Scientists warn that greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come

[Uncensored2008]

Jerome Powell stated swaths of the U.S. won’t be able to get a mortgage within the next decade. A lot of really boring insurance conferences now detail the very scary expectations for insurability due to climate change over the next 20 years. Sky isn’t going anywhere, just Americans ability to get insurance due to climate change.

Algore stated that New York city would be underwater by the year 2000. Lot's of stupid people make all kinds of stupid predictions. AGW cultists make the dumbest predictions of all.

After 50 years, basic odd would make it so the Green Frauds got at least ONE prediction right - but nope, not even one from the Gaia cult.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Algore stated that New York city would be underwater by the year 2000. Lot's of stupid people make all kinds of stupid predictions. AGW cultists make the dumbest predictions of all.

After 50 years, basic odd would make it so the Green Frauds got at least ONE prediction right - but nope, not even one from the Gaia cult.

You won't be able to get a mortgage in Florida within a few years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

22 years is statistically nothing. Remind us, how old is the earth?

As a refresher,

One day Og awoke and wandered out of his lean-to only to discover that the mountain to the east was billowing smoke. Og became very frightened. He turned to his wife and said "mountain smoke, Og scared."

The wife met with all the other women while chewing hides and none of them could figure out why the mountain was smoking. So Og went to Algore, the village Shaman and said "why mountain smoke?" Algore shook a rattle and chanted some mumbo jumbo and then declared "The volcano god is angry because Og has too much food and life is too easy."

Algore went on "Og must make a sacrifice - as must every other villager. Bring me 9/10ths of all food and furs that you have, and I must also have your virgin daughters to appease the gods. If you do not give these to me, you will die, and not only you but EVERYONE in the village."

Og was very afraid. He loved his daughter, but how could he let everyone die? Besides, if he gave the Shaman 9/10th of his food to throw in the volcano, along with his daughter, he would have no food to feed his children and she would starve to death anyway.

So Og and the villagers gave Algore what he demanded. Algore gorged himself on the food and raped the girls for a month, then trudged up the mountain, raped Og's daughter again, murdered her, and threw her in the volcano. He did the same to the daughters of the other villagers.

Then Algore went back to the village and said that the gods were pleased, but in a year they would have to do it all again to keep pleasing the gods.

The next day, the volcano erupted and killed everyone in the village.

MORAL:

The volcano was real. Algore the Shaman had no more understanding of it than Og did, but he saw an opportunity to get the wealth and children of the villagers by leveraging their fear.

None of the sacrifices made by Og did anything - other than satiate Algore's lust and greed.

And THIS is what Anthropogenic Global Warming is today, Shamans taking everything from suckers based on fear.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You won't be able to get a mortgage in Florida within a few years.

Besides, it will be underwater.

Cultists have been spewing this idiocy for 50 years.

Over the 4.7 billion years this planet has existed, there has been only one constant to our climate - change.

Frauds who claim they can control it if we just give them wealth and power over us are running the same scam that has been run since the cavemen.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Besides, it will be underwater.

Cultists have been spewing this idiocy for 50 years.

Over the 4.7 billion years this planet has existed, there has been only one constant to our climate - change.

Frauds who claim they can control it if we just give them wealth and power over us are running the same scam that has been run since the cavemen.

Okay, you believe the Earth is flat. I got nothing.

 

[longview]

All empirical observations are subjective and based only on the latest such observations.

That's why science always tries to gather as many different observations, from as many different perspectives as possible, to come to its always-contingent latest conclusions (AKA the latest science)- not limit them to just one limited perspective to come to a desired conclusion- which seems to be your approach.

How could the current models make such accurate predictions if they didn't have their cause/effect variables right?

Black line=historical model predictions
Red line= current empirical observations

Well Science attempts to set up valid repeatable experiments to test hypothesis,
The experiment set up to validate that added CO2 caused warming failed.
The CERES instruments were supposed to measure the decrease in OLR as the greenhouse gas levels rose,
but instead measured an increased in OLR!

As for the accuracy model predictions, if we assume that is correct, then it means that TCR most closely matches
how the Climate responds to added CO2. The IPCC's doubling sensitivity for CO2 under a TCR simulation is 1.65 C.
Let's play that out to see where it goes?
If we achieve one doubling of the CO2 level, (560 ppm) then it would cause 1.65 C of warming above the pre industrial level.
The second doubling of the CO2 level from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm, would also produce 1.65 C of warming, and so on.
While we are likely to reach one doubling, the second doubling is very unlikely.

Also remember that the assumptions of added CO2 causing warming, are much weaker than before we had observed data
showing all the greenhouse gases added between 2000 and 2022, did not produce ANY positive longwave energy imbalance!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okay, you believe the Earth is flat. I got nothing.

Exactly, you and your cult have nothing. 50 years of failed predictions and fear mongering. Oh, but the Green Scam does make a lot of frauds a lot of money.

 

[longview]

22 years is statistically nothing. Remind us, how old is the earth?

But all of the predictions of CO2 driven warming are based on only 46 years of records 1979 to 2025,
so 22 years is almost half of the entire period.

 

[ataraxia]

Exactly, you and your cult have nothing. 50 years of failed predictions and fear mongering. Oh, but the Green Scam does make a lot of frauds a lot of money.

Failed predictions?

Looks pretty good to me:

Black line=predictions
Red line= observations

 

[The Brad Dad]

Exactly, you and your cult have nothing. 50 years of failed predictions and fear mongering. Oh, but the Green Scam does make a lot of frauds a lot of money.

I"m sorry you are fearful you'll fall off the planet if you just keep walking long enough.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Failed predictions?

Looks pretty good to me:

Black line=predictions
Red line= observations

The entire anti climate change argument relies on simply being disinterested and ignorant about it. And making Al Gore jokes in 2025. But that's how conservatives deal with any issue, insist it's not there. Well, any issue that can't be bombed.

 

[longview]

Failed predictions?

Looks pretty good to me:

Black line=predictions
Red line= observations

The source of that graph is a study,
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections
The problem is the study used TCR simulations to match up the predicted to observed warming.

We use an implied TCR metric to provide a meaningful model-observation comparison even in the presence of forcing differences.

Also telling in the fact that the NASA editors (Not scientist) who wrote the NASA article,
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
Neglected to mention that the simulation that best matched predictions to warming was a simulation of TCR!
In fact the word TCR did not appear even once in the NASA article but 31 times in the actual study.
The casual oversight, implies that a 2XCO2 ECS sensitivity of 3C is what best matched past climate models,
when in reality the study found the 2XCO2 TCR sensitivity of 1.65C best matched the warming!

 

[Trumpetman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/18/climate-change-threshold-15-degrees-sea-level/f52a4090-4c8f-11f0-8fff-262d6ec54ab9_story.html

View attachment 67575781


Thankfully the US elected the most anti intellectual and anti science regime possible that also wants to scrap FEMA. And the states that helped usher this in, totally aren’t the ones that will be hit the hardest by this.

Also thankfully the NWS is being gutted as well and this totally won’t impact the ability to track any of this weather accurately.

But hey, as long as developers and oil executive scum keep hoarding wealth to then hide in their apocalypse bunker, then everything is good and that’s all that matters.

The most convincing part to me about their warnings was how they were issuing them from under water bunkers since the entire coastline was supposed to be submerged by now.

 

[longview]

The entire anti climate change argument relies on simply being disinterested and ignorant about it. And making Al Gore jokes in 2025. But that's how conservatives deal with any issue, insist it's not there. Well, any issue that can't be bombed.

Actually Science is never supposed to take something based on what someone says.
The nineteenth century hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming has never been validated in laboratory experiments.
The CERES instruments put up on Satellites in 2000 were supposed to be the experiment that would
once and for all show that added CO2 increased Earth's longwave energy imbalance, but recorded the opposite.
As the greenhouse gas levels rose, the longwave energy imbalance decreased. (OLR increased).
It is not that CO2 cannot absorb 15 um photons, it can, but what happens to the energy after absorption.
The Net in the longwave spectrum appears to be an energy loss.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

We are warming because of increased shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation, a portion of the spectrum where CO2 is transparent.

 

[ataraxia]

Well Science attempts to set up valid repeatable experiments to test hypothesis,
The experiment set up to validate that added CO2 caused warming failed.
The CERES instruments were supposed to measure the decrease in OLR as the greenhouse gas levels rose,
but instead measured an increased in OLR!

As for the accuracy model predictions, if we assume that is correct, then it means that TCR most closely matches
how the Climate responds to added CO2. The IPCC's doubling sensitivity for CO2 under a TCR simulation is 1.65 C.
Let's play that out to see where it goes?
If we achieve one doubling of the CO2 level, (560 ppm) then it would cause 1.65 C of warming above the pre industrial level.
The second doubling of the CO2 level from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm, would also produce 1.65 C of warming, and so on.
While we are likely to reach one doubling, the second doubling is very unlikely.

Also remember that the assumptions of added CO2 causing warming, are much weaker than before we had observed data
showing all the greenhouse gases added between 2000 and 2022, did not produce ANY positive longwave energy imbalance!

You can justify it however you want. But the predictions have been uncannily accurate. Hard to argue with such an uncannily successful model.

 

[ataraxia]

Actually Science is never supposed to take something based on what someone says.

Yes. So that's why we take what every single scientific organization on the planet and 100% of current peer reviewed articles say over what you say.

The nineteenth century hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming has never been validated in laboratory experiments.

Incorrect.

The CERES instruments put up on Satellites in 2000 were supposed to be the experiment that would
once and for all show that added CO2 increased Earth's longwave energy imbalance, but recorded the opposite.
As the greenhouse gas levels rose, the longwave energy imbalance decreased. (OLR increased).
It is not that CO2 cannot absorb 15 um photons, it can, but what happens to the energy after absorption.
The Net in the longwave spectrum appears to be an energy loss.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

We are warming because of increased shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation, a portion of the spectrum where CO2 is transparent.

No. This is your "horizon looks flat so Earth must be flat" reasoning. That's why we don't take something based on what someone on an internet chat site says.

 

[Geoist]

Then throw your hands up in the air and claim nothing can be done.

Nobody said nothing can be done. Just pointing out the fact that once you conservatives FINALLY accept anthropomorphic climate change you'll deflect from personal/national responsibility and cry about foreigners.

Should we pressure other nations to reduce their emissions? 100%. But you start by being the role model. If we're doing what the GOP is doing right now and removing clean energy investments and going back to fossil fuels then the Chinese would just laugh in our faces when we say THEY should fix it.

 

[Geoist]

I didn't say all pages. Try reading back a couple. You are making points that have already been attempted repeatedly.

Normal people state the post # if they don't want to repeat a previous point. That's what I do.

 

[longview]

You can justify it however you want. But the predictions have been uncannily accurate. Hard to argue with such an uncannily successful model.

A model of TCR not ECS, and predicting warming when it is already warming, is not that big a deal.
What you do not see is the prediction that our warming would be from increased sunlight reaching the surface!

 

[ataraxia]

A model of TCR not ECS, and predicting warming when it is already warming, is not that big a deal.
What you do not see is the prediction that our warming would be from increased sunlight reaching the surface!

We've been through this, in great detail. Hard to believe you still cling to this. Seems you just can't get beyond the "horizon looks flat so Earth must be flat" reasoning.

 

[longview]

Yes. So that's why we take what every single scientific organization on the planet and 100% of current peer reviewed articles say over what you say.

The scientific organizations exists to support their members, and keeping the grant money flowing does that.

Incorrect.

So cite and quote the peer reviewed study that validates with observed data that added CO2 causes warming?

No. This is your "horizon looks flat so Earth must be flat" reasoning. That's why we don't take something based on what someone on an internet chat site says.

Sorry this is what empirical data looks like. They measured that between 2000 and 2022 that energy imbalance in the shortwave spectrum
increased, while the energy imbalance int he longwave spectrum decreased!

I have supported what I am saying with citations and quotes from peer reviewed studies, have you?

 

[longview]

We've been through this, in great detail. Hard to believe you still cling to this. Seems you just can't get beyond the "horizon looks flat so Earth must be flat" reasoning.

I am sorry you think your analogy has any value, it does not.
The study to test the accuracy of earlier climate models us a TCR simulation, with it's much lower sensitivity.

 

[ataraxia]

The study to test the accuracy of earlier climate models us a TCR simulation, with it's much lower sensitivity.

Looks pretty sensitive to me. Hard to argue with results:

 

[StillBallin75]

Hell of a time to be gutting FEMA.

 

[longview]

Looks pretty sensitive to me. Hard to argue with results:

Correlation is not causation, but If we assume the sensitivity were correct The IPCC places the 2XCO2 sensitivity at 1.65 C.
Which means for the current doubling (280 ppm to 560 ppm), we have about .4C of warming remaining over the next 50 years,
so slower warming than we have already experienced since 1979. (.08C per decade vs 0.21C per decade)