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

[W_Heisenberg]

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..

I think it is very difficult for the rest of this forum to understand what you've just written. You are not spending much time trying to make your posts easy to understand for the general public, and I think this is a big mistake on your part. I think we should, at all times, try to make our posts as easily accessible to the broadest number of people as possible. And you are writing very quickly, sloppily, and using scientific terms and shorthand most people just don't understand.

I am going to rewrite your response for everyone else's benefit, taking into account what you've said previously. You've already said you believe the Earth is getting hotter, but that this is not the result of more CO2 in the atmosphere. So, therefore, my understanding of what you are trying to communicate, rewritten in plain English is as follows:

"The Earth is warming, but not because of CO2. The amount of heat Earth is now giving off is greater than the amount of heat being trapped by CO2, so CO2 can't be the cause of the warming."

If this is not a fair restatement of your position let me know.

What you wrote is simply not true.

The calculations show the Earth is warming. And they also show that CO2 is the main cause of that warming. The Earth is now emitting more heat as it gets hotter, but not more than it receives. More energy keeps coming in than going out. When climate scientists look at the spectrum they can clearly see that CO2 is blocking specific parts of the infrared band. Their calculations show that these blocked parts of the spectrum are responsible for why more energy is coming in than going out. And that's how we know CO2 is trapping the heat and driving the warming.

What I just presented is an overly simplified explanation of what's happening.

There are two things going on that are very important that must be explained in greater detail:

1. The more CO2 you add, the wider the range of infrared wavelengths it traps:

"Increasing CO2 then increases the width of the spectral region where the atmosphere is optically thick...."

RealClimate: Part II: What Ångström didn’t know

RealClimate: By raypierre , with the gratefully acknowledged assistance of Spencer Weart In Part I the long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument was recounted in historical terms. In Part II, I will provide a more detailed analysis for the reader interested in the technical...

www.realclimate.org

2. This means less of the Earth's heat escapes directly to space, and more of it has to radiate away from higher up in the atmosphere, where the air is colder.

"which replaces more of the high-intensity surface radiation with low-intensity upper-atmosphere radiation, and thus reduces the rate of radiation loss to space."

RealClimate: Part II: What Ångström didn’t know

RealClimate: By raypierre , with the gratefully acknowledged assistance of Spencer Weart In Part I the long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument was recounted in historical terms. In Part II, I will provide a more detailed analysis for the reader interested in the technical...

www.realclimate.org

A more detailed explanation can be found in this article:

"This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.

So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further. The Greenhouse Effect isn't even remotely Saturated"

How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated

This is the Basic rebuttal to the myth 'CO2 effect is saturated'

skepticalscience.com

 

[rahl]

And yet you cannot cite where you supposedly cited this research, still only words.

Proven lie

Please prove me wrong, cite where this mysterious citation occurred?

Already have

 

[rahl]

Also only words!

Peer reviewed research

 

[W_Heisenberg]

There is no mechanism in physics to allow, added CO2 to control the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface!

Who is making that claim? I have not made that claim once. I have always claimed CO2 is trapping heat.

If this is related to your claim about Global Dimming/Global Brightening? The climate scientists already take that into account and its effects are miniscule compared to the contribution of CO2.

The most likely cause is added air pollution cleared, causing first dimming and then brightening.

The models/simulations the climate scientists create take all of this into account, and what they've found is that this is a minor contribution to the overall warming.

The only thing CO2 has done is possibly cool a little bit.

This is 100% false.

If you want to argue that CO2 is cooling the planet then you will need to explain how trapping more infrared radiation leads to cooling, and do so without ignoring the known physics, such as the fact that CO2 absorption bands are widening, and that more heat is being forced to escape from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere, where heat loss to space is less efficient. You can't just cherry pick stuff.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I take it you have never worked at a University or in research and development, I have been doing it for more than 4 decades, and a decade of that was spent running the science and engineering labs at a University.

Well, you obviously weren't involved in climate science, otherwise you wouldn't be saying a bunch of stuff that is totally false. You would understand the broadening of the CO2 bands, and how more and more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it harder for heat to escape.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No read about the consensus, they specify Human activity and do not say CO2.

This is not correct. I've seen the studies with my own eyes. Sometimes surveys don't specify CO2, and sometimes they do. When you have a survey that specifically mentions CO2, the vast majority of scientists attribute the increase in temperature to CO2. I will go back and dig it up from a previous post I directed at Lord of Planar.

 

[longview]

I think it is very difficult for the rest of this forum to understand what you've just written. You are not spending much time trying to make your posts easy to understand for the general public, and I think this is a big mistake on your part. I think we should, at all times, try to make our posts as easily accessible to the broadest number of people as possible. And you are writing very quickly, sloppily, and using scientific terms and shorthand most people just don't understand.

I am going to rewrite your response for everyone else's benefit, taking into account what you've said previously. You've already said you believe the Earth is getting hotter, but that this is not the result of more CO2 in the atmosphere. So, therefore, my understanding of what you are trying to communicate, rewritten in plain English is as follows:

"The Earth is warming, but not because of CO2. The amount of heat Earth is now giving off is greater than the amount of heat being trapped by CO2, so CO2 can't be the cause of the warming."

If this is not a fair restatement of your position let me know.

What you wrote is simply not true.

The calculations show the Earth is warming. And they also show that CO2 is the main cause of that warming. The Earth is now emitting more heat as it gets hotter, but not more than it receives. More energy keeps coming in than going out. When climate scientists look at the spectrum they can clearly see that CO2 is blocking specific parts of the infrared band. Their calculations show that these blocked parts of the spectrum are responsible for why more energy is coming in than going out. And that's how we know CO2 is trapping the heat and driving the warming.

What I just presented is an overly simplified explanation of what's happening.

There are two things going on that are very important that must be explained in greater detail:

1. The more CO2 you add, the wider the range of infrared wavelengths it traps:

"Increasing CO2 then increases the width of the spectral region where the atmosphere is optically thick...."

RealClimate: Part II: What Ångström didn’t know

RealClimate: By raypierre , with the gratefully acknowledged assistance of Spencer Weart In Part I the long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument was recounted in historical terms. In Part II, I will provide a more detailed analysis for the reader interested in the technical...

www.realclimate.org

2. This means less of the Earth's heat escapes directly to space, and more of it has to radiate away from higher up in the atmosphere, where the air is colder.

"which replaces more of the high-intensity surface radiation with low-intensity upper-atmosphere radiation, and thus reduces the rate of radiation loss to space."

RealClimate: Part II: What Ångström didn’t know

RealClimate: By raypierre , with the gratefully acknowledged assistance of Spencer Weart In Part I the long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument was recounted in historical terms. In Part II, I will provide a more detailed analysis for the reader interested in the technical...

www.realclimate.org

How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated

This is the Basic rebuttal to the myth 'CO2 effect is saturated'

skepticalscience.com

Your statement

The Earth is warming, but not because of CO2. The amount of heat Earth is now giving off is greater than the amount of heat being trapped by CO2, so CO2 can't be the cause of the warming."

is not bad, but does not convey the why. Greenhouse gas warming is supposed to happen because the
amount of OLR blocked by the added greenhouse gases exceeds the increase for known Planck radiation.
The forcing formula includes the known increase in Planck radiation (A warmer body radiates more),
but results in a positive longwave energy imbalance for ALL increases in CO2 level.
What the observed data shows is that the CO2 level increased, but the OLR did not decrease in response.

The pressure broadened bands of CO2 do absorbs more photons, but not as efficiently as the central band,
and quickly decrease as the pressure decreases with altitude.
I used the analogy of how many people a car can seat, as opposed to how many people it can carry.
Even a small car might carry 10 people with some standing on the door jambs and some in the trunk,
but you would not want to go very far or very fast with that crowd.
CO2 might absorb 14 and 16 um photons at Earth's surface, but the effect decreases rapidly.
This is very different than the central band which is still present in a near vacuum.

The bottom line is that the OLR did not decrease with the added greenhouse gases, and that is the only way for
greenhouse gases to add warming.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No read about the consensus, they specify Human activity and do not say CO2.

Oreskes (2004): 100% agreement from 928 Peer-reviewed papers on "global climate change" "[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

Anderegg et al (2010): 97% agreement from the Top 200 most published authors (of climate-related papers) Anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for‘most’ of the "unequivocal" warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over

Verheggen et al(2014): 91% agreement that Greenhouse gases have made the strongest or tied-strongest contribution (out of different factors considered) to the reported global warming of ∼0.8 °C since preindustrial times

From:

J. Cook et al., "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming", Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

From this from Wikipedia and Google Searching:

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise – 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming. They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1003187107

"Most of the observed increase in global-average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations."

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Economic / petroleum geologists and U.S. meteorologists show the weakest support for greenhouse gases being the cause, with surveys finding 47% of petroleum geologists and 64% of meteorologists agreeing that recent warming is driven by human greenhouse gas emissions, versus 97% of actively publishing climatologists (see Science Daily article below).

It's in these two sub-categories you find the greatest divergence from the mainstream consensus.

This gap likely stems from the direct ties geologists have to the fossil-fuel industry and the meteorology profession’s more ideologically mixed demographic. Also, the emphasis of meteorological training tends to be more focused on the short term weather dynamics.

It makes sense. If one gets paid to help companies pump CO2 into the atmosphere, one has a strong incentive to pretend it's not damaging the Earth's atmosphere and making life more difficult for human civilization.

It's very time consuming to sift through all this, but the soot argument you're putting forward appears to be a fringe, minority view amongst the whole of the scientific community involved in the study of the climate.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

A broad poll of experts taken by earth scientists finds that the vast majority of climatologists and other earth scientists believe in global warming and think human activity is a factor for the temperature rise. This survey dispels lingering doubts by some of a consensus among the scientists.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No read about the consensus, they specify Human activity and do not say CO2.

I think this is likely the main reason why you feel so free to express what is clearly a fringe/extreme opinion, that the vast majority of scientists involved in the study of climate science disagrees with:

Economic / petroleum geologists and U.S. meteorologists show the weakest support for greenhouse gases being the cause, with surveys finding 47% of petroleum geologists and 64% of meteorologists agreeing that recent warming is driven by human greenhouse gas emissions, versus 97% of actively publishing climatologists (see Science Daily article below).

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

A broad poll of experts taken by earth scientists finds that the vast majority of climatologists and other earth scientists believe in global warming and think human activity is a factor for the temperature rise. This survey dispels lingering doubts by some of a consensus among the scientists.

www.sciencedaily.com

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

97% of actively publishing climatologists think you have no idea what you're talking about!

 

[ataraxia]

I do not think the entire scientific community is in agreement about CO2, the consensus
is that Human activity is capable of changing the climate, I agree.

Computer simulations have shown the warming is from CO2, but they begin with the assumption
added CO2 causes a positive longwave energy imbalance.

So far the idea that added CO2 causes warming is just a hypothesis, and you have not shown empirical evidence otherwise.

The CERES instruments were the test, they would prove once and for all that added CO2 caused a positive longwave energy imbalance.
the problem was they showed the opposite, the longwave energy imbalance was negative.

Show us some links to any recent papers that say CO2 is not the primary driver of the process.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No read about the consensus, they specify Human activity and do not say CO2.

Here is a link again describing how forcing is calculated.
CO2-Dependence of Longwave Clear-Sky Feedback Is Sensitive to Temperature

There are other sources that show this assumption.

These calculations are based on known physical laws. They are not assumptions.

When assumptions are being made, it's generally about how much more CO2 will be dumped into the Earth's atmosphere in 5, 20, 30 years.

The hard part with the computer simulations is the dynamical aspect of the Earth's climate, and how all the different components work together. In this respect there are "assumptions" being made as well, but they are based on evidence, and continually refined through satellite and ground-based observations. So, to put it simply, climate scientists have a very good idea of how the different parts of Earth's climate system work together.

A better way to describe these "assumptions" with respect to the complexity of the Earth's climate system and how the components interact is that they are "informed approximations" or "evidence-based parameterizations."

You have yet to cite and quote a source that shows empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming. All you seem to have is words.

There isn't one study. That's not how climate science works. There is not a little mini Second Earth we can perform a laboratory experiment on. That's why we use simulations/models.

 

[Slavister]

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.

The US has historically been the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases on the planet. In a lot of ways the US benefited greatly by using up the planetary budget of emitting CO2 so it is not a great argument to say but China... but India when the US is directly responsible for the majority of emissions.

The US should be leading on this... but we won't because it will affect the share price of corporations.

"But-China" argument also fails in that USA, even as #2 emitter, cannot sit around pointing fingers at China while they are #1 as if #2 is so much better. All countries should try and do what they can. If 199 countries are all waiting on #1 to become #2 and then they start waiting on next #1 to become #2, etc, any progress on the issue will take a lot longer than it should.

 

[longview]

Who is making that claim? I have not made that claim once. I have always claimed CO2 is trapping heat.

If this is related to your claim about Global Dimming/Global Brightening? The climate scientists already take that into account and its effects are miniscule compared to the contribution of CO2.



The models/simulations the climate scientists create take all of this into account, and what they've found is that this is a minor contribution to the overall warming.



This is 100% false.

If you want to argue that CO2 is cooling the planet then you will need to explain how trapping more infrared radiation leads to cooling, and do so without ignoring the known physics, such as the fact that CO2 absorption bands are widening, and that more heat is being forced to escape from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere, where heat loss to space is less efficient. You can't just cherry pick stuff.

The only warming that has happened since we could observe the energy paths in an out of Earth is happening in the
shortwave ASR. More of the available sunlight is reaching the surface, and less of that is being reflected (shortwave).
For added CO2 and it's longwave absorption spectrum to affect warming, it would have to be changing the Energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.

The global dimming and brightening are many times greater than the hypothetical greenhouse gas forcing.
The BSRN recorded a 6 to 9 W m-2 reduction between 1960 and 1990, and a 6 W m-2 increase between 1992 and 2001.
The IPCC AR6 SPM says this,

Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 [1.96 to 3.48] W m–2 in 2019 relative to 1750 has warmed the climate system.

So the total Human caused radiative forcing from any source was thought to be 2.72 W m-2 between 1750 and 2020.
I may be wrong but 6 W m-2 looks greater than 2.72 W m-2!

The entire longwave spectrum lost energy (Increased OLR) between 2000 and 2022,
if CO2 were going to cause warming, it could ONLY result from a positive energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.
Since the entire longwave spectrum lost energy (cooling) CO2 would be on that list.

I suspect CO2 does not behave the same with the central band saturated as it does when it is not saturated.
In a sealed environment, CO2 would become all but transparent to longwave radiation, because of that metastable
state at 15 um. The vast majority of the molecules would not absorb anything for most of the time.
After an eternity in quantum time of tens of milliseconds, a molecule would drop back to ground state, and within
nanoseconds a new 15 um photon would excited the molecule back to a stable but transparent mode.
This is what Angstrom observed.
In a closed environment we add a high concentration of Helium to allow greater circulation back to ground state,
but our atmosphere is not 70% helium. Water vapor may fill this role, but only in the portions of the atmosphere
where water vapor exists.

 

[longview]

Well, you obviously weren't involved in climate science, otherwise you wouldn't be saying a bunch of stuff that is totally false. You would understand the broadening of the CO2 bands, and how more and more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it harder for heat to escape.

I was mostly doing physics related to Lasers, including CO2 lasers, which are not optically excited because it is inefficient.
I understand pressure broadening, but the effect falls away quickly.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Your statement is not bad, but does not convey the why. Greenhouse gas warming is supposed to happen because the amount of OLR blocked by the added greenhouse gases exceeds the increase for known Planck radiation. The forcing formula includes the known increase in Planck radiation (A warmer body radiates more), but results in a positive longwave energy imbalance for ALL increases in CO2 level. What the observed data shows is that the CO2 level increased, but the OLR did not decrease in response.

Explain it even more simply for everyone else.

Greenhouse gas warming is supposed to happen because the amount of OLR blocked by the added greenhouse gases exceeds the increase for known Planck radiation.

This is what you're saying:

"Greenhouse gases cause warming when they block more heat from escaping to space than the planet can radiate away, so energy builds up and the Earth heats up"

The forcing formula includes the known increase in Planck radiation (A warmer body radiates more)

"As Earth warms it emits more outgoing longwave radiation."

but results in a positive longwave energy imbalance for ALL increases in CO2 level.

"When we had more CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, more heat is trapped, so more energy comes into the Earth's system than goes out."

What the observed data shows is that the CO2 level increased, but the OLR did not decrease in response.

"The data shows that CO2 went up, but the amount of heat escaping to space didn't go down."

Now, this is where you go off the rails.

The reason why the amount of heat escaping to space didn't go down is because the entire Earth got hotter.

As we add more CO2, it blocks more of the outgoing heat in specific parts of the infrared spectrum. So even though the Earth is glowing brighter overall, it's glowing less efficiently in the parts of the spectrum where CO2 absorbs. That's the energy imbalance. And that's why we’re still warming.

 

[longview]

Oreskes (2004): 100% agreement from 928 Peer-reviewed papers on "global climate change" "[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

Anderegg et al (2010): 97% agreement from the Top 200 most published authors (of climate-related papers) Anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for‘most’ of the "unequivocal" warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over

Verheggen et al(2014): 91% agreement that Greenhouse gases have made the strongest or tied-strongest contribution (out of different factors considered) to the reported global warming of ∼0.8 °C since preindustrial times

From:

J. Cook et al., "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming", Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

From this from Wikipedia and Google Searching:

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise – 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming. They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1003187107

"Most of the observed increase in global-average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations."

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Economic / petroleum geologists and U.S. meteorologists show the weakest support for greenhouse gases being the cause, with surveys finding 47% of petroleum geologists and 64% of meteorologists agreeing that recent warming is driven by human greenhouse gas emissions, versus 97% of actively publishing climatologists (see Science Daily article below).

It's in these two sub-categories you find the greatest divergence from the mainstream consensus.

This gap likely stems from the direct ties geologists have to the fossil-fuel industry and the meteorology profession’s more ideologically mixed demographic. Also, the emphasis of meteorological training tends to be more focused on the short term weather dynamics.

It makes sense. If one gets paid to help companies pump CO2 into the atmosphere, one has a strong incentive to pretend it's not damaging the Earth's atmosphere and making life more difficult for human civilization.

It's very time consuming to sift through all this, but the soot argument you're putting forward appears to be a fringe, minority view amongst the whole of the scientific community involved in the study of the climate.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

A broad poll of experts taken by earth scientists finds that the vast majority of climatologists and other earth scientists believe in global warming and think human activity is a factor for the temperature rise. This survey dispels lingering doubts by some of a consensus among the scientists.

www.sciencedaily.com

Did you happen to notice how they weeded down the numbers reporting?
You go ahead and believe your consensus, in science consensus is meaningless.
Let's just talk about the scientific data.

 

[longview]

Show us some links to any recent papers that say CO2 is not the primary driver of the process.

It would be difficult to get such a study approved through the peer review gatekeepers,
but I think the data speaks for itself.
The IPCC says that all the Human caused forcing since 1750 is 2.72 W m-2,
while Wild in peer review published that between 1992 and 2001, the energy reaching the surface
increased by 6 W m-2.

 

[longview]

These calculations are based on known physical laws. They are not assumptions.

When assumptions are being made, it's generally about how much more CO2 will be dumped into the Earth's atmosphere in 5, 20, 30 years.

The hard part with the computer simulations is the dynamical aspect of the Earth's climate, and how all the different components work together. In this respect there are "assumptions" being made as well, but they are based on evidence, and continually refined through satellite and ground-based observations. So, to put it simply, climate scientists have a very good idea of how the different parts of Earth's climate system work together.

A better way to describe these "assumptions" with respect to the complexity of the Earth's climate system and how the components interact is that they are "informed approximations" or "evidence-based parameterizations."



There isn't one study. That's not how climate science works. There is not a little mini Second Earth we can perform a laboratory experiment on. That's why we use simulations/models.

They are assuming that energy that is blocked by absorption, is added to the longwave energy imbalance.
The reality is more like adding a stone on a low water bridge, the flow just moves around the stone, and while the level of the river behind
the bridge might increase slightly, the increase would be lost in the noise, i.e you could not measure it.

We have real measurements from this earth, the greenhouse gas levels increased, and the OLR did not decrease.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The pressure broadened bands of CO2 do absorbs more photons, but not as efficiently as the central band

It is absolutely true that the wings of the broadened CO2 absorption bands don't block as much heat as the central band. But they still block heat, and the amount of heat they block is increasing over time, not decreasing. Total absorption is increasing, not decreasing.

and quickly decrease as the pressure decreases with altitude.

Yes, pressure broadening decreases with altitude because the air is thinner. But the CO2 raises the altitude from which heat escapes to space in those bands. Because higher altitudes are colder, they radiate less energy.

I used the analogy of how many people a car can seat, as opposed to how many people it can carry. Even a small car might carry 10 people with some standing on the door jambs and some in the trunk, but you would not want to go very far or very fast with that crowd. CO2 might absorb 14 and 16 um photons at Earth's surface, but the effect decreases rapidly. This is very different than the central band which is still present in a near vacuum.

I agree with everything you're saying here, but the climate scientists take all of this into account with their models.

Do you really have such disregard for their expertise that you wouldn't think they would understand all of this?

Do you really think climate scientists don't account for how pressure broadening actually works?

Do you really think they ignore how CO2 absorption changes with altitude?

Do you really believe they forget to include that the central band saturates and the wings contribute less per unit CO2?

If you believe these things, then show me where they err. Now, it's your turn to cite the parts of the peer-reviewed studies you think they messed up.

What you're doing, in effect, is creating a strawman argument. You are basically arguing against a cherry-picked version of what climate scientists have presented.

The climate scientists are not as stupid as you think they are!

The bottom line is that the OLR did not decrease with the added greenhouse gases, and that is the only way for greenhouse gases to add warming.

You've got it backwards. The reason outgoing heat didn't go down is because the Earth got hotter. The CO2 traps heat and makes the Earth warm up until it glows brighter. Scientists understand this. It's not a mistake in their models, it's exactly what their models said would happen.

Your argument is based on the idea that CO2 has done all the warming it can.

It's the "CO2 is saturated" anti-climate science talking point:

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

<p>If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Underneath all of the technical terms you're using, that's basically your argument, and your argument is wrong.

 

[longview]

Explain it even more simply for everyone else.



This is what you're saying:

"Greenhouse gases cause warming when they block more heat from escaping to space than the planet can radiate away, so energy builds up and the Earth heats up"



"As Earth warms it emits more outgoing longwave radiation."



"When we had more CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, more heat is trapped, so more energy comes into the Earth's system than goes out."



"The data shows that CO2 went up, but the amount of heat escaping to space didn't go down."

Now, this is where you go off the rails.

The reason why the amount of heat escaping to space didn't go down is because the entire Earth got hotter.

As we add more CO2, it blocks more of the outgoing heat in specific parts of the infrared spectrum. So even though the Earth is glowing brighter overall, it's glowing less efficiently in the parts of the spectrum where CO2 absorbs. That's the energy imbalance. And that's why we’re still warming.

Yes the entire Earth got hotter, but not because of added CO2, which is not producing the positive longwave energy imbalance
required to cause any warming.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Did you happen to notice how they weeded down the numbers reporting?

Well, whose opinion do you think we should listen to? And what about these surveys do you disagree with? For example, why do you disagree with the idea we should pay more attention to someone who regularly publishes in peer-reviewed journals?

For example, if someone is working for the oil and gas industry, do you think they might be a little biased?

For example, if someone is a meteorologist, studying extremely short-term trends, do you think they are the absolute best person to listen to when it comes to studying ice cores or long-term climate trends?

You go ahead and believe your consensus, in science consensus is meaningless.

First of all, you're the one that made the claim about what the consensus was.

Second, consensus is not meaningless. It can helpful. It's not the thing that moves science along, but it's a useful snapshot of a moment in time of what most scientists believe. And the truth is your opinion about this issue is a fringe opinion with respect to the scientific consensus. This is a useful clue for everyone else who is not involved in climate science that you're probably wrong.

Let's just talk about the scientific data.

1. Yes, and if you want to prove everyone else wrong, all the people who do climate science for a living, you're going to have to prove it.

2. This is a general discussion forum, and the vast majority of people reading your posts are not well-served by your frequent and sloppy use of acronyms, and scientific terms. I think you should do more work explaining things in the most simple terms, for the benefit of this forum, while also being as accurate as possible.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Scientists make a name for themselves by finding cracks and exceptions in the existing paradigms, not by finding shade in them.

In most areas of expertise, this is true. It is not true in the climate sciences. Any scientist that steps across the line claiming we must do something, is drummed out of the scientific community.

Only in the climate sciences.

You don’t have the first idea about how science or the science culture work.

Yes he does. You not seeing it shows you are the one who does not.

That’s why I am skeptical about your claims of having worked in science ever. You speak the language of science with poor grammar and with a thick accent that betrays that you are a foreigner to it, not a native speaker.

LOL...

And you believe what ever Chat GPT yells you.

I have exposed your incorrect posts how many times now since you trust a shitbot?

 

[longview]

It is absolutely true that the wings of the broadened CO2 absorption bands don't block as much heat as the central band. But they still block heat, and the amount of heat they block is increasing over time, not decreasing. Total absorption is increasing, not decreasing.



Yes, pressure broadening decreases with altitude because the air is thinner. But the CO2 raises the altitude from which heat escapes to space in those bands. Because higher altitudes are colder, they radiate less energy.



I agree with everything you're saying here, but the climate scientists take all of this into account with their models.

Do you really have such disregard for their expertise that you wouldn't think they would understand all of this?

Do you really think climate scientists don't account for how pressure broadening actually works?

Do you really think they ignore how CO2 absorption changes with altitude?

Do you really believe they forget to include that the central band saturates and the wings contribute less per unit CO2?

If you believe these things, then show me where they err. Now, it's your turn to cite the parts of the peer-reviewed studies you think they messed up.

What you're doing, in effect, is creating a strawman argument. You are basically arguing against a cherry-picked version of what climate scientists have presented.

The climate scientists are not as stupid as you think they are!



You've got it backwards. The reason outgoing heat didn't go down is because the Earth got hotter. The CO2 traps heat and makes the Earth warm up until it glows brighter. Scientists understand this. It's not a mistake in their models, it's exactly what their models said would happen.

Your argument is based on the idea that CO2 has done all the warming it can.

It's the "CO2 is saturated" anti-climate science talking point:

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

<p>If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Underneath all of the technical terms you're using, that's basically your argument, and your argument is wrong.

I have to disagree that they take all the variables into account, it is simply too complex.
They build models that they hope include enough of the variables to be accurate, and yet small enough that
they can produce results in less than real time.
Computers are getting much faster, and computer time less expensive, but they still have to consider this.
In Arrhenius's time "computer' was a job title!

 

[longview]

Well, whose opinion do you think we should listen to? And what about these surveys do you disagree with? For example, why do you disagree with the idea we should pay more attention to someone who regularly publishes in peer-reviewed journals?

For example, if someone is working for the oil and gas industry, do you think they might be a little biased?

For example, if someone is a meteorologist, studying extremely short-term trends, do you think they are the absolute best person to listen to when it comes to studying ice cores or long-term climate trends?



First of all, you're the one that made the claim about what the consensus was.

Second, consensus is not meaningless. It can helpful. It's not the thing that moves science along, but it's a useful snapshot of a moment in time of what most scientists believe. And the truth is your opinion about this issue is a fringe opinion with respect to the scientific consensus. This is a useful clue for everyone else who is not involved in climate science that you're probably wrong.



1. Yes, and if you want to prove everyone else wrong, all the people who do climate science for a living, you're going to have to prove it.

2. This is a general discussion forum, and the vast majority of people reading your posts are not well-served by your frequent and sloppy use of acronyms, and scientific terms. I think you should do more work explaining things in the most simple terms, for the benefit of this forum, while also being as accurate as possible.

No one's, Nullius in verba, "take nobody's word for it".
If you think AGW is a concern, learn the science necessary to look at the data yourself, and to understand the
studies and the assumptions and limits of what they present.

I mentioned the consensus, because the fallback argument by some here is that I am in disagreement
with "The entire scientific community" which is not actually an argument.

I may eventually collect my ideas on climate change into a paper, but cannot until after I retire,
as I think such a paper would constitute a conflict of interest.

Science is a story of numbers, and I will attempt to be better at describing complex concepts.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The only warming that has happened since we could observe the energy paths in an out of Earth is happening in the shortwave ASR.

More of the available sunlight is reaching the surface, and less of that is being reflected (shortwave).

Your argument is that the warming is mostly caused by more sunlight being absorbed by Earth, because less of it is being reflected back into space, not because of trapped heat from greenhouse gases like CO2.

But what you're saying is false. The totality of the evidence goes completely against your argument.

And this is clearly an anti-climate science argument. This is a common talking point made by people paid by the Fossil Fuel industry to promote anti-climate science propaganda. This is a fringe view that the vast majority of climate scientists simply do not agree with.

For added CO2 and it's longwave absorption spectrum to affect warming, it would have to be changing the Energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.

What matters is the total amount of energy coming in versus the total amount of energy going out. If you focus just on the longwave spectrum, and nothing else, you are not understanding what's actually happening. Yes, more heat is escaping, but not enough heat to cancel out what's being trapped. And this imbalance keeps building towards a hotter Earth. The CO2 is causing this imbalance.

What's happening is that the CO2 is still trapping heat while the total temperature of the Earth is increasing overall.

It's like blowing air into a balloon that has two holes, one for air going in, and one for air going out. If you start pinching the hole where the air escapes, the balloon will fill up and get bigger, even if the amount of air going in doesn't change. CO2 is like that pinch, it's making it harder for Earth to lose heat, so the planet keeps getting warmer. And the pinch isn't staying the same, it's getting tighter, because the part of the spectrum that CO2 blocks is widening, and heat has to escape from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.