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

[W_Heisenberg]

Your link provides nothing and even says "After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees" without debunking it.

You are being lied to.

What you are showing everyone is a very common anti-climate science talking point.

I have confirmed the graph that you posted is directly refuted by the Skeptical Science article.

The graph in the Skeptical Science article looks different, but it is based on the same data by Easterbrook.

From the article:

1. Ice cores can't measure the very top layers accurately. The ice core data this graph is based on stops around 1855, and the "present global warming" part of the graph is manually drawn:

"Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines 'present' as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 'present' follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming."

2. The data is regional, showing Greenland temperatures, which vary more than global averages:

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes.

3. The modern warming data far exceeds the peak temperatures once current data is included:

"Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that 'most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present' is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. The two blue crosses on the chart show the GISP site temperatures (adjusted from GRIP data) for 1855 and 2009. It’s clear there is a calibration issue between the long term proxy (based on ∂18O measurement) and recent direct measurement of temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue — which is what Don Easterbrook is trying to show."

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

<p>This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.</p>

skepticalscience.com

This is the original source image:

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Scientific evidence shows that agriculture was able to be succeed at altitudes higher than today just 3-5 thousand years ago. There were warmer times in relatively recent human history.

This point is not relevant because past warm periods were slower, regional, and natural. Today's warming is global, much faster, and caused by us.

And just because some areas may remain suitable for farming doesn't mean we won't lose vast regions of currently productive land to heat, drought, and shifting climate zones.

 

[George50]

We did warm, but not because of anything happening in the longwave spectrum, as it lost energy.
We warmed because more of the available sunlight reached the surface, not because of added greenhouse gases.

That’s not what the study you keep quoting to support your statement says:

According to your citation:

As far as the ASR is concerned it increased because:

We find that large decreases in stratocumulus and middle clouds over the sub-tropics and decreases in low and middle clouds at mid-latitudes are the primary reasons for increasing ASR trends in the northern hemisphere (NH). These changes are especially large over the eastern and northern Pacific Ocean, and coincide with large increases in sea-surface temperature (SST).

As far as the OLR is concerned it increased because:

The decrease in cloud fraction and higher SSTs over the NH sub-tropics lead to a significant increase in OLR from cloud-free regions, which partially compensate for the NH ASR increase.

However the citation also states that:

the weaker OLR change is associated with compensation between increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases and increased infrared cooling to space relating to the radiative response to warming

In other words OLR went up because there was more longwave radiation emitted from the surface (because of increased sea surface temperatures) and fewer clouds to help stop that radiation from escaping into space. On the other hand though there was increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases (increased greenhouse effect) which was decreasing OLR (thus increasing ERF).

Obviously, since the greenhouse effect does not stop ALL longwave radiation from the surface anytime that surface radiation increases OLR will go up, even if the greenhouse effect also increases!

So the bottom line your statement should really read:

We warmed because more of the available sunlight reached the surface and because of added greenhouse gases.

Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000 - Surveys in Geophysics

Satellite observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System show that Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed...

link.springer.com

 

[George50]

The US IS doing a lot to help, and has been since the 70s. Not even just to combat 'global warming' - but because cleaner air and environment is better for everyone. Most of the world started focusing on it then. And we're still moving in the right direction,

We are slowing that movement down as much as possible now.

adding more alternative energy production,

As little as possible

phasing out coal plants,

Keeping coal plants running against the wishes of utilities and state governments.

and further developing and adopting EV technology.

And slowing down the adoption of EV technology even though we are far behind the rest of the world

China is welcome to join the party....

they already have and are way ahead of us in renewable energy and EVs.

but they are VERY late to it. Any impact they have is likely way overstated.

Deny the data. Not a very compelling argument.

And even the changes they have made are often in the most destructive way possible. Their dam building projects would never be allowed in the US as they caused widespread destruction and displacement of people and wildlife. Sure, they've stamped out EVs... strip mining miles of earth to mine lithium and discharging residual there. (Worth noting the questionable environmental value of EVs at this point, given the environmental destruction to mine for the materials).

Yes, they are more reckless with respect to the items you mentioned than we are but that’s pretty much just their problem and doesn’t have much impact on the rest of the world.

From our standpoint, they are headed in the right direction as far as greenhouse gases which does directly impact us.

Again - back to the topic - greenhouse gasses. We can't reduce global emissions without reigning in China and India.

China is reigning in themselves when it comes to greenhouse gases. We need to reign in the anti EV and drill, baby drill people in our own country.

 

[George50]

I am not saying we are not the primary cause of the warming since 1979, there is just little we can or should do about it.
We spent perhaps centuries adding air pollution (Mostly SO2) to the skies, dimming the available sunlight.
In the late 1970 laws change and by 1985 the dimming had reversed to brightening, We released a lot of slow natural

human caused

warming
in a few decades.

 

[George50]

How do I know that achieving Net Zero will not change the trajectory of the climate, Science!
The increases in CO2 between 2000 and 2022, did not add anything to Earth's longwave energy imbalance,
so stopping the growth in the CO2 level(Net Zero) will not change what is causing our energy imbalance.
We are shooting at the wrong target!

Wrong.

 

[George50]

Yes, they rapidly expand their use of coal over the past 3-4 decades.

That is true.

Repeating, but they're biggest expansion of 'clean' energy has been done in the most environmentally damaging way possible.

The expansion of clean energy is good for us. The damage to their local environment is their problem.

And to the actual topic, they continue to increase the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.

That increase has now slowed to a crawl and is projected to start decreasing soon.

 

[George50]

I like America. I don't like China.

But facts are facts:

View attachment 67576714

Ditto on the likes.

Also, you could add that in China wind is bigger than solar and hydro electric is bigger than wind.

 

[Atomic Kid]

The elephant in the room that the left refuses to address with respect to greenhouse gasses is China. (and to a lesser extent, India). Those countries keep pumping out more greenhouse gasses, and adding new energy sources that will generate them long into the future (like inefficient coal plants). All of the work the US and other countries have done to reduce emissions is more than offset by those countries. China is now producing about half the world's greenhouse gasses, as well as a tremendous portion of particulate matter and other pollutants.

The thing is that the US's reliance on trade with them is subsidizing that pollution. China is able to produce things cheaply because they don't care about things like the environment, their people, intellectual property rights, etc. Ironically, one of the best things we could do to combat this is to make their goods more expensive (tariffs) and then tie it to them addressing those things. Trump at least got it half right.

DRILL BABY DRILL!

 

[longview]

You're confusing definitions with assumptions. Just because we define forcing a certain way doesn't mean we assume its value, we calculate it based on physics.

Yes, CO2 is increased in the simulation, but the resulting energy imbalance is calculated. The model doesn’t assume how the system reacts, it simulates it using radiative transfer and energy balance laws.



Nope. Climate models compute radiative forcing using known physics and real CO2 absorption spectra. They don't make it up, and they don't assume the outcome.



That "CO₂ is 20% of the greenhouse effect" number refers to how we describe the current energy balance, it’s like labeling a pie chart.

But the radiative forcing formula comes from spectral physics, from how CO2 interacts with infrared light across the spectrum.

That 20% figure isn't something simulations assume, it's something they could output, after calculating how each greenhouse gas affects the planet's radiation budget.

It is you who misunderstands, they can calculate the energy under the curve from a line by line analysis, but it still does not tell them how that will happen in the atmosphere!
There are many variables at play.
It’s entirely possible that it’s some level CO2 does have forcing that is greater than the plank radiation, but if the current level the plank radiation exceeds the forcing. The result is a negative energy balancing long way spectrum..

 

[longview]

Awesome. Publish your paper disproving the entire scientific community and collect your Nobel!

There would be no Nobel for the person who kills the goose that laid the golden egg!

 

[longview]

You are saying CO2 emitted by manmade activities isn't the principal cause.

But the evidence is overwhelmingly against your claim.

There is no mechanism in physics to allow, added CO2 to control the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface!
The most likely cause is added air pollution cleared, causing first dimming and then brightening. The only thing CO2 has done is possibly cool a little bit.

 

[longview]

More energy is escaping because the Earth is hotter, but at the same time, the CO2 bands continue to trap infrared radiation.

As CO2 builds up, it blocks more and more of the infrared spectrum, especially in the wings of its absorption band.

While that's happening, the Earth becomes less efficient at shedding heat, because the radiation has to escape from higher layers of the atmosphere.

But the higher you go, the colder it gets, and colder air emits less energy.

So the big CO2 "blanket" keeps expanding upward, and heat has a harder time escaping.

This is why the planet keeps warming.

And the reason why you cannot accept this, I suspect, is because at some point in your life you were involved in an industry that contributed to the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, and you feel bad that you are potentially causing great harm to everyone else.

Remember when Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."



This is almost certainly false. This is also an extreme, fringe view that is not held by the vast majority of scientists involved in climate science.

This is the kind of people folks involved in the oil and gas industry constantly talk about in an effort to morally justify their day-to-day actions.

I want to be clear about one thing though. I support the oil and gas industry. This industry is essential to our national security and our economy, but I think we need to transition, as quickly as possible, to other forms of energy production. But this first begins with the recognition of what we're doing to our planet.

Please just step away from the AI!

 

[rahl]

There would be no Nobel for the person who kills the goose that laid the golden egg!

Ah yes. It’s a global conspiracy and only a half dozen morons with zero scientific background what so ever know the truth!!!

 

[longview]

That’s not what the study you keep quoting to support your statement says:

According to your citation:

As far as the ASR is concerned it increased because:

We find that large decreases in stratocumulus and middle clouds over the sub-tropics and decreases in low and middle clouds at mid-latitudes are the primary reasons for increasing ASR trends in the northern hemisphere (NH). These changes are especially large over the eastern and northern Pacific Ocean, and coincide with large increases in sea-surface temperature (SST).

As far as the OLR is concerned it increased because:

The decrease in cloud fraction and higher SSTs over the NH sub-tropics lead to a significant increase in OLR from cloud-free regions, which partially compensate for the NH ASR increase.

However the citation also states that:

the weaker OLR change is associated with compensation between increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases and increased infrared cooling to space relating to the radiative response to warming

In other words OLR went up because there was more longwave radiation emitted from the surface (because of increased sea surface temperatures) and fewer clouds to help stop that radiation from escaping into space. On the other hand though there was increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases (increased greenhouse effect) which was decreasing OLR (thus increasing ERF).

Obviously, since the greenhouse effect does not stop ALL longwave radiation from the surface anytime that surface radiation increases OLR will go up, even if the greenhouse effect also increases!

So the bottom line your statement should really read:

We warmed because more of the available sunlight reached the surface and because of added greenhouse gases.

Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000 - Surveys in Geophysics

Satellite observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System show that Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed...

link.springer.com

He added greenhouse gases caused a negative energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum so they could not have caused any warming!

 

[longview]

human caused

Yes, human activity causes the air pollution to begin with an additional human activity changed the laws that later remove the air pollution.

 

[longview]

Ah yes. It’s a global conspiracy and only a half dozen morons with zero scientific background what so ever know the truth!!!

No conspiracy, but a lot of money cycling into science.

 

[longview]

Wrong.

Because you say so, do you have any scientific evidence to support that conclusion?

 

[rahl]

No conspiracy, but a lot of money cycling into science.

Yep! The entire scientific community is in on it! And only the half dozen morons with zero scientific background know the truth!!!

 

[longview]

Yep! The entire scientific community is in on it! And only the half dozen morons with zero scientific background know the truth!!!

It’s a parade of the willing!
More like everyone in the US colluding to take deductions on their income tax. They do it because it’s in their own self interest.
Besides, no one has to lie the answers are so subjective it can be anything.

 

[rahl]

It’s a parade of the willing!
More like everyone in the US colluding to take deductions on their income tax. They do it because it’s in their own self interest.
Besides, no one has to lie the answers are so subjective it can be anything.

I know right! Any idiot with zero scientific background clearly knows more than the entire scientific community!!!

 

[ataraxia]

They aren't reducing anything.

Percentage wise they are- and on track to meet their commitments and promises.

Forget leading on doing the right, prudent, and responsible thing at this point. The US isn’t even following- a rogue state blinded by shortsighted greed and power. This will not end well.

 

[ataraxia]

It’s a parade of the willing!
More like everyone in the US colluding to take deductions on their income tax. They do it because it’s in their own self interest.
Besides, no one has to lie the answers are so subjective it can be anything.

The answers are there. But a handful if oligarchs blinded by shortsighted greed and power are confusing the picture for the large ignorant masses.

The his will not end well.

 

[longview]

I know right! Any idiot with zero scientific background clearly knows more than the entire scientific community!!!

What make you think I am in disagreement with the "entire scientific community"?
They and I agree that the warming since 1979 is mostly from Human activity.
The hypothesis that added CO2 is the cause of the warming is just that a hypothesis, and an untested one at that.
The tests they have been able to run have failed.

 

[longview]

The answers are there. But a handful if oligarchs blinded by shortsighted greed and power are confusing the picture for the large ignorant masses.

The his will not end well.

It's not really that, there are some true believers like James Hansen, who are environmental activists.
They see subjective data and a plausible mechanism, and can say that is not an impossible outcome.
The real danger to science is that consensus brings compliancy, people stop questioning if something is real,
and then assume it is real without question. This is not how science advances.
Feynman said ,
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."
People see what they want to see!
By the time a young PhD is on tenure track, they know how to advance, what to say, what not to say,
what subjects to avoid. Winning grants brings lab space, Course release, research assistants, ect.
They cannot lie, but can get shade from a consensus. If you look you will see it a lot,
phrases like assuming the IPCC's position is correct.