanted to. So I assume you are not interested in the science.

44 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted. 

As this is a very specific claim, I think it is reasonable to ask you for the evidence for it. Please provide a reference to published science that says this.

45 minutes ago, Suzie said:

In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened. 

Of course it has. Describing the methodologies used is an important part of a scientific paper. As you would know if you had any interest in the subject.

46 minutes ago, Suzie said:

But since all scientist agree, which they do not you accept bogus unverified evidence

Not all scientists agree. The evidence is verified.

You have made a series of unsupported and/or false statements. And yet you make accusations against scientists who have spent years gathering and analysing data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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.  So be cognitive that all scientist who are in agreement have actually formed a religion.  Be aware that I know that climate change is happening, and has always been happening even before humans knew that the Earth was a planet and for 5 billion years before that.  98 percent of all Earth ice was melted by the year 10,000bc, no matter if Mann only wants to look at the last 1000 years, which is like looking at life as it began 1000 years ago.  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

That misses the point. Modern humans weren't around a million years ago, and the concern is how climate change affects our modern habitat.

The evidence? We can assess how much of an effect various factors have on the environment, and then take stock of how much we change those factors. It's not that hard to get a decent estimate of how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere owing to our industrial infrastructure, and measure how much CO2 has been changing. Yes, it's due to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

The evidence? We can assess how much of an effect various factors have on the environment, and then take stock of how much we change those factors. It's not that hard to get a decent estimate of how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere owing to our industrial infrastructure, and measure how much CO2 has been changing. Yes, it's due to us.

Worth noting that the first attempts to calculate these effects go back to Arrhenius in 1896. Since then we have made much more accurate measurements and made a lot of progress in understanding the complex interactions (including positive and negative feedbacks) that take place between the Earth, its oceans and atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

We have evaluated the past. Ice cores being a mainstay.

Normally climate change is real gradual. Things bob up and down slightly or gradually move in one direction or another. We're seeing a transition from hills to Everest though.

There isn't something like an asteroid or sufficient volcanic action to explain such a sudden change.

Science is evidence based so it isn't a matter of faith llike the religions you mentioned. You can(and for your own well being should) review the multiple lines of evidence yourself.

Locally my state is seeing land vanish and the long summer/late winter effect. Kind of past the time to debate. Trying to figure out ways to minimize the personal impact at this point.

I can locate this info, but you do not have it....

This is faith not science

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

That misses the point. Modern humans weren't around a million years ago, and the concern is how climate change affects our modern habitat.

The evidence? We can assess how much of an effect various factors have on the environment, and then take stock of how much we change those factors. It's not that hard to get a decent estimate of how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere owing to our industrial infrastructure, and measure how much CO2 has been changing. Yes, it's due to us.

Climate change killed 98 to 99 percent of all species long before the first human.  We are just another species, in fact the only way we live is to travel off the Earth as the next mass extinction is a matter of when not if

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

Worth noting that the first attempts to calculate these effects go back to Arrhenius in 1896. Since then we have made much more accurate measurements and made a lot of progress in understanding the complex interactions (including positive and negative feedbacks) that take place between the Earth, its oceans and atmosphere.

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

Fact, faith requires no evidence, just a need to belong to a group.  The climate science group is therefore faith based.

You can prove this wrong with evidence that massive climate changes did not happen before humans.  You can also be serious only after you stop driving

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I can locate this info, but you do not have it....

This is faith not science

Why should we have faith in your ability to locate information?

The forum you're posting in requires evidence, or at least valid references for non mainstream science.

 

Edited by Carrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carrock said:

The forum you're posting in requires evidence, or at least valid references for non mainstream science.

Being fair  -  she was the one asking for evidence for human accelerated climate change in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Why should we have faith in your ability to locate information?

The forum you're posting in requires evidence, or at least valid references for non mainstream science.

 

In other words you have no info, just your faith in science  which also has faith in itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Fact, faith requires no evidence, just a need to belong to a group.  The climate science group is therefore faith based.

You are the one not providing evidence. So it is your denialism that is faith based.

Scientists have evidence.

29 minutes ago, Suzie said:

You can prove this wrong with evidence that massive climate changes did not happen before humans.

No one is claiming this. So this is a straw man fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are the one not providing evidence. So it is your denialism that is faith based.

Scientists have evidence.

No one is claiming this. So this is a straw man fallacy.

I have not denied anything, I am asking you why you believe as you do, and you just threw that answer back to me.  Spock would call this illogical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

I have not denied anything, I am asking you why you believe as you do, and you just threw that answer back to me.  Spock would call this illogical

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.

 

3 hours ago, Suzie said:

You neglected to provide either the evidence or how it was gathered. 

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:

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" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Suzie said:

In other words you have no info, just your faith in science  which also has faith in itself

!

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.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Suzie said:

Climate change killed 98 to 99 percent of all species long before the first human.  We are just another species, in fact the only way we live is to travel off the Earth as the next mass extinction is a matter of when not if

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What is the evidence that humans are causing or speeding climate change?"
I think you are asking the wrong question.
We have significantly raised the concentration of CO2.
The laws of physics tell us that more CO2 will increase the effectiveness of the atmosphere as a means to trap heat from the Sun.
We know the temperature  has risen.

How can we not have an effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.