I showed you how you are wrong with exact quotes from the study you keep quoting.He added greenhouse gases caused a negative energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum so they could not have caused any warming!
Missed the point.Yes, human activity causes the air pollution to begin with an additional human activity changed the laws that later remove the air pollution.
The idea that all of the current energy imbalance is in the shortwave (SW) spectrum isn’t supported by the data. In fact, both satellite observations and radiative transfer models show that CO₂ is reducing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in its absorption bands, and this is a direct contributor to the net positive energy imbalance. For example, studies using AIRS and IASI data (like Raghuraman et al. 2023 and Whitburn et al. 2021) clearly document decreases in OLR at CO₂ wavelengths, which is exactly what we’d expect if CO₂ were increasing the longwave trapping of heat.There is plenty of positive Net energy imbalance, all of it happens to be happening in the shortwave spectrum.
There is no positive longwave energy imbalance, and added CO2 can only change the longwave energy imbalance.
These are references you can click on. Argue with the references, and if you think they are not relevant, let me know why.I am not going to bother with AI generated outputs.
The study you keep quoting says that greenhouse gases reduced the OLR.What is not to understand, the CERES instruments were put up on satellites to measure the energy flows in and out of Earth.
They recorded that between 2000 and 2022 Earth gained energy in the shortwave spectrum, and lost energy in the longwave spectrum.
The hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming, requires that Earth gain energy in the longwave spectrum, via a reduction in the OLR.
It reduces the OLR which increases warming.Increasing the CO2 level cannot alter the amount of available sunlight that reaches the surface.
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.
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.
So bringing electricity to billions that never has it means they don't care about their people? I never said they are abandoning coal I said their generating capacity is less and less dependent on fossil fuels something we seem to have stalled on doing. The idea that we should wait on alternative energy because China is using coal is ridiculous. We are still the #2 polluter of fossil carbon and we need to change that. BTW your graphs are out of date China now has 1000 GW of solar energy capacity. More than the rest of the world combined.
China’s installations of wind and solar in May are enough to generate as much electricity as Poland, as the world’s second-biggest economy breaks further records with its rapid buildup of renewable energy infrastructure.
China installed 93 GW of solar capacity last month – almost 100 solar panels every second, according to an analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Wind power installations reached 26 GW, the equivalent of about 5,300 turbines.
While estimates for the amount of power generated by solar panels and wind turbines vary depending on their location and weather conditions, Myllyvirta calculated that May’s installations alone could generate as much electricity as Poland, Sweden or the United Arab Emirates.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...up-or-government-can-stop-clean-energy-future
Between January and May, China added 198 GW of solar and 46 GW of wind, enough to generate as much electricity as Indonesia or Turkey.
“We knew China’s rush to install solar and wind was going to be wild but WOW,” Myllyvirta wrote on social media.
China’s installed solar photovoltaic capacity has now surpassed 1,000 GW for the first time, equivalent to half of the world’s total installed solar capacity
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...with-massive-build-up-of-wind-and-solar-power
The data is clear, our warming is happening because of events in the shortwave spectrum.
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"
Talk about cherry picking: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
Cook is another activist. He has another paper that breaks the scientific consensus down titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." the abstract: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
Now you are arguing with a different theory than your favorite study.Our warming since ~1979 is because of reductions in air pollution allowing more of the available sunlight to reach the surface.
What you keep ignoring (or can't comprehend or won't admit or whatever) is that if longwave surface radiation increases then OLR will increase because the greenhouse effect does not stop 100% of that surface radiation. That happens even though the greenhouse effect is trapping more heat and is thus contributing to warming.If added greenhouse gases were blocking the escaping longwave radiation enough to cause warming, the OLR would have decreased.
It is not that the absorption wavelengths reduced but what happened to the energy, after that.Satellite instruments like AIRS and IASI have directly measured the drop in OLR in CO₂ bands, which confirms the greenhouse effect is active. So no, the instruments didn’t miss it— it’s been observed exactly where and how the models predict.
What was measured was the OLR increased!The study you keep quoting says that greenhouse gases reduced the OLR.
It reduces the OLR which increases warming.
That is too simplistic, CO2 does not always absorb photons at the correct wavelength,
it is busy (transparent) a million times more than it is absorbing. If CO2 were actually causing warming the path would be by decresing
the OLR, since the OLR is not decreasing, CO2 action cannot be causing any warming.
The bottom line is that to cause warming from the longwave spectrum the OLR would have to decrease
Sorry the data is clear!This just isn't true. This is a very common global warming denial talking point that the vast majority of climate scientists reject:
"If the CO2 effect was saturated, then increasing CO2 would lead to no change in the greenhouse effect. As satellite measurements (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007) and surface measurements (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006) all find an enhanced greenhouse effect at the CO2 and CH4 bands, this is empirical confirmation that the CO2 effect is not saturated.
Note that hotter objects emit radiation at shorter wavelengths. Hence the sun emits shortwave radiation while the earth emits longwave radiation. This is the basis of the greenhouse effect - shortwave radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere, warms the earth which then emits longwave radiation back out to space. This longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases. The enhanced greenhouse effect observed by the papers listed above are at longwave wavelengths, not shortwave. It's basic science."
How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
We've just perused the empirical evidence that humans are raising atmospheric CO2 levels. In earlier posts, we noted that tallying up the planet's heat content shows that our climate is accumulating heat, proof of global warming. But is there any evidence that links the two? Is there empirical...skepticalscience.com
"I have a new detailed explainer on aerosols. They have a major (but poorly constrained) cooling effect on the climate, masking about 0.5C warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would otherwise have occurred."
The role of aerosol declines in recent warming
This is a re-post from The Climate Brinkskepticalscience.com
The only positive energy imbalance is ASR!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).
Why are you guys so easily lied to by the pundits?
Science is cool, but the data is subjective!Agreed- and that’s exactly the observation, and exactly at the specific bandwidth for CO2 absorption.
So it all comes together and fits. Isn’t Science cool?
If you understand Excel...
Actually, there is more than one flavor in pollutants. Hundreds if not thousands. To generically diminish them as you did is complete pseudoscience, and punditry. You have aerosols that mostly reflect the sunlight back outward, increasing the earth system albedo. This causes cooling. You have aerosols that absorb the sunlight rather than reflecting it. This atmospheric layer gets warmer, and these same particle most often act like a greenhouse gas too. you have aerosols that help make clouds form, and aerosols that make rain, reducing the clouds in the sky. This reduced the earth system albedo, and causes warming.The pollution you're talking about mostly blocks sunlight coming in. That's shortwave radiation. CO2 works on the other side of the equation, it traps the heat trying to leave Earth, which is longwave radiation. So they affect different parts of the energy balance.
Yes, pollution wash out of the skies easily enough, but they are constant and ongoing NOW! Co2 will stay present longer, but it is not the culprit.Also, pollution effects don't last long. Once the air clears, the cooling effect goes away pretty fast. But CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That means even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the planet would still keep warming for a long time because of the CO2 already up there.
It is a different pollutant mix.The pollution that blocked sunlight mostly happened between the 1960s and 1990s. Then, as the air got cleaner, more sunlight started getting through, and this mostly happened from around 1990 to 2005.
You should look into the clouds. How they have diminished over the years, and what that means.But since about 2005, that effect has leveled off. It's not adding much anymore. Meanwhile, global temperatures have kept rising, especially in the last 10 to 15 years. That shows it's not pollution changes driving the warming now, it’s the build-up of CO2 trapping heat
Here is what you don't get. Very few scientists are vocal about their papers. I will bet most would be unhappy with the spin they are given. Or maybe they write what is wanted, just because the grant money is readily available.--
Here's what I don't get.
Do you honestly think that climate scientists haven't taken all of this account?
Do you honestly think they are too stupid to figure all this out?
Is that your opinion? Do you really have such a poor opinion of them?
Cook is another activist.
These images are out of the Verheggen et al(2014) study. You keep saying the 97+% scientists agree the greenhouse gasses are "most" of the warming. Figure 1 says otherwise as that would only fit under the "strong" category. To top that off. most such papers are referring to what other papers already declare or imply.Why did you post these figures? Do you have a problem with this survey?
I am showing the consensus view is not what people make it out to be.Everything in this image is consistent with what is mentioned in the abstract, so I am confused as to why you think it's helpful to your argument.
Call it what you want, but this viewpoint is from understanding the science instead of believing the propaganda. the vast majority of the people are inundated with the lies so much, it is believable to them.All you're doing is highlighting how much of a fringe view you and longview have on this topic.
It is the way crooked skews the facts. He is a blogger and cartoonist. Did you know that? One of the blogs out there with the pervasive lies is his.The thing about knowledge is that once you learn something important, especially something with serious real-world consequences, it creates a kind of moral responsibility. You can’t un-know it, and ignoring it becomes a choice. To some degree one cannot separate activism from the knowledge that global warming is being caused by manmade emissions of CO2. I don't think this must necessarily take the form of shutting down the fossil fuel industry, that's kind of silly, and by all appearances Cook's own activism is about spreading awareness, yet you treat him with disdain. You treat him like an enemy. Why is that? How do you think should Cook approach things? Do you think he's not being honest about his opinions or his methods?
So, let me ask you something, what do you think the percentage is at? And what is your conclusion based on? You don't think Cook should be doing the surveys? You don't like his results? What is your conclusion? What are your results?
Hmmm. The Chinese Communist Party decided to get rid of the pollution. For example, SO2 peaked in 2006, now it’s about one tenth of what it was then.We have a mix of different aerosol effects. Just look at the drop in cloud cover over the last 25 years or so, as China industrialized. It is their unmitigated atmospheric pollution doing this. Not the CO2. Remember few years back how smoggy all the Chinese cities were?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?