Wow!It's typical enviro-nut false logic. They keep claiming they have facts and science to back their loopy beliefs but when pressed to show them they fail to produce facts of any kind.
One day I'll actually get an answers from you to the very pertinent questions I've put to you multiple times now ..... I'm not holding my breath
It's typical enviro-nut false logic. They keep claiming they have facts and science to back their loopy beliefs but when pressed to show them they fail to produce facts of any kind.
They're not "very pertinent questions". They're just rephrases of common denier talking points and deserve a big *YAWN*.
Thanks for reaffirming my post
And what is their empirical proof when a whole lot of their current livelihood depends on providing what their political paymasters wantWhat do climate scientists say is the primary cause of the present global warming?
Their "proof" not empirical, is that they believe that have accounted for all the other possible causes of warming,And what is their empirical proof when a whole lot of their current livelihood depends on providing what their political paymasters want
And what is their empirical proof when a whole lot of their current livelihood depends on providing what their political paymasters want
Their "proof" not empirical, is that they believe that have accounted for all the other possible causes of warming,
and attribute all that remains to increases in greenhouse gasses.
Then please, present this empirical proof increases in greenhouse gasses caused the observed warming.That is not true, of course. Climate science is way more complex than such simplistic nonsense.
And what is their empirical proof when a whole lot of their current livelihood depends on providing what their political paymasters want
Then please, present this empirical proof increases in greenhouse gasses caused the observed warming.
I think it is true, but not because there is empirical evidence of it.
I have read it, the amount of attribution is speculative.C'mon longview, YOU SURELY must have been shown this stuff over and over and over and over again, right? The IPCC has a whole section dedicated to ATTRIBUTION STUDIES.
C'mon....don't act like this is somehow hidden. It's SUPER EASY TO FIND and has been out for YEARS AND YEARS!!!!
I have read it, the amount of attribution is speculative.
Here is the opening statement
More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature
"(GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely 1 due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations."
or the opening of the next paragraph,
GHGs contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and from internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C.
It still does not refute what I said, that the attribution of warming from increases in greenhouse gasses is subtractive in nature.I suspect that ANYTHING that disagrees with your preferred narrative gets labeled "speculative".
Science is speculative and never proves with 100% certainty ANYTHING. So why must THIS science meet some super-atomic-level of certainty?
YES! That's how science is done! If you read closer you'll see that those highlighted phrases have very specific meanings in the context of the citation.
What you are doing here is EXACTLY what Creationists do. They leverage every HINT of uncertainty in science to support their desire to ignore the science they don't like. Unfortuantely science is ALWAYS done with uncertainty built in. I thought you would know better.
What a stupid site. There is no way to determine with any accuracy how much radiative forcing has changed, so to state it as fact is moronic. This number is pure speculation, using the known values of greenhouse gas spectral lines. The earth is too complicated to make such a juvenile claim. It is even possible the radiative forcing has decreased. Even the assumed radiative forcing balance at any given time has an exceptionally wide error range.“Radiative forcing increased by 32 per cent between 1990 and 2012, of wich 25 per cent is due to carbon dioxide. The remaining is from other greenhouse gases.
Carbon dioxide, mainly from fossil-fuel-related emissions, accounted for 80 per cent of global warming since 1990 according to the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) latest report from November 2013. Between 1990 and 2012 there was more than a 25 per cent increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Carbon dioxide is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years and so will determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond, states the WMO. “Most aspects of climate change will persist for centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped immediately.”
The WMO says that on the global scale, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141 per cent of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 2.2 parts per million from 2011 to 2012, which is above the average 2.02 parts per million per year for the past 10 years, showing an accelerating trend.”
Carbon dioxide causes 80% of global warming | Airclim
Radiative forcing increased by 32 per cent between 1990 and 2012, of wich 25 per cent is due to carbon dioxide. The remaining is from other greenhouse gases.www.airclim.org
Sorry, but changes in CO2 levels do change the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute, is by how much.CO2 absorbs solar radiation within a narrow specific range. It already absorbs all of the incoming solar radiation in that range. It simply doesn't matter how much more CO2 we put into the atmosphere.
...stupid... moronic ....juvenile
Yes. I've been learning from you!Excellent post!
Textbook projection.Wow!
That is just delusional.
And yet here you are, blaming everything on manmade CO2 and ignoring all other factors. The irony!That is not true, of course. Climate science is way more complex than such simplistic nonsense.
only up to the point where the narrow band of radiation is 100% absorbed. We are already at that point, so more CO2 doesn't mean more heat. not scientifically possible under the rules of physics.Sorry, but changes in CO2 levels do change the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute, is by how much.
You are mistaken. The opacity of the atmosphere to CO2 spectra is not 100% yet. Even if it was, warming would still occur from increased CO2. Look at the atmosphere from a multi-layer viewpoint. Adding CO2 is like adding blankets to your bed.only up to the point where the narrow band of radiation is 100% absorbed. We are already at that point, so more CO2 doesn't mean more heat. not scientifically possible under the rules of physics.
Yes. I've been learning from you!
Textbook projection.
And yet here you are, blaming everything on manmade CO2 and ignoring all other factors. The irony!
CO2 has a capacity, which is now saturated.You are mistaken. The opacity of the atmosphere to CO2 spectra is not 100% yet. Even if it was, warming would still occur from increased CO2. Look at the atmosphere from a multi-layer viewpoint. Adding CO2 is like adding blankets to your bed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?