Carbon dioxide causes 80% of global warming

[Media_Truth]

The original link’s statement was incorrect!
I was showing why. The forcing from added CO2 does not account for 80% of the warming in the time period stated!

Maybe, maybe not. Good to see you are now abandoning the dimming theory argument though.

 

[longview]

Maybe, maybe not. Good to see you are now abandoning the dimming theory argument though.

I am not, the dimming and brightening are another variable in the total warming,
but that does not make the statement that added CO2 accounts for 80% of the observed warming, correct!

 

[Media_Truth]

I am not, the dimming and brightening are another variable in the total warming,
but that does not make the statement that added CO2 accounts for 80% of the observed warming, correct!

Dimming is not quite the variable that your false article hypothesized in 2012, as atmospheric temperatures have continued to soar. The World Meteorological Organization stated that CO2 accounts for 80% of the warming. I have no reason to doubt these scientists. You certainly have provided nothing to disprove this.

 

[longview]

Dimming is not quite the variable that your false article hypothesized in 2012, as atmospheric temperatures have continued to soar. The World Meteorological Organization stated that CO2 accounts for 80% of the warming. I have no reason to doubt these scientists. You certainly have provided nothing to disprove this.

The actual statement from the article was
"Carbon dioxide, mainly from fossil-fuel-related emissions, accounted for 80 per cent of global warming since 1990"
Since they singled out CO2, we can used CO2's forcing,
Trends in atmospheric CO2
1990 354.45ppm 2012 394.06 ppm.
CO2 forcing 5.35 X ln (394.06/354.45) X .3 = .17C.
From the BEST data set, warming between 1990 and 2012 was .433C,
.17C is not 80% of .433C!
During that same time window, we did see much greater amounts of available sunlight reaching the
ground in the Northern hemisphere, because of brightening, roughly .17C worth.
We also saw forcing from other greenhouse gasses, .035C, minor but still there.

 

[Media_Truth]

The actual statement from the article was
"Carbon dioxide, mainly from fossil-fuel-related emissions, accounted for 80 per cent of global warming since 1990"
Since they singled out CO2, we can used CO2's forcing,
Trends in atmospheric CO2
1990 354.45ppm 2012 394.06 ppm.
CO2 forcing 5.35 X ln (394.06/354.45) X .3 = .17C.
From the BEST data set, warming between 1990 and 2012 was .433C,
.17C is not 80% of .433C!
During that same time window, we did see much greater amounts of available sunlight reaching the
ground in the Northern hemisphere, because of brightening, roughly .17C worth.
We also saw forcing from other greenhouse gasses, .035C, minor but still there.

You are oversimplifying, and ignoring feedbacks. Maybe you should go back to the University, and pursue a degree in Climatology, instead of plugging a few numbers into a formula.

ACS Advocacy Workshops - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

The complete story is, however, not just one of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. Other radiative forcings, albedo changes, for example, and feedbacks, especially from increasing water vapor, also occur. The effects of both positive and negative feedback factors have to be accounted for in determining the climate sensitivity associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2. Attaining the new energy balance involves some processes that are relatively rapid, taking place on a decadal time scale, and others that are slower, taking centuries, millennia, or longer to reach the balance.

 

[longview]

You are oversimplifying, and ignoring feedbacks. Maybe you should go back to the University, and pursue a degree in Climatology, instead of plugging a few numbers into a formula.

ACS Advocacy Workshops - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

The complete story is, however, not just one of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. Other radiative forcings, albedo changes, for example, and feedbacks, especially from increasing water vapor, also occur. The effects of both positive and negative feedback factors have to be accounted for in determining the climate sensitivity associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2. Attaining the new energy balance involves some processes that are relatively rapid, taking place on a decadal time scale, and others that are slower, taking centuries, millennia, or longer to reach the balance.

What, you do not think the observed temperature increase is inclusive of all the inputs in that time window?

 

[Steve Case]

SOT (Slightly Off Topic)

Regarding CO2 and the Mauna Loa curve:

My file from 2012 copied from

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

in 2012 and a plot of the differences from the current down load looks like this:

______The value for 1959 was 315.97 ppm and is now 315.98 ppm______

Is there ANYTHING in the universe that consists of Global Warming
Climate Change, The Climate Crisis, etc. that doesn't get nudged
budged, gun decked, dry labbed, or pencil whipped in order to
conform to the prevailing narrative?

I'm sure I'll be told the changes were due to such & such and so & so
and are perfectly legitimate. But one has to wonder if such & such and
so & so had turned out to be negative to the prevailing narrative if they
would have ever seen the light of day?

 

[watsup]

SOT (Slightly Off Topic)

Regarding CO2 and the Mauna Loa curve:

My file from 2012 copied from

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

in 2012 and a plot of the differences from the current down load looks like this:

______The value for 1959 was 315.97 ppm and is now 315.98 ppm______

Is there ANYTHING in the universe that consists of Global Warming
Climate Change, The Climate Crisis, etc. that doesn't get nudged
budged, gun decked, dry labbed, or pencil whipped in order to
conform to the prevailing narrative?

I'm sure I'll be told the changes were due to such & such and so & so
and are perfectly legitimate. But one has to wonder if such & such and
so & so had turned out to be negative to the prevailing narrative if they
would have ever seen the light of day?

Do you have an alternate explanation for present global warming than man-produced CO2? If so, let’s see it.

 

[longview]

Do you have an alternate explanation for present global warming than man-produced CO2? If so, let’s see it.

Part of the flaw in your logic is that you think the warming must be attributable to an ether or cause.
Instead we know that some warming is natural some from human activity, and some from the portion of human activity related to CO2 emissions.
The real issue is that we do not have a repeatable test to validate CO2’s contribution to the current observed warming.
We assign attribution, by subtracting all the known sources of warming, and attributing the remainder to increases in greenhouse gasses.

 

[watsup]

Part of the flaw in your logic is that you think the warming must be attributable to an ether or cause.
Instead we know that some warming is natural some from human activity, and some from the portion of human activity related to CO2 emissions.
The real issue is that we do not have a repeatable test to validate CO2’s contribution to the current observed warming.
We assign attribution, by subtracting all the known sources of warming, and attributing the remainder to increases in greenhouse gasses.

As regards your last sentence, do you have a source of a reference to show this is the methodology?

 

[Steve Case]

Do you have an alternate explanation for present global warming than man-produced CO2? If so, let’s see it.

Your question doesn't address my post that says that adjustments to climate data
are skewed towards supporting your premise that global warming is man-produced.
But to answer your question:

CO2 should cause some warming here's that quote that I like from Dr. James Hansen:

IPCC FAR Report Chapter 8 Page 631
In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2
consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but
allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase),
the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006)

There are lots of charts that show warming and cooling trends down through history.
Here's one from the IPCC's first Assessment report:

The point is warming and cooling can be independent of carbon dioxide.

I simply don't know how much warming is caused by CO2 and neither do you
nor do the so-called climate scientists. But the notion that man-produced CO2 is
causing 100% of global warming today fits a political agenda. More to the point,
the political agenda appears to be aimed at what recently is called the Great Reset.
My guess is that you are a cheer leader of that.

Carbon dioxide does have a plus side here are those two pages from NOAA and
NASA about the greening effect of the increase in CO2 over the last century

Since I don't dispute that CO2 is causing some warming, you need to step up to
the plate and say why that warming is a problem and why we have to essentially
trash our economy to solve the "problem".

And if you comment on the changes made to the Keeling data since 2012, that
would be great.

 

[watsup]

Your question doesn't address my post that says that adjustments to climate data
are skewed towards supporting your premise that global warming is man-produced.
But to answer your question:

CO2 should cause some warming here's that quote that I like from Dr. James Hansen:

IPCC FAR Report Chapter 8 Page 631
In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2
consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but
allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase),
the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006)

There are lots of charts that show warming and cooling trends down through history.
Here's one from the IPCC's first Assessment report:

The point is warming and cooling can be independent of carbon dioxide.

I simply don't know how much warming is caused by CO2 and neither do you
nor do the so-called climate scientists. But the notion that man-produced CO2 is
causing 100% of global warming today fits a political agenda. More to the point,
the political agenda appears to be aimed at what recently is called the Great Reset.
My guess is that you are a cheer leader of that.

Carbon dioxide does have a plus side here are those two pages from NOAA and
NASA about the greening effect of the increase in CO2 over the last century

Since I don't dispute that CO2 is causing some warming, you need to step up to
the plate and say why that warming is a problem and why we have to essentially
trash our economy to solve the "problem".

And if you comment on the changes made to the Keeling data since 2012, that
would be great.

No one said that global warming is “100% man-caused”. That you feel the need to resort to falsifications (also known as outright lies), then it casts a pall of misinformation on all that you post.
And how exactly will responding to it by trying to reduce the carbon footprint of Homo sapiens in General result in “trashing our economy”. Actually, it would result in a transfer of jobs from the fossil fuel industry to green power.
And yes, warming and cooling “can be” independent of CO2–but the question remains: what is causing the warming this time?

 

[Steve Case]

No one said that global warming is “100% man-caused”.

You wrote:

"Do you have an alternate explanation for present global
warming than man-produced CO2? If so, let’s see it."

Sure looks like you meant 100% man-produced.
As that stands though it doesn't make sense.
So I assumed you meant "other than"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/than

That you feel the need to resort to falsifications (also known as outright lies), then it casts a pall of misinformation on all that you post.

So temperatures are up around a degree since 1850.
Suppose you say how much of that is man-produced?

And how exactly will responding to it by trying to reduce the carbon footprint of Homo sapiens in General result in “trashing our economy”.

You guys want to eliminate fossil fuels and won't accept atomic power.
Your side really believes that the world's economy can be run on wind
mills and solar panels. There are all sorts of people running the numbers
on that, and they don't add up. However, that view never appears in the
so-called "main stream" media and social media like face book, twitter,
and you tube because they censor such views. You tube censored me the
other day. We are really living in ugly times.

Actually, it would result in a transfer of jobs from the fossil fuel industry to green power.

The jobs would have to be heavily subsidized. In any case, wind and
solar aren’t going to run the electric arc furnaces in the steel industry.
Won't power commercial aviation or ships at sea. Most of my fossil fuel
usage comes from heating the house. But beyond all that, putting all
your eggs in one basket i.e. wind and solar is not a good idea.

And yes, warming and cooling “can be” independent of CO2–but the question remains: what is causing the warming this time?

And your implication is what? 100% CO2 or something less? You need to say.
But most importantly, you need to say why it's a problem.

 

[watsup]

You wrote:

"Do you have an alternate explanation for present global
warming than man-produced CO2? If so, let’s see it."

Sure looks like you meant 100% man-produced.
As that stands though it doesn't make sense.
So I assumed you meant "other than"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/than


So temperatures are up around a degree since 1850.
Suppose you say how much of that is man-produced?


You guys want to eliminate fossil fuels and won't accept atomic power.
Your side really believes that the world's economy can be run on wind
mills and solar panels. There are all sorts of people running the numbers
on that, and they don't add up. However, that view never appears in the
so-called "main stream" media and social media like face book, twitter,
and you tube because they censor such views. You tube censored me the
other day. We are really living in ugly times.



The jobs would have to be heavily subsidized. In any case, wind and
solar aren’t going to run the electric arc furnaces in the steel industry.
Won't power commercial aviation or ships at sea. Most of my fossil fuel
usage comes from heating the house. But beyond all that, putting all
your eggs in one basket i.e. wind and solar is not a good idea.



And your implication is what? 100% CO2 or something less? You need to say.
But most importantly, you need to say why it's a problem.

In never said 100% and I never meant 100%. That's ridiculous.

Percentages can vary, but the general statement of climate scientists is that manmade CO2 is the primary driver of present global warming. Can you find a source that says otherwise?

And yes, there were alarmists a bit over a century ago that said that motorized carriages would never replace horses, while at the same time scientists and engineers were working to prove them wrong. Looks like it's happening again.

 

[Steve Case]

In never said 100% and I never meant 100%. That's ridiculous.

Percentages can vary, but the general statement of climate scientists is that manmade CO2 is the primary driver of present global warming. Can you find a source that says otherwise?

And yes, there were alarmists a bit over a century ago that said that motorized carriages would never replace horses, while at the same time scientists and engineers were working to prove them wrong. Looks like it's happening again.

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?

 

[watsup]

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?

Ah yes, I answer your question so you change the subject. That’s what is so dishonest about the denier community. Confront them with facts and an inconvenient truth and they will simply throw them in the trash and make
the very same denier talking points the next day as if that discussion had never happened. Do you now understand that the great bulk of climate scientists on a worldwide basis say that human - produced CO2 and its feedback effects are the primary driver of the present global warming?

 

[Buzz]

SOT (Slightly Off Topic)

Regarding CO2 and the Mauna Loa curve:

My file from 2012 copied from

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

in 2012 and a plot of the differences from the current down load looks like this:

______The value for 1959 was 315.97 ppm and is now 315.98 ppm______

Oh God... not this stupid @%$# again.

Is there ANYTHING in the universe that consists of Global Warming
Climate Change, The Climate Crisis, etc. that doesn't get nudged
budged, gun decked, dry labbed, or pencil whipped in order to
conform to the prevailing narrative?

Yes, there is. I have shown you some before. Or have you forgotten already?

I'm sure I'll be told the changes were due to such & such and so & so
and are perfectly legitimate.

You're probably right. But what I would like to know is did you even look to find out if these adjustments to the Keeling curve are legitimate or not? Or are you just making a big deal about something you are being willfully ignorant about?

But one has to wonder if such & such and
so & so had turned out to be negative to the prevailing narrative if they
would have ever seen the light of day?

I know I have seen it many times. It is what denialists eat for lunch.
I think the question people should be asking is if you found something would you even admit it to yourself?

You never did provide one of your excellent graphs of the changes to the GISS temperature records that doesn't include a version change. Is it because it would prove your claim that all the monthly recalculations are always biased warm is wrong?

 

[Waddy]

so when should I set my tomato plants out this year?

 

[Media_Truth]

Ah yes, I answer your question so you change the subject. That’s what is so dishonest about the denier community. Confront them with facts and an inconvenient truth and they will simply throw them in the trash and make
the very same denier talking points the next day as if that discussion had never happened. Do you now understand that the great bulk of climate scientists on a worldwide basis say that human - produced CO2 and its feedback effects are the primary driver of the present global warming?

Those freakin' Climate Scientists - always clouding a good political issue with scientific facts. I will also add that every major scientific organization in the world makes attributes global warming to anthropogenic causes.

 

[longview]

As regards your last sentence, do you have a source of a reference to show this is the methodology?

A deflection from the question, But I will answer.
Here is a statement from American Geophysical Union.
NASA scientific consensus
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
There are others, but back the limitations of your logic.
The cause of recent warming is not an ether or question, but percentages of contribution.

 

[Media_Truth]

A deflection from the question, But I will answer.
Here is a statement from American Geophysical Union.
NASA scientific consensus
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
There are others, but back the limitations of your logic.
The cause of recent warming is not an ether or question, but percentages of contribution.

Here's what the National Academy of Science has to say about the subject ---

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming

Scientists can measure these natural changes. The warm periods that regularly occurred between the ice ages of the past million years or so can be explained by natural changes, but measurements of those changes today cannot explain the current levels of warming that we are experiencing.

The rapid warming we are experiencing today can only be explained by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The link between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures has been clear to scientists since the 1850s. Measurements show that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any other time in the past 1 million years—that is, since the dawn of humankind.

 

[longview]

Here's what the National Academy of Science has to say about the subject ---

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming

Scientists can measure these natural changes. The warm periods that regularly occurred between the ice ages of the past million years or so can be explained by natural changes, but measurements of those changes today cannot explain the current levels of warming that we are experiencing.

The rapid warming we are experiencing today can only be explained by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The link between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures has been clear to scientists since the 1850s. Measurements show that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any other time in the past 1 million years—that is, since the dawn of humankind.

Which only validates what I am saying about the subtractive method!
"but measurements of those changes today cannot explain the current levels of warming that we are experiencing."
They are subtracting out the know causes of warming, to arrive at warming from unknown causes, and attributing
that unknown warming to human activity.

 

[watsup]

A deflection from the question, But I will answer.
Here is a statement from American Geophysical Union.
NASA scientific consensus
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
There are others, but back the limitations of your logic.
The cause of recent warming is not an ether or question, but percentages of contribution.

Don't tell it to me. Tell it to Steve Case. He was the one who claimed not to know that man-produced CO2 and its feedback are the primary source of today's global warming. He just blathers on about "8000 years ago".

 

[longview]

Don't tell it to me. Tell it to Steve Case. He was the one who claimed not to know that man-produced CO2 and its feedback are the primary source of today's global warming. He just blathers on about "8000 years ago".

I do not care, supprot your own statement! I did!
If you think the climate scientist arrived at CO2 attribution by some path other than a subtractive method,
then please cite it?

 

[watsup]

I do not care, supprot your own statement! I did!
If you think the climate scientist arrived at CO2 attribution by some path other than a subtractive method,
then please cite it?

You first. You are the one who claims “subtractive method”. Show your source for making such a statement.