Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Green Matters is worried that a lot of people doubt we are solely responsible for climate change, but quoting a statement from NASA’s Gavin Schmidt should settle things, right?
Is Humankind Completely Liable for Global Warming? Here’s What Experts Think
…
Despite ongoing research, many still aren’t 100 percent convinced that climate change exists. But if you’re looking for answers on global warming you’ve come to the right place. Keep reading to find out more about humans impact climate change.
…
According to Carbon Brief, NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt believes humans are responsible for about 110 percent of observed warming. This is a sentiment echoed by the U.S. fourth national climate assessment from 2017, which found that human activities were responsible for anywhere from 93 percent to 123 percent of observed warming from 1951 to 2010.
…
What can I do to curb climate change?
…
Some ways to start include installing solar panels or using clean energy providers, using LED light bulbs, washing your laundry with cold water, laying clothes out to dry instead of running the dryer, buying an energy-efficient shower head, washing dishes in the dish washer, and using biodegradable, non-toxic laundry detergent.
Abiding by a vegan diet is also thought to be the most effective way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, as per the Guardian. Using public transportation instead of driving, and compositing food scraps helps, too.
…
Read more: https://www.greenmatters.com/p/climate-change-caused-by-humans
I’m not sure vegetarians have fully considered the surge in climate damaging methane emissions which would occur if everyone went vegan, and started eating more lentils instead of meat. But I’m sure if everyone switched to using an energy efficient shower head it would tip the balance.
Okay, well, since the Greenbeaners are all 110% paranoid about the climate changing, which is NORMAL on this planet, it might be better if they got some professional help with their problem, wouldn’t it?
I have said this before and will repeat it ad nauseum: the O2 level in the atmosphere is 20%; the CO2 level is 0.04%. That is, for uninformed individuals, a 400-hundredth of ONE percent CO2 vice 20% O2. So WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM??????
Gavin Schmuck exaggerates bigly. By approximately 10,000%. Give or take. We humans might be responsible for all of 1% of the warming. Too small to actually measure, and certainly too small to matter one iota. And the claim that without us humans the earth would have cooled is laughable on its face.
My non-toxic laundry detergent definately runs WAY cooler than the toxic detergent we used to use. That stuff was so hot it would burn holes in my undies all the time.
Its your emissions which burn holes in your undies.
not much can be said about the level of stupid required to believe that man can change the climate.
Rain dances change the weather all the time. Climate is just a long record of weather.
Climate pseudo-science continues to deny our oceans are one of the biggest drivers of climate change. With the AMO and PDO both positive for about 80% of the last 40 years and ENSO adding to the warming, it is silly to claim that natural climate factors would have caused cooling.
Finally, factoring in the increasing salinity over the last 400 years and you really can explain close to all the warming. It requires no contribution from human emissions at all.
Porridge diet.
Recycle urine at least once.
Stop washing soap as it requires energy to make.
Keep your home temperature as close as possible to outdoors.
I’m not sure what compositing food scraps means, but lets do it….
No problem, soon you are living in the middle ages again, complte with nobility once more, and luvin ‘ it.
No home, just a hole in the ground.
Then AGW has saved the world, b/c otherwise we’d see cooling, and that would be disastrous.
110% mmm I wonder if you subtract the artificially raised later temperatures from the record and then also subtract the artificially lowered older temperatures what percentage would you be left with.
This would explain the modeling failures.
Actually, I 110% agree with Gavin on this one. Observed climate change IS 110% caused by humans….humans at the NASA Giss office, fudging the numbers! LOL!
If the premise is true, that would suggest we would be COOLING without human emissions, right?
So let’s go back to LIA I guess. Glaciers for everyone!
For anyone interested in the REAL Cause of Climate Change, see my paper “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climate-change/
Irrefutable.
Rats! 404. The publisher must have changed the URL
My bad.
It’s ‘climatic’ change
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
Henry, I think I see a problem with your calculations.
You are using the fraudulent, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart for your correlations.
Regional surface temperature charts don’t correlate with the Hockey Stick chart.
Hockey Stick charts don’t represent reality.
I’m sorry, Burl. I meant to address you as Burl, but I wrote Henry instead.
And btw, I don’t dismiss SO2 as a factor, I just don’t know how much of a factor it is.
Well, if Gavin says so, it must be true. This latest needless destruction of trees follows from the much publicised narrative that the earth’s temperature is continually increasing. But publicized is not the same as truthful.
From Murray Salby’s talk, there has been no consistent change of global temperature:
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548?t=15m56s
Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician that plays with computer models. His NASA models insist the world would be cooling from the 1950s if not for AGW. His problems? 1) His models can’t replicate the early 20th Century warming, even with 20/20 hindsight. 2) Despite heroic parameterization efforts, his models can’t replicate paleo temperature estimates. Other than that, his award-winning science is outstanding [/s].
The fact that she/he wrought this, and it passed the editors appears to indicate that there is no intelligent thought in this organization.
and eating decompositing food scraps helps, too.
Damn I knew we were bad but 123% bad? that seems impossible but Dr Schmidt is gifted with statistics much more than me
110% – right. It’s the standard post-hoc rationalisation of why the “models” show much more warming than the observed trend (even after adjustments, homogenization etc.). It’s trotted out occasionally but never given much prominence. I suspect because they don’t have any real evidence that a natural cooling trend exists. How could they, when it’s supposedly overwhelmed by human-caused warming?
Math is hard, especially when it’s demoted in public education in favor of new agenda advocacy subjects.
Gavin, Gavin, Gavin, when will you learn that when you are lying you are wrong, when you are altering the data, you are wrong, and no one can every be responsible for 110% of anything quantifiable.
You are so deep into your fantasy land that free-association is akin to science in your mind. Wow. Any one who looks closely at wind and solar energy and electric vehicles will quickly find that we could not even do the UK to the standards these green energy activists demand. We simply do not have the resources, the time, the money, or the environment to destroy to do what they want.
So, what happens WHEN the inevitable mini ice age strikes. There is a limit to how long they can keep the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative going. Oh, it is now called “climate change.”
One of the best ways to pick a liar is when there is a change in the narrative. The ways you pick up on a scam are – you pick an outright lie, there is a change in the narrative-“hey, you said different last week” or it all becomes too ridiculous to believe. The amount of total absurdity that some people have bought in to defies rationality. You have to wonder how gullible some people are. Are they actually dung beetles? Scientific illiteracy makes it hard for people to cotton on to the outright lies with global warming. They are easily fooled by the appeal to authority.
To quote Voltaire-“Those that can persuade you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” A lot of brainless people have bought one or more of the propaganda stories over the decades- hole in the ozone layer, impending ice age, impending catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, “climate change”, COVID. What will be the next fear campaign to be the last coffin in the nail of human freedom?
It is time to click your heels and say-“I don’t buy it, I don’t buy it, I don’t buy it.”
I think Larry Niven answered your “what happens” question at least somewhat in Fallen Angels – essentially, they blame the “deniers”
Why the discussion? Tony Heller long ago figured out the human contribution.
Apparently, you can do it from your chair with a mouse. Then you get 9% correlation with CO2.
See, I told you:
https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-the-us-temperature-record/
Thanks for the Heller link, Gerald. I’m going to bookmark that one.
Here’s pertinent quote from the link:
“The implication of this is that the huge adjustments being made to the US temperature record are being made to match global warming theory, which is the exact opposite of how science should be done. The unadjusted data shows essentially no correlation between CO2 and temperature.”
end excerpt
But climate change has been taking place for eons. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change that we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse in the earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. This is all a matter of science.
Well, Spinal Tap turned it up to 11, so what’s wrong with 110% 🙂
110% of ~nothing is still ~nothing.
Global warming crisis cancelled.