Since this comes up a lot, a quick run though of the testable, falsifiable, science that supports a human cause of recent trends in global mean temperature.pic.twitter.com/VfjAuBgQQt
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
With this validated physics, we can estimate contributions to the longer term trends.https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ …
This too is of course falsifiable. If one could find a model system that matches all of the previously successful predictions in hindcasts, and gives a different attribution, we could test that. [Note this does not (yet) exist, but let's keep an open mind].
We can also look at the testable, falsifiable, theories that were tested, and failed.
Solar forcing? Fails the strat cooling test.
Ocean circulation change? Fails the OHC increase test
Orbital forcing? Fails on multiple levels 
If you have a theory that you don't think has been falsified, or you think you can falsify the mainstream conclusions, that's great! We can test that too! (But lots of people have tried this already so expect there to be an answer already).
PS. Actually, it's even a bit harder. Not only would you need to find a theory that does as well as the current theory, but you'd also need to show why the current theory isn't operative.
Gavin can you give references to space-based observations that indicate more LW absorption due to CO2?
To which space-based change in IR study are you referring? If I could have found this report a few years ago it would have saved me a lot of time writing this https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.10605
I have the same question since I am not aware of other longitudinal satellite based TOA spectra other than the work of Harries en Bantges et al. Interesting paper you wrote, gonna read it.
Part of the 'problem' is caused by the clear politicisation of climate science. Which has caused all manner of manipulation and misrepresentation of evidence. This inevitably leads to a breakdown of trust in climate science, in those who can be arsed to research it. .....
Not quite. The obvious political salience of the science dragged it into the political realm and the normal processes of updates/tests/incremental progress/etc gets twisted and used as fodder to score political pts. Observers then can’t distinguish btw science and politics.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.