• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Antarctica gains ice for first time in decades, reversing trend of mass loss, study finds (1 Viewer)

Yes, they will make up a graph to the tenth, which does not represent real works capabilities of measurements and corrections.
Conspiracy theory.
Yes, but this is soot that can be cleaned out of the emissions, separate from CO2.
Better watch out. Trump may come after you for saying we should clean soot out of emissions.

Models are made to support their agenda.
Conspiracy theory.

I specified in the "ENERGY BUDGET!" They only address it in the carbon cycle.

Why in hell are you arguing things you do not comprehend?
Now you are mad that they didn’t say the same thing as you?
 
Fair enough During the study period 2000 to 2024 all of Earth's energy imbalance came from ASR.
Energy balance increase.

The models begin by assuming that a doubling of the CO2 level will produce a positive longwave energy imbalance,
where the downwelling longwave radiation, exceeds the increase in Planck OLR, but this is not happening.
This means the model outputs are fairly worthless for predicting the future climate.
As for why (or if) the climate is changing at an accelerated pace, the changes in ASR regardless of cause are enough
to account for warming since the 1980's.
They’ve done a pretty good job so far.

IMG_0445.jpeg

Not really we are about 2C below the last highest peaks, and because the models that track accurately
with recent warming are TCR simulations (2XCO2 = 1.65°C) so we are unlikely to produce enough CO2 to get to 2C above current temps.
Now we have the cloud problem to add to CO2 which you source pointed out so only time will tell. I won’t be around to see it.

It is subjective, here is what the IPCC Ar6 SPM said,

Note how large the error bars are? 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C ~Plus or Minus 10%.
Not subjective, just standard 95% confidence limits. I’m surprised they are not wider.



p.s. You might find this study interesting.

Abstract​

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.

 
Actually what Feldman observed was that added CO2 increased the downwelling longwave radiation, what he could not
measure from surface readings was if the OLR increased more, but thanks to the CERES instruments, we know it did.

Actually the President's people are attempting to find the actual cause of warming since ~1978.

Is that a joke? If you believe that you are delusional or just not paying attention! He’s denying there is any warming at all, government employees can’t even put the words changing climate on a website, firing every climate scientist he can find and canceling any program the has the word climate in it.

They are not going to attempt to find the cause of anything. They are just denying that there is anything happening at all!

The anti science statements are things like the saying the science is settled about something that is
still at best a hypothesis.
 
It is impossible at out technological level to truly tell what CO2 is doing.


It appears that is has almost no effect on the temperature.
Source?
It appears that it is overwhelmed by the spectral forcing of H2O already saturating most of the region CO2 warms in.
Source?
We simply cannot tell with certainty. But a linear extrapolation of power levels on the Earth Energy Budget, and using the proper 4th power relationship of energy vs. temperature, would indicate a doubling of CO2 only increases the temperature by about 0.5 degrees.

This is one hypothesis based on the clouds absorbing more longwave and redirecting heat back to the surface (positive feedback,) but at the same time, more cloud cover reflects solar energy outward (negative feedback.) I have not seen any study that deems one is greater than the other, but I believe the negative feedback is greater than the positive feedback.

This is farther complicated by studies indicating that cloud cover is diminishing rather than growing.

That’s what the study being discussed is about.

I will stand firm that the cause of this has to do with aerosol pollution, mostly from Asia with their increased col power usage.
You’ll have to argue with the authors of the study about that. Their work shows the cause as increased sea-surface temperature. Do you have a source for your firm stand?

I have no faith in their models.

LOL! We never would have guessed that!

My understanding of the biosphere and what I know of their models has no calculation for the heat exchange processes of life. They do account for the heat absorption necessary to melt ice, but they do not account for the sequestration of heat the biosphere has.
 
Energy balance increase.


They’ve done a pretty good job so far.

View attachment 67569593


Now we have the cloud problem to add to CO2 which you source pointed out so only time will tell. I won’t be around to see it.


Not subjective, just standard 95% confidence limits. I’m surprised they are not wider.



p.s. You might find this study interesting.

Abstract​

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.

Correlation is not causation, also the model that matched the observed warming was a simulation of TCR not ECS!
The abstract is discussing a technique assuming added CO2 causes an increase in the positive longwave energy imbalance, a false assumption!
 
Is that a joke? If you believe that you are delusional or just not paying attention! He’s denying there is any warming at all, government employees can’t even put the words changing climate on a website, firing every climate scientist he can find and canceling any program the has the word climate in it.

They are not going to attempt to find the cause of anything. They are just denying that there is anything happening at all!
No joke! From what I remember Trump is skeptical of the idea that the recent changes in the climate are anything to be concerned about, or human caused. Those trying to sell climate change as a life ending event are using hyperbole, the actual studies give ranges which are conditional on sensitivity and emission scenarios, picking only the highs from both is disingenuous.
 
No joke! From what I remember Trump is skeptical of the idea that the recent changes in the climate are anything to be concerned about, or human caused.
Trump is not skeptical. He’s clueless and knows absolutely nothing about it. He’s just saying what he thinks donors from industries like fossil fuels want him to say so they will give him money.

Those trying to sell climate change as a life ending event are using hyperbole, the actual studies give ranges which are conditional on sensitivity and emission scenarios,


picking only the highs from both is disingenuous.
That’s not what is happening.
 
It is impossible at out technological level to truly tell what CO2 is doing. It appears that is has almost no effect on the temperature. It appears that it is overwhelmed by the spectral forcing of H2O already saturating most of the region CO2 warms in.

We simply cannot tell with certainty. But a linear extrapolation of power levels on the Earth Energy Budget, and using the proper 4th power relationship of energy vs. temperature, would indicate a doubling of CO2 only increases the temperature by about 0.5 degrees.

This is one hypothesis based on the clouds absorbing more longwave and redirecting heat back to the surface (positive feedback,) but at the same time, more cloud cover reflects solar energy outward (negative feedback.) I have not seen any study that deems one is greater than the other, but I believe the negative feedback is greater than the positive feedback.

This is farther complicated by studies indicating that cloud cover is diminishing rather than growing. I will stand firm that the cause of this has to do with aerosol pollution, mostly from Asia with their increased col power usage.

I have no faith in their models. My understanding of the biosphere and what I know of their models has no calculation for the heat exchange processes of life. They do account for the heat absorption necessary to melt ice, but they do not account for the sequestration of heat the biosphere has.
Do you realize how utterly laughable your posts on this subject are?
 
Correlation is not causation,
Obviously you didn’t follow the article. They say the same thing as you do.

Did you not see this?

That correlation is not causation is perhaps the first thing that must be said.” Therefore the actual high correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing surface temperatures alone is insufficient to prove that the increased radiative forcing resulting from the increasing GHG atmospheric concentrations is indeed causing the warming of the earth.

Apparently you missed this too:

In this study, we use a recently developed mathematical method29,30,31,32, which is capable of quantitatively evaluating the drive and feedback causal relation between time series, to address the importance of the different forcing components on climate in a quantitative but model independent way. This new method is based on the information flow (IF) concept31. The whole new formalism is derived from first principles, rather than as an empirically defined ansatz, with the property of causality guaranteed in proven theorems.

They are not using correlation to develop their findings. Do you really think “Nature” would publish a simple correlation study?

also the model that matched the observed warming was a simulation of TCR not ECS!
Why would you use ECS? ECS is the amount of warming that will occur once everything has reached equilibrium after a change. That could take years or decades! How would you even make sense of that? TCS measures at the time of the change.

The abstract is discussing a technique assuming added CO2 causes an increase in the positive longwave energy imbalance, a false assumption!
Can you be specific as to where they say that?
 
You have made a claim that you know what the
“Entire scientific community “ thinks about added CO2, but you have not supported your claim!
That isn’t a claim. And you are fully aware I and others have shown you.
 
That isn’t a claim. And you are fully aware I and others have shown you.
I am fully aware that it is not a fact when you say the "entire" science community. You have been corrected multiple times and keep making false statements.

You do not support your false statements because you can not.

They are false.
 
That is a lie. I agree with the 17,000+ papers, with very few exceptions.

Care to link a paper and quote you think i disagree with?

I may disagree with what is "implied" in a paper, but not with the actual science. I may disagree with the author's conclusion outside of what he can show in a paper, but rarely ever with the body of a paper.

Keep on the assuming, and you will be wrong. Continuously.
Live in denial of reality if it makes you happy. You are the minority, as are all conspiracy theorists. Your 'knowledge' of science is laughable. AGW is a proven fact.
 
I am fully aware that it is not a fact when you say the "entire" science community. You have been corrected multiple times and keep making false statements.

You do not support your false statements because you can not.

They are false.
You have corrected nobody-except in your confirmation biased imagination.
 
Trump is not skeptical. He’s clueless and knows absolutely nothing about it. He’s just saying what he thinks donors from industries like fossil fuels want him to say so they will give him money.





That’s not what is happening.
Of course that is what is happening.
Trump is not skeptical. He’s clueless and knows absolutely nothing about it. He’s just saying what he thinks donors from industries like fossil fuels want him to say so they will give him money.





That’s not what is happening.
First off the oil companies do not care one way or the other about CO2's climate sensitivity, as there is no
alternative to their product, and they can produce carbon neutral fuels sustainably.
Trump is only a mouth piece, but he does have advisors, and the CO2 driven climate concept is all but dead.

As for as the media reporting the science accurately, we need look no further than the nasa article of the
graph you posted without citation.
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
Vs the actual study,
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections
Now the study is quite clear that they used simulations of TCR,
We use an implied TCR metric to provide a meaningful model-observation comparison even in the presence of forcing differences.
Now the study mentions TCR 30 times,
but the nasa media article, does not even mention TCR one time, why would they omit such a central fact?
According to the IPCC TCR has a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.65C while TCR has a climate sensitivity of 3C,
by not mentioning TCR, they leave the reader to imply the accurate models are simulations of the higher sensitivity ECS!
 
Obviously you didn’t follow the article. They say the same thing as you do.

Did you not see this?

That correlation is not causation is perhaps the first thing that must be said.” Therefore the actual high correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing surface temperatures alone is insufficient to prove that the increased radiative forcing resulting from the increasing GHG atmospheric concentrations is indeed causing the warming of the earth.

Apparently you missed this too:

In this study, we use a recently developed mathematical method29,30,31,32, which is capable of quantitatively evaluating the drive and feedback causal relation between time series, to address the importance of the different forcing components on climate in a quantitative but model independent way. This new method is based on the information flow (IF) concept31. The whole new formalism is derived from first principles, rather than as an empirically defined ansatz, with the property of causality guaranteed in proven theorems.

They are not using correlation to develop their findings. Do you really think “Nature” would publish a simple correlation study?


Why would you use ECS? ECS is the amount of warming that will occur once everything has reached equilibrium after a change. That could take years or decades! How would you even make sense of that? TCS measures at the time of the change.


Can you be specific as to where they say that?
I bolded the passage, their method still assumes that added greenhouse gases increase radiative forcing,
which we can now measure, and did not happen.
And Yes Nature allowed a correlation study, because this is still a correlation study!

Why would anyone use ECS for anything, it is a simulation of a condition that cannot exists, yet that is what
is used in most predictions of future warming.
But let's check just for fun.
IPCC AR6 SPM
Panel (a) Global surface temperature changes in °C relative to 1850–1900. These changes were obtained by combining Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) model simulations with observational constraints based on past simulated warming,
as well as an updated assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity (see Box SPM.1).
Yep the IPCC is using ECS, but the analysis shows TCR matches observations better.

There were a few studies of what happens when CO2 increases are small (Like Human emission) and for small emission steps
the same models show very low climate sensitivity, ( But they still start with the assumption that added CO2 causes positive longwave forcing).
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For a 100 GtC pulse of CO2 released into the atmosphere with a background CO2 concentration of 389 ppm, R&C found the median time between an emission and maximum warming to be 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.
So for small size emissions the lag between emission and maximum warming is very short. In this case
the 100 GtC is a pulse of 47 ppm added to 389 ppm.
What is more interesting is the graph of the data.
1747136845375.png
Now the climate sensitivity recorded for the 100 GtC pulse is 0.2C, so the formula to
extract the multiplier would be 0.2C/ln( 436/389) = 1.75, 1.75 X ln(2) = 1.21C for a doubling of the CO2 level.
 
That isn’t a claim. And you are fully aware I and others have shown you.
I am not sure why you will not support you claim,
that the "entire scientific Community" thinks that added CO2 will cause warming.
 
I am fully aware that it is not a fact when you say the "entire" science community. You have been corrected multiple times and keep making false statements.

You do not support your false statements because you can not.

They are false.
😂
 
I am not sure why you will not support you claim,
that the "entire scientific Community" thinks that added CO2 will cause warming.
I don’t understand why you lie in these threads? Numerous people, including myself, have repeatedly shown you in dozens of threads that the vast majority of scientists agree that CO2 is the main cause of warming we are experiencing, as the data shows.
 
I am not sure why you will not support you claim,
that the "entire scientific Community" thinks that added CO2 will cause warming.
You’re right! Only 95% of the scientific community understands the FACT that it’s greenhouse gases that are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet!
The other 5% are conspiracy theorists who wallow like fools in the mud in their profound ignorance. There are fools who are doctors. There are fools who are politicians. And there are fools who are climate “scientists”.
Us normal people enjoy listening to their rants because they provide an excellent belly laugh.
 
I don’t understand why you lie in these threads? Numerous people, including myself, have repeatedly shown you in dozens of threads that the vast majority of scientists agree that CO2 is the main cause of warming we are experiencing, as the data shows.
No, the empirical data does not show that CO2 is the main cause of warming since 1978 (recent)
and the scientific consensus is that Human activity is changing the climate.
 
You’re right! Only 95% of the scientific community understands the FACT that it’s greenhouse gases that are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet!
The other 5% are conspiracy theorists who wallow like fools in the mud in their profound ignorance. There are fools who are doctors. There are fools who are politicians. And there are fools who are climate “scientists”.
Us normal people enjoy listening to their rants because they provide an excellent belly laugh.
If you had read the study the attribution is to Human activity not greenhouse gases, they infer the it is added greenhouse gases.
The observed data from the CERES satellite instruments, show that the observed warming cannot be coming from greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases work because they are largely transparent to shortwave light (Visible) and can absorb in the
longwave spectrum. The hypothesis is that adding greenhouse gases will restrict longwave light from leaving earth,
and reduce the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) this reduction would cause an energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.
The observed data is showing that Earth is loosing energy in the longwave spectrum, but gaining energy in the shortwave spectrum.
Added greenhouse gases cannot alter how much of the available sunlight reaches the surface, but air pollution can.
As air pollution increased, it dimmed the available sunlight, even as the Sun's output was increasing.
Later when laws cleared most of the air pollution, the earlier increases in Solar output were reveled, but in a much shorter time period.
 
If you had read the study the attribution is to Human activity not greenhouse gases, they infer the it is added greenhouse gases.
The observed data from the CERES satellite instruments, show that the observed warming cannot be coming from greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases work because they are largely transparent to shortwave light (Visible) and can absorb in the
longwave spectrum. The hypothesis is that adding greenhouse gases will restrict longwave light from leaving earth,
and reduce the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) this reduction would cause an energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.
The observed data is showing that Earth is loosing energy in the longwave spectrum, but gaining energy in the shortwave spectrum.
Added greenhouse gases cannot alter how much of the available sunlight reaches the surface, but air pollution can.
As air pollution increased, it dimmed the available sunlight, even as the Sun's output was increasing.
Later when laws cleared most of the air pollution, the earlier increases in Solar output were reveled, but in a much shorter time period.
I do not debate facts and it is a fact that it is human activity, aka greenhouse gases, that are primarily responsible for the planetary warming that is undeniable. This is WAY past the point of debate despite your drivelous post.
 
I do not debate facts and it is a fact that it is human activity, aka greenhouse gases, that are primarily responsible for the planetary warming that is undeniable. This is WAY past the point of debate despite your drivelous post.
Well let's look at the observed data?
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000
Satellite observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System show that Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
For greenhouse gases to cause warming, they would have to cause a positive energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum,
but the observed data from 2000 to 2024 is showing a Negative energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.

People imply that when the phrase "Human activity" is used they mean added greenhouse gases,
but many Human activities can alter Earth's energy balance. Air Pollution and Land use changes,
and hypothetically added greenhouse gases. The problem is that there is no scientific experiment that has validated
that added greenhouse gases actually can cause warming.
The idea seems plausible, CO2 does absorb photons at 15 um, a window not covered by H2O,
but untested hypothesis, are not a basis for altering Human civilization, especially when the observed data
says the hypothesis is invalid.

If you look at the CERES data and it shows that our positive energy imbalance is happening in the ASR spectrum,
what does that tell you is the source of the increase? The Sun's output has not increased much,
yet the energy reaching the surface has increased by about 6 W m-2, As measured by the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN)
Global dimming and brightening: A review
The historic emission inventories suggest that global sulfur emissions peaked in late 1980s, and decreased thereafter [Stern, 2006; Streets et al., 2006]. The decline in the emissions of sulphur and black carbon was particularly strong in large areas of the industrialized world over the period 1980–2000, after increases in previous decades [Streets et al., 2006], in line with the changes noted in the SSR records.
 
Well let's look at the observed data?
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

For greenhouse gases to cause warming, they would have to cause a positive energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum,
but the observed data from 2000 to 2024 is showing a Negative energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.

People imply that when the phrase "Human activity" is used they mean added greenhouse gases,
but many Human activities can alter Earth's energy balance. Air Pollution and Land use changes,
and hypothetically added greenhouse gases. The problem is that there is no scientific experiment that has validated
that added greenhouse gases actually can cause warming.
The idea seems plausible, CO2 does absorb photons at 15 um, a window not covered by H2O,
but untested hypothesis, are not a basis for altering Human civilization, especially when the observed data
says the hypothesis is invalid.

If you look at the CERES data and it shows that our positive energy imbalance is happening in the ASR spectrum,
what does that tell you is the source of the increase? The Sun's output has not increased much,
yet the energy reaching the surface has increased by about 6 W m-2, As measured by the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN)
Global dimming and brightening: A review
It is a fact that the warming of the earth is primarily due to human activity, ie greenhouse gas emissions.
I don't debate established facts such as these.
If you would like to debate a fact lets debate this: I say that today is Saturday.
You start.....
 
I don’t understand why you lie in these threads? Numerous people, including myself, have repeatedly shown you in dozens of threads that the vast majority of scientists agree that CO2 is the main cause of warming we are experiencing, as the data shows.
You never have. In another thread, a poster tried to claim the 99%+, but the story he referred to has the paper linked, and only has an enforcement of 0.6% for what you claim.

this is another case where someone writes a story that is a lie, based on a paper. They lie about the papers content, and people like you believe the lie.

Read this post:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom