Carbon dioxide causes 80% of global warming

[Lord of Planar]

As they say . If you torture the statics enough, they'll confess to anything.
LAFFRIOT

I'm just starting at the beginning responses to this. I like your response of "if they torture the statistics enough."

I really don't get why so many people fall for the lies of charlatans. I see right thought the BS of most agenda driven ideals. I will never claim to be perfect though.

From everything I have read about CO2, we will have a better world with more of it. Yes, it will cause a small amount of increased forcing, but it also channels most of that energy over the oceans as warming the immediate few microns if surface and increases evaporation dramatically. This is good to have moire precipitation.

Isn't it funny how they claim both more drought and more rainfall?

The hypocrisy of having it both ways, for the areas that one or the other might be bad.

Without naming names, I will say these people who appear to be ACW cultist types, are just flat out stupid. There are several things that the science highly suggests is the outcome of increased CO2. More precipitation, not drought, is one of the. In a world with a growing need for agricultural area, isn't more precipitation overall good?

This part of the science is actually pretty simple, if you understand the reality of the chemistry and physics behind it. The spectra emitted by CO2 is fully absorbed by water. I forget for certain, but I believe about 90% of it is absorbed in the first 2 microns of sea water depth. This adds energy to the water that is already being evaporated at a rate of 3 microns or so in the same period. So rather than adding heat to the ocean, it is increasing evaporation.

Increased evaporation goes in to increase cloud cover which in effect, reflects more sunlight away from the surface. This reduces the solar energy that heats the earth. Some speculation is that for this reason, added CO2 might actually have a net cooling effect. Though I believe for other reasons, it still has net warming, the consideration it might actually cool rather than warm is on the table. Those who disagree with that possibility, in my book, are deniers of science.

What do we know as fact?

We know that more CO2 increases almost all plant growth.

We know that more CO2 decreases what is called the atmospheric window for radiant heat to escape the earth system.

We know that more CO2 causes more precipitation.

So much of the rest, is highly speculative, as we do not have a laboratory or experiments large enough to simulate the earth, and we only have one earth.

 

[watsup]

Yet man made CO2 emissions about to only 6 parts per MILLION per year.

*YAWN*

 

[watsup]

I'm just starting at the beginning responses to this. I like your response of "if they torture the statistics enough."

I really don't get why so many people fall for the lies of charlatans. I see right thought the BS of most agenda driven ideals. I will never claim to be perfect though.

From everything I have read about CO2, we will have a better world with more of it. Yes, it will cause a small amount of increased forcing, but it also channels most of that energy over the oceans as warming the immediate few microns if surface and increases evaporation dramatically. This is good to have moire precipitation.

Isn't it funny how they claim both more drought and more rainfall?

The hypocrisy of having it both ways, for the areas that one or the other might be bad.

Without naming names, I will say these people who appear to be ACW cultist types, are just flat out stupid. There are several things that the science highly suggests is the outcome of increased CO2. More precipitation, not drought, is one of the. In a world with a growing need for agricultural area, isn't more precipitation overall good?

This part of the science is actually pretty simple, if you understand the reality of the chemistry and physics behind it. The spectra emitted by CO2 is fully absorbed by water. I forget for certain, but I believe about 90% of it is absorbed in the first 2 microns of sea water depth. This adds energy to the water that is already being evaporated at a rate of 3 microns or so in the same period. So rather than adding heat to the ocean, it is increasing evaporation.

Increased evaporation goes in to increase cloud cover which in effect, reflects more sunlight away from the surface. This reduces the solar energy that heats the earth. Some speculation is that for this reason, added CO2 might actually have a net cooling effect. Though I believe for other reasons, it still has net warming, the consideration it might actually cool rather than warm is on the table. Those who disagree with that possibility, in my book, are deniers of science.

What do we know as fact?

We know that more CO2 increases almost all plant growth.

We know that more CO2 decreases what is called the atmospheric window for radiant heat to escape the earth system.

So much of the rest, is highly speculative, as we do not have a laboratory or experiments large enough to simulate the earth, and we only have one earth.

Charlatans. Hypocrisy. Cultist types. Flat out stupid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

*YAWN*

Damn, I hate agreeing with you.

He is pissing me off.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Charlatans. Hypocrisy. Cultist types. Flat out stupid.

How about trying to see my point of view?

 

[watsup]

How about trying to see my point of view?

How about not using so many emotion-based words but sticking to the topic instead.

 

[longview]

Not true.

Here is a fairly new study of climate sensitivity based on evidence other than models:
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence

And here is a NASA article about it with questions and answers from a couple of the authors.

From it:



So... can we possibly quit repeating the lie that there is no evidence of large feedbacks other than from models?

Sherwood is still based on a combination of ECS sensitivity and emission scenarios, and is not empirical evidence!

 

[Buzz]

Sherwood is still based on a combination of ECS sensitivity and emission scenarios, and is not empirical evidence!

No, it isn't. You are just lying again.

You really don't have any shame... do you?

 

[iguanaman]

What it really looks like is you don't want to say why you think a warmer world is a problem.
I assume you do or are going to say you never said that?

Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?​

Short answer: Yes. Even a seemingly slight average temperature rise is enough to cause a dramatic transformation of our planet.
Evidence shows that the 2010s were hotter than any other decade on record—and every decade since the 1960s has averaged hotter than the previous one. This warming is altering the earth's climate system, including its land, atmosphere, oceans, and ice, in far-reaching ways.

More frequent and severe weather​

Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain, and unleash more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier.

Higher death rates​

Today's scientists point to climate change as the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. It's a threat that impacts all of us—especially children, the elderly, low-income communities, and minorities—and in a variety of direct and indirect ways. As temperatures spike, so does the incidence of illness, emergency room visits, and death

Dirtier air​

Rising temperatures also worsen air pollution by increasing ground-level ozone smog, which is created when pollution from cars, factories, and other sources react to sunlight and heat. Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog, and the hotter things get, the more of it we have. Dirtier air is linked to higher hospital admission rates and higher death rates for asthmatics.

Higher wildlife extinction rates​

As humans, we face a host of challenges, but we're certainly not the only ones catching heat. As land and sea undergo rapid changes, the animals that inhabit them are doomed to disappear if they don't adapt quickly enough. Some will make it, and some won't. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report, the risk of species extinction increases steeply with rises in global temperature—with invertebrates (specifically pollinators) and flowering plants being some of the most vulnerable.

More acidic oceans​

The earth's marine ecosystems are under pressure as a result of climate change. Oceans are becoming more acidic, due in large part to their absorption of some of our excess emissions. As this acidification accelerates, it poses a serious threat to underwater life, particularly creatures with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons, including mollusks, crabs, and corals. This can have a huge impact on shellfisheries. In total, the U.S. shellfish industry could lose more than $400 million annually by 2100 due to impacts of ocean acidification.

Higher sea levels​

The polar regions are particularly vulnerable to a warming atmosphere. Average temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere on earth, and the world's ice sheets are melting fast. This not only has grave consequences for the region's people, wildlife, and plants; its most serious impact may be on rising sea levels. By 2100, it's estimated our oceans will be one to four feet higher, threatening coastal systems and low-lying areas, encompassing entire island nations and the world’s largest cities, including Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City, as well as Mumbai, India; Rio de Janeiro; and Sydney, Australia.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad

 

[Lord of Planar]

I see someone is a necromancer...

 

[Lord of Planar]

FYI. The OP neglected to see if the link in the OP still had valid sourcing. It is so old, the report used is no longer a valid link. There is a 2020 report if anyone is interested:

https://reliefweb.int/attachments/d59bb586-55ed-3da8-a99e-530d4fdea59b/GHG_17_en.pdf

 

[longview]

No, it isn't. You are just lying again.

You really don't have any shame... do you?

Sherwood uses several methods to arrive at a sensitivity of added CO2, and then applies that to different emission scenarios.

 

[Buzz]

Sherwood uses several methods to arrive at a sensitivity of added CO2, and then applies that to different emission scenarios.

Really? Then why is the term "emission scenarios" only mentioned twice in the entire study? It is because the term is only used when discussing the different methods of determining sensitivity by different studies and their models.

You are full of shit, long.

 

[flogger]

No, it isn't. You are just lying again.

You really don't have any shame... do you?

Prove it ?

 

[longview]

Really? Then why is the term "emission scenarios" only mentioned twice in the entire study? It is because the term is only used when discussing the different methods of determining sensitivity by different studies and their models.

You are full of shit, long.

You cannot even run a proper word count!
In the climate sensitivity section of the study, the concept of future climate emissions is discussed 4 times but with different wording.
Also the word “scenario” is used 33 times.

All candidate climate sensitivity measures are based on an outcome of a hypothetical scenario never realized on Earth.

 

[Buzz]

You cannot even run a proper word count!

I didn't count anything. The search function did that. So... explain how the search function is supposed to count different words.

In the climate sensitivity section of the study, the concept of future climate emissions is discussed 4 times but with different wording.

Actually... the article discusses emission scenarios even more times than that but it wasn't done as you describe. From the study even further down that you either missed or ignored:

For the Baseline case shown, the future-warming PDFs indicate that the probability that warming relative to 1995 will exceed 1.4 K (roughly equivalent to 2 K above preindustrial, Hawkins et al., 2017) by late this century is 17% under RCP2.6, 83% under RCP4.5, 92% under RCP6.0, and >99% under RCP8.5. Note that while RCP8.5 has sometimes been presented as a “business as usual” scenario, it is better viewed as a worst case (e.g., Hausfather & Peters, 2020). We make no claims here on scenario probabilities, only on warming probabilities conditional on a broad range of possible scenarios.

The study is not using emission scenarios as you suggest.

Also the word “scenario” is used 33 times.

All emission scenarios are scenarios but not all scenarios are emissions scenarios. One would think you are smart enough to not push this BS.

 

[longview]

I didn't count anything. The search function did that. So... explain how the search function is supposed to count different words.

Actually... the article discusses emission scenarios even more times than that but it wasn't done as you describe. From the study even further down that you either missed or ignored:

The study is not using emission scenarios as you suggest.

All emission scenarios are scenarios but not all scenarios are emissions scenarios. One would think you are smart enough to not push this BS.

Buzz, all future warming is assessed based on emission scenarios! The short version is that the
sensitivity is applied to a future CO2 level, which is based on some emission scenario.
This is displayed on Sherwood's Figure 1.(b)

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, all future warming is assessed based on emission scenarios! The short version is that the
sensitivity is applied to a future CO2 level, which is based on some emission scenario.
This is displayed on Sherwood's Figure 1.(b)
View attachment 67430076

Did you read the quote I gave from the study in question? It says that they are not making any conclusions based on the RCP scenarios.

Sorry, long... but this study is based on empirical evidence and not on models like you want to believe. So your claim that all estimates of climate sensitivity are all based on models is a lie.

Think I am wrong? Then quote in this study where it states what you say. You won't because it never does.

Your constant intellectual dishonesty is getting very old.

 

[longview]

Did you read the quote I gave from the study in question? It says that they are not making any conclusions based on the RCP scenarios.

Sorry, long... but this study is based on empirical evidence and not on models like you want to believe. So your claim that all estimates of climate sensitivity are all based on models is a lie.

Think I am wrong? Then quote in this study where it states what you say. You won't because it never does.

Your constant intellectual dishonesty is getting very old.

I am not sure I said ALL estimates of climate sensitivity were based on climate models, but what I did say was
that predictions of future warming are based on combining a climate sensitivity with emission scenarios.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am not sure I said ALL estimates of climate sensitivity were based on climate models, but what I did say was
that predictions of future warming are based on combining a climate sensitivity with emission scenarios.

Maybe he doesn't understand that these must exist for deriving an outcome?

 

[Buzz]

I am not sure I said ALL estimates of climate sensitivity were based on climate models, but what I did say was
that predictions of future warming are based on combining a climate sensitivity with emission scenarios.

That is not what you said.

Here is what you said that I have an issue with:

No on is saying that human caused climate change is a hoax, and so no proof is required, for something not claimed.
What is required, and not furnished by climate alarmist, is actual scientific evidence that
the climate feedbacks, in response to forced warming from added CO2, can do what is claimed.
The basic concept of AGW is that doubling the CO2 level would force warming of about 1.1C,
and that climate feedbacks would respond to that warming to cause total warming of between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
From a physics perspective the forcing is plausible, but the mid to high end of the feedbacks,
do not have any evidence supporting them, except for climate models, based on input assumptions.

And the fact of the matter is that Sherwood 2020 shows evidence that mid to high sensitivities are possible, if not likely, and it is not based on just models. It was based on empirical evidence.

When are you going to quit lying about this?

 

[longview]

That is not what you said.

Here is what you said that I have an issue with:

And the fact of the matter is that Sherwood 2020 shows evidence that mid to high sensitivities are possible, if not likely, and it is not based on just models. It was based on empirical evidence.

When are you going to quit lying about this?

Let's look at what Sherwood says!
Sherwood, 2020

Carefully quantifying these inferences on a feedback-by-feedback basis and for the CO2 forcing produces a
process-based PDF for S which has its median value at 3.1 K and the 17th and 83rd percentiles at 2.3 and 4.6 K (Figure 8c).

Best estimates of climate sensitivity from such approaches range from 1–3 K and feature wide uncertainty
ranges, particularly toward high values

Note that PDFs arising from this approach, using a flat prior in Shist, yield Shist of 1.3 to 3.1 K (5% to 95% interval with the most likely value at 2 K, and median 2.1 K).

These atmosphere-only model simulations exhibit values of Shist that range from 1.6–2.1 K, in good agreement with that derived from global energy budget constraints (section 4.1.2) and unanimously lower than values of S found in abrupt4xCO2 simulations using the same models (2.4 to 4.6 K) (Andrews et al., 2018).

Our Baseline 5–95% range is 2.3–4.7 K and remains within 2.0 and 5.7 K under reasonable structural changes.

Within the many assumptions of Sherwood, they narrow the range, but it subjectively does not exempt lower sensitivities.
There is still a lot of uncertainty related to cloud feedback.