Scientific American Completes the transition from science to politics

[longview]

Disagreeing with the conclusions Scientific American reached based on their understanding of science doesn't mean they stepped away from science, it only means you disagree with their understanding of it.

Except that there is no empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases actually cause warming, and their
implying it as a fact is them stepping away from science.

 

[The Mark]

Except that there is no empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases actually cause warming, and their
implying it as a fact is them stepping away from science.

I would assume that they are either aware of evidence you are not aware of, or they accept evidence you do not.

 

[longview]

I would assume that they are either aware of evidence you are not aware of, or they accept evidence you do not.

No there is no empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases cause warming.
Don't believe me look for yourself.
This all started in the 1800's when they were looking for what caused the ice ages.
They made assumptions that could not be validated at the time. While some questioned those assumptions
they somewhat fit with observations, and they could not find another explanation.
I think Martin Wild is much closer to what has really been happening, Still Human activity, just not CO2.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
The sheer scale of the changes dwarfs the predicted changes from added greenhouse gases.
This is the alternat explanation.

 

[ataraxia]

No there is no empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases cause warming.
Don't believe me look for yourself.
This all started in the 1800's when they were looking for what caused the ice ages.
They made assumptions that could not be validated at the time. While some questioned those assumptions
they somewhat fit with observations, and they could not find another explanation.
I think Martin Wild is much closer to what has really been happening, Still Human activity, just not CO2.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
The sheer scale of the changes dwarfs the predicted changes from added greenhouse gases.
This is the alternat explanation.

Incorrect.

The Greenhouse Effect and our Planet

The greenhouse effect happens when certain gases, which are known as greenhouse gases, accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and fluorinated gases.

education.nationalgeographic.org

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. What is the âgreenhouse effectâ? What is causing it? Are humans to blame? What does solar irradiance have to do with it? Answers here.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[ataraxia]

No there is no empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases cause warming.
Don't believe me look for yourself.
This all started in the 1800's when they were looking for what caused the ice ages.
They made assumptions that could not be validated at the time. While some questioned those assumptions
they somewhat fit with observations, and they could not find another explanation.
I think Martin Wild is much closer to what has really been happening, Still Human activity, just not CO2.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
The sheer scale of the changes dwarfs the predicted changes from added greenhouse gases.
This is the alternat explanation.

Please quote for us where in your link it says greenhouse gases are no big deal.

 

[ataraxia]

I would assume that they are either aware of evidence you are not aware of, or they accept evidence you do not.

And you would be correct in that assumption. He has been shown this evidence several times now, but likes to keep repeating this stuff anyway. Not sure why. I wonder if he works at Exxon headquarters or something.

 

[longview]

Incorrect.

The Greenhouse Effect and our Planet

The greenhouse effect happens when certain gases, which are known as greenhouse gases, accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and fluorinated gases.

education.nationalgeographic.org

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. What is the âgreenhouse effectâ? What is causing it? Are humans to blame? What does solar irradiance have to do with it? Answers here.

climate.nasa.gov

Where am I incorrect, and how do you think your two cited articles show empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases cause warming?
Let's look at the statement from your NASA cite for a second.

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Now for absorbed heat radiation (Longwave radiation) to change Earth's energy imbalance, Earth would have to gain
energy in the longwave radiation spectrum, but that is not what has been observed.
Earth since 2002 has been loosing energy in the longwave radiation spectrum!

 

[longview]

Please quote for us where in your link it says greenhouse gases are no big deal.

Of course it does not say that, as it would never get published, but let's look at what it does say and compare
that to the predicted response from added greenhouse gases.

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds
to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22).
The overall change observed at the BSRN sites, estimated as an average of the slopes at
the sites in Fig. 2A, is 0.66 W m-2 per year (6.6 W m-2 over the entire BSRN period)

So from 1992 to 2001 Earths (shortwave) Absorbed Solar Radiation increased by 6.6 W m-2.
Now lets see what the predicted energy imbalance would be for greenhouse gases in the same time period?
NOAA AGGI
1992 CO2-eq 430 ppm
2001 CO2-eq 452 ppm
Forcing based on the IPCC's formula is 5.35 X ln(452/430) = 0.267 W m-2.
So even IF the IPCC's forcing formula were correct, Wild's findings of global brightening
had a 24 times greater effect on Earth's energy imbalance.
Now we find out that the forcing formula is not correct, and added greenhouse gases are causing Earth to loose energy.

 

[ataraxia]

Where am I incorrect, and how do you think your two cited articles show empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases cause warming?

Because that's what they say explicitly. If you think that the authors of the article, their peers who reviewed that article, and all their readers are wrong, then it's up to you to show why. All the objections you have raised to those claims so far have been debunked so far. Do you have anything new?

Let's look at the statement from your NASA cite for a second.

Now for absorbed heat radiation (Longwave radiation) to change Earth's energy imbalance, Earth would have to gain
energy in the longwave radiation spectrum, but that is not what has been observed.
Earth since 2002 has been loosing energy in the longwave radiation spectrum!

But we have explained in great detail why your longwave radiation issue is incorrect. This is the equivalent of pointing to the flat horizon and continuing to insist that that's evidence the Earth is flat.

 

[ataraxia]

Of course it does not say that, as it would never get published, but let's look at what it does say and compare
that to the predicted response from added greenhouse gases.

So from 1992 to 2001 Earths (shortwave) Absorbed Solar Radiation increased by 6.6 W m-2.
Now lets see what the predicted energy imbalance would be for greenhouse gases in the same time period?
NOAA AGGI
1992 CO2-eq 430 ppm
2001 CO2-eq 452 ppm
Forcing based on the IPCC's formula is 5.35 X ln(452/430) = 0.267 W m-2.
So even IF the IPCC's forcing formula were correct, Wild's findings of global brightening
had a 24 times greater effect on Earth's energy imbalance.
Now we find out that the forcing formula is not correct, and added greenhouse gases are causing Earth to loose energy.

This claim compares a shortwave solar radiation increase of 6.6 W/m² with the 0.267 W/m² forcing from greenhouse gases over the same period. However, this is misleading because:

• Shortwave and longwave radiation are different in how they interact with the Earth's energy balance. Greenhouse gases mainly affect longwave radiation, trapping heat that would otherwise escape back to space.
• The 6.6 W/m² increase in solar absorption represents a temporary change due to natural variability, such as changes in cloud cover or aerosol pollution reduction (e.g., after the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption).
• The cumulative effect of greenhouse gases is long-lasting and persists even when short-term variations in solar energy absorption fluctuate. The relatively small 0.267 W/m² from greenhouse gases in this period is part of a larger cumulative trend, whereas shortwave changes are more transient.

While the shortwave forcing from brightening may have been larger in the specific time frame mentioned (1992-2001), it is not an ongoing, persistent driver of warming. Greenhouse gases continue to trap heat in the atmosphere, driving long-term global warming. This cumulative effect means that the small increase in forcing from greenhouse gases during the period of the study is part of a larger trend that has been building up over time.

Also the claims about energy loss: empirical data from satellite measurements and surface temperature observations confirm that increased greenhouse gases trap more heat, contributing to a net energy imbalance where the Earth is absorbing more energy than it emits. This imbalance is responsible for the observed global warming trend over the past century.

So while short-term increases in solar radiation can contribute to warming, the long-term driver of climate change remains greenhouse gas emissions. The energy trapped by CO2 and other gases persists over time, accumulating and causing warming, whereas changes in absorbed solar radiation are more variable and less sustained.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I just received an email for Scientific American saying.
SA Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment
Forget Trump for a second as he is almost irrelevant to this discussion.
The concept of following evidence based science and supporting the current statement of the climate is crises,
are the anthesis of science.
My subscription goes back to the 1970's, but I think this will be may last year, as they have drifted away from actual science and only
give a platformer to the politically correct.

They made a transition over a decade ago. Lots of bias one way or another. Seems motivated by money rather than politics.

 

[longview]

Because that's what they say explicitly. If you think that the authors of the article, their peers who reviewed that article, and all their readers are wrong, then it's up to you to show why. All the objections you have raised to those claims so far have been debunked so far. Do you have anything new?

But we have explained in great detail why your longwave radiation issue is incorrect. This is the equivalent of pointing to the flat horizon and continuing to insist that that's evidence the Earth is flat.

Those are not peer reviewed articles and they also do not say that they have empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases cause warming,
it is all assumed to true, but there is no actual empirical evidence to support the concept.

Your efforts on longwave radiation are incorrect! If the Planck radiation exceeded the forcing, an added gas would have a cooling effect.

 

[longview]

This claim compares a shortwave solar radiation increase of 6.6 W/m² with the 0.267 W/m² forcing from greenhouse gases over the same period. However, this is misleading because:

• Shortwave and longwave radiation are different in how they interact with the Earth's energy balance. Greenhouse gases mainly affect longwave radiation, trapping heat that would otherwise escape back to space.
• The 6.6 W/m² increase in solar absorption represents a temporary change due to natural variability, such as changes in cloud cover or aerosol pollution reduction (e.g., after the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption).
• The cumulative effect of greenhouse gases is long-lasting and persists even when short-term variations in solar energy absorption fluctuate. The relatively small 0.267 W/m² from greenhouse gases in this period is part of a larger cumulative trend, whereas shortwave changes are more transient.

While the shortwave forcing from brightening may have been larger in the specific time frame mentioned (1992-2001), it is not an ongoing, persistent driver of warming. Greenhouse gases continue to trap heat in the atmosphere, driving long-term global warming. This cumulative effect means that the small increase in forcing from greenhouse gases during the period of the study is part of a larger trend that has been building up over time.

Also the claims about energy loss: empirical data from satellite measurements and surface temperature observations confirm that increased greenhouse gases trap more heat, contributing to a net energy imbalance where the Earth is absorbing more energy than it emits. This imbalance is responsible for the observed global warming trend over the past century.

So while short-term increases in solar radiation can contribute to warming, the long-term driver of climate change remains greenhouse gas emissions. The energy trapped by CO2 and other gases persists over time, accumulating and causing warming, whereas changes in absorbed solar radiation are more variable and less sustained.

Now you want to believe that a watt per meter squared of energy is somehow different in how it affects the earth.
Yes the longwave radiation and shortwave radiation react differently, the shortwave radiation is absorbed by a lot more things,
like the ocean and all those green plants.

As for the time frame the entire greenhouse gas forcing since 1750 is thought to be something like 3.3 W m-2,
While they actually measured 6.6 W m-2 in shortwave radiation increase in one ten year period.

I think your source is wrong if we clear the skies and allow more of the available sunlight in,
that condition will persist until we change the amount of sunlight that makes it to the surface.

 

[ataraxia]

Now you want to believe that a watt per meter squared of energy is somehow different in how it affects the earth.
Yes the longwave radiation and shortwave radiation react differently, the shortwave radiation is absorbed by a lot more things,
like the ocean and all those green plants.

As for the time frame the entire greenhouse gas forcing since 1750 is thought to be something like 3.3 W m-2,
While they actually measured 6.6 W m-2 in shortwave radiation increase in one ten year period.

I think your source is wrong if we clear the skies and allow more of the available sunlight in,
that condition will persist until we change the amount of sunlight that makes it to the surface.

This response confuses key aspects of Earth's energy balance and the role of different types of radiation. Here’s a breakdown of all the reasons why:

It's true that shortwave solar radiation (sunlight) is absorbed by the oceans, land, and plants. However, greenhouse gases primarily affect longwave radiation, which is the heat radiated from Earth’s surface back into space. The greenhouse effect traps some of this outgoing longwave radiation, warming the planet. Shortwave increases (like the 6.6 W/m² you talk about) can cause temporary surface warming, but this is typically driven by natural factors, like variations in cloud cover, aerosol levels, or changes in solar output, which fluctuate. In contrast, greenhouse gas forcing is more persistent and accumulates over time, leading to sustained warming.

Now the statement that the total greenhouse gas forcing since 1750 is approximately 3.3 W/m² is correct. However, comparing this to the shortwave increase of 6.6 W/m² over one decade is misleading. The shortwave forcing isn't constant and can vary due to factors like pollution levels or volcanic eruptions, while the greenhouse gas forcing accumulates steadily as CO2 concentrations rise. The long-term warming trend observed over centuries is primarily due to greenhouse gas forcing, which builds up and persists. Shortwave radiation increases can be episodic and are often offset by changes in other atmospheric conditions, such as cloud cover or aerosols.

Also, the claim that clearing the skies to let more sunlight in would cause persistent warming misses the fact that the energy imbalance caused by greenhouse gases persists even when skies are clear. Shortwave radiation is variable, depending on atmospheric conditions, whereas the impact of greenhouse gases is long-lasting and contributes to a net warming effect that continues until CO2 concentrations stabilize or decrease.

So while shortwave radiation variability can cause short-term changes in surface warming, greenhouse gases drive long-term global warming by trapping heat. The comparison between the two is not as straightforward as you are making out, as they operate on different time scales and affect the climate in distinctly different ways.

 

[ataraxia]

Those are not peer reviewed articles and they also do not say that they have empirical evidence that added greenhouse gases cause warming,
it is all assumed to true, but there is no actual empirical evidence to support the concept.

Yes, because NASA is an unreliable source and they don't understand climate change science like you.

Your efforts on longwave radiation are incorrect! If the Planck radiation exceeded the forcing, an added gas would have a cooling effect.

Greenhouse gases trap a portion of outgoing radiation, preventing it from escaping directly into space, thus creating a warming effect.

If the Planck radiation (or the outgoing longwave radiation) were to exceed the forcing from greenhouse gases, it would not have a cooling effect. Instead, it means that the Earth's system is attempting to re-balance by radiating more energy as it gets warmer. However, greenhouse gases continue to trap some of that outgoing energy, which sustains the warming.

 

[longview]

This response confuses key aspects of Earth's energy balance and the role of different types of radiation. Here’s a breakdown of all the reasons why:

It's true that shortwave solar radiation (sunlight) is absorbed by the oceans, land, and plants. However, greenhouse gases primarily affect longwave radiation, which is the heat radiated from Earth’s surface back into space. The greenhouse effect traps some of this outgoing longwave radiation, warming the planet. Shortwave increases (like the 6.6 W/m² you talk about) can cause temporary surface warming, but this is typically driven by natural factors, like variations in cloud cover, aerosol levels, or changes in solar output, which fluctuate. In contrast, greenhouse gas forcing is more persistent and accumulates over time, leading to sustained warming.

Now the statement that the total greenhouse gas forcing since 1750 is approximately 3.3 W/m² is correct. However, comparing this to the shortwave increase of 6.6 W/m² over one decade is misleading. The shortwave forcing isn't constant and can vary due to factors like pollution levels or volcanic eruptions, while the greenhouse gas forcing accumulates steadily as CO2 concentrations rise. The long-term warming trend observed over centuries is primarily due to greenhouse gas forcing, which builds up and persists. Shortwave radiation increases can be episodic and are often offset by changes in other atmospheric conditions, such as cloud cover or aerosols.

Also, the claim that clearing the skies to let more sunlight in would cause persistent warming misses the fact that the energy imbalance caused by greenhouse gases persists even when skies are clear. Shortwave radiation is variable, depending on atmospheric conditions, whereas the impact of greenhouse gases is long-lasting and contributes to a net warming effect that continues until CO2 concentrations stabilize or decrease.

So while shortwave radiation variability can cause short-term changes in surface warming, greenhouse gases drive long-term global warming by trapping heat. The comparison between the two is not as straightforward as you are making out, as they operate on different time scales and affect the climate in distinctly different ways.

You can’t be causing an energy imbalance in the long wave spectrum, if there is no energy imbalance!
Think about how clearing skies allow in more solar radiation, but that is different than energy from forcing?