• 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!

AR6: Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers

longview said:
No they say that,
Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°
and in the very next section says that,
Over the period 1850–2019, a total of 2390 ± 240 (likely range) GtCO2 of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted.
It is not a great leap to figure how much warming resulted from the stated 2390 GtCO2 emitted!
Click to expand...
Whatever...

You repeating the same two things over and over again in two separate threads does not, and will not ever prove that the IPCC is saying that all warming is from just CO2.
 
Buzz said:
Whatever...

You repeating the same two things over and over again in two separate threads does not, and will not ever prove that the IPCC is saying that all warming is from just CO2.
Click to expand...
If the sensitivity used for cumulative CO2 and the amount of cumulative CO2, equal the observed warming,
there is not room in the observed warming for any other factors.
 
longview said:
If the sensitivity used for cumulative CO2 and the amount of cumulative CO2, equal the observed warming,
there is not room in the observed warming for any other factors.
Click to expand...

Are there no other factors listed in the report? Are you sure? Have you read it all?
 
longview said:
If the sensitivity used for cumulative CO2 and the amount of cumulative CO2, equal the observed warming,
there is not room in the observed warming for any other factors.
Click to expand...
Sure... if you pretend that aerosols are not cooling the planet at the same time. Are you really unable to comprehend that aerosols are counteracting some of the warming from GHGs?
 
Buzz said:
Sure... if you pretend that aerosols are not cooling the planet at the same time. Are you really unable to comprehend that aerosols are counteracting some of the warming from GHGs?
Click to expand...
If the aerosols lowered the sunlight reaching the ground between 1950 and 1985, by 10 W m-2, and then from 1985 to 2005, increased the sunlight reaching the ground by the
same 10 W m-2, how do we count that ?
 
longview said:
There is no misunderstanding their words.
They stated what the best estimate TCRE sensitivity was per unit of 1000 GtCO2,
They stated how many of those units had been emitted.
and lastly they stated the total observed warming.
Any of the other forcing agents from the IPCC forcing table, would have to be added or subtracted from there.
Click to expand...

BUT THEY DID NOT SAY 100% OF THE CAUSE OF AGW IS CO2 ONLY.

I don't know how much more clearly one can make it. CO2 may be a dominant forcing but literally NO ONE except denialists and science illiterates characterize the science that simply.
 
longview said:
If the sensitivity used for cumulative CO2 and the amount of cumulative CO2, equal the observed warming,
Click to expand...

I thought the numbers you gave were not exactly equivalent. Hmmmm. Could you be...hyperbolizing a bit?

longview said:
there is not room in the observed warming for any other factors.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I've read a lot in the field and I've never heard any legitimate scientist limit the discussion to CO2 only. You must not read much in the literature.
 
longview said:
If the aerosols lowered the sunlight reaching the ground between 1950 and 1985, by 10 W m-2, and then from 1985 to 2005, increased the sunlight reaching the ground by the
same 10 W m-2, how do we count that ?
Click to expand...
There you go again... talking about one specific location as if it applied to the entire planet when it doesn't. And you are not even characterizing the data correctly either.
 
Hafnium1979 said:
BUT THEY DID NOT SAY 100% OF THE CAUSE OF AGW IS CO2 ONLY.

I don't know how much more clearly one can make it. CO2 may be a dominant forcing but literally NO ONE except denialists and science illiterates characterize the science that simply.
Click to expand...
No! They said that the computed warming of the CO2 already accumulated is 1.0755°C,
Elsewhere, they said that the total observed warming was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C.
Do you think 1.0755°C, falls into the posted range of [0.95 to 1.20] °C?
 
Buzz said:
There you go again... talking about one specific location as if it applied to the entire planet when it doesn't. And you are not even characterizing the data correctly either.
Click to expand...
Buzz, do you agree or disagree with the IPCC's number TCRE of .045°C for each 1000 GtCO2?
 
longview said:
Buzz, do you agree or disagree with the IPCC's number TCRE of .045°C for each 1000 GtCO2?
Click to expand...
I meant 0.45°C for each 1000 GtCO2?
Another interesting thing about the IPCC cumulative CO2 number, is that is only counts emissions not what is absorbed by the environment.
It is generally agreed that each GtCO2 is about .127 ppm of atmospheric CO2, so 2390 GtCO2 should increase the CO2 level by 303.53 ppm,
yes the observed increase in CO2 level is only 135 ppm, less than half.
This also brings up the limitations of models that start with an abrupt doubling of CO2 level.
Gradual emissions like the 2XCO2 180 year path Earth appears to be on, allows time for CO2 uptake by the environment.
 
longview said:
If the sensitivity used for cumulative CO2 and the amount of cumulative CO2, equal the observed warming,
there is not room in the observed warming for any other factors.
Click to expand...

And yet still no empirical evidence that modulating the tiny fraction that represnts 0.01% (100PPM) of our atmosphere at enormous economic and social cost will make the slightest difference to anything

Go figure :rolleyes:
 
flogger said:
And yet still no empirical evidence that modulating the tiny fraction that represnts 0.01% (100PPM) of our atmosphere at enormous economic and social cost will make the slightest difference to anything

Go figure :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh boy, yet another evenint of nonsense from flogger.
 
flogger said:
And yet still no empirical evidence that modulating the tiny fraction that represnts 0.01% (100PPM) of our atmosphere at enormous economic and social cost will make the slightest difference to anything

Go figure :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is absolutely fascinating. This "small numbers" point. You do know that there are poisons that can take down a full-grown human at dosages of milligrams right? Why do you insist on this incredibly unscientific confusion over "small numbers"?????

It's like you don't even know the first foreign thing about the carbon cycle. (That's another way I know you've never set foot in a geology class let alone got a "PhD" in it!)
 
watsup said:
Oh boy, yet another evenint of nonsense from flogger.
Click to expand...
It’s rare for someone to showcase their abject ignorance about a topic, their total lack of insight into current thinking, and combine it with a misguided sense of smugness that just mixes together into a spectacular fail cocktail.


But Flogger hits it regularly.
 
watsup said:
Oh boy, yet another evenint of nonsense from flogger.
Click to expand...

Yup. He's baaaaack.

I love how a "PhD" geologist doesn't understand how small numbers aren't as devastating a critique as floggy likes to think they are.
 
Buzz said:
Whatever...

You repeating the same two things over and over again in two separate threads does not, and will not ever prove that the IPCC is saying that all warming is from just CO2.
Click to expand...
How about nearly all, almost identical to all?
 
Simpletruther said:
How about nearly all, almost identical to all?
Click to expand...
Nope. At least not that I have seen. But feel free to show me where they say this. I am someone who actually reads the IPCC reports but maybe I missed it or haven't gotten to that part in AR6 yet.
 
Buzz said:
Nope. At least not that I have seen. But feel free to show me where they say this. I am someone who actually reads the IPCC reports but maybe I missed it or haven't gotten to that part in AR6 yet.
Click to expand...
The math pressented was saying it.
 
Buzz said:
Who's math? The IPCC's or some rando's on an internet forum?
Click to expand...
Buzz there is nothing special about the math that shows the IPCC's statement about accumulated CO2 emissions
IPCC AR6 SPM
Over the period 1850–2019, a total of 2390 ± 240 (likely range) GtCO2 of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted.
Click to expand...
and the IPCC's stated sensitivity to said emissions, and the warming that would result.
Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface
temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°.
Click to expand...
Where things fall apart is that the Cumulative CO2 emissions and the observed increase in CO2 level, are not the same.
The normal carbon cycle has picked up more than half of the CO2 emitted.
Without the Carbon uptake, the cumulative emissions published would have increased the CO2 level by 303 ppm,
yet CO2 levels have only increased by 135 ppm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom