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

[W_Heisenberg]

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?

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Earlier you and longview were making the argument that a reduction in pollution was driving the warming. Now, it seems like you're saying that pollution itself is causing the warming.

Show us which pollutants you're talking about specifically. Are you just talking about soot?

Soot has an impact locally, not globally, doesn't it?

Is there some other pollutant that you think is completely dwarfing the contribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

Show us how climate scientists have failed to take this into account in their simulations, and do so by pointing to a peer-reviewed article demonstrating how climate scientists have failed to do this properly.

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.

If you are arguing that ongoing pollution is what is causing global warming, then you need to explain why global average temperatures are still going up even as pollution is going down in most of the world.

What's making the temperature increase despite a reduction in pollution?

And can you show us how climate scientists have failed to take soot this pollution into account in their simulations. And can you point to a peer-reviewed article demonstrating how climate scientists have failed to take it into account?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Stop ignoring these other factors that can add up more than CO2 is blamed for.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What other factors? Why have climate scientists erred? Why do you think CO2 is being blamed for things pollution is doing? Which pollutants are you talking about? Can you prove it?

It is a different pollutant mix.

Okay, what pollution are you talking about?

You should look into the clouds. How they have diminished over the years, and what that means.

Can you show me how the climate scientists have erred with respect to the clouds?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

Okay, so you think there is a sort of silent majority of scientists who don't actually believe greenhouse gases emitted by humans are the principal cause of global warming?

Can you prove this?

This wounds like a wild ass guess on your part.

 

[dcsports]

China is not on your chart.

It's obviously by region. China is in Asia.

 

[dcsports]

Not as much as our current Federal government.

MUCH more so than the US government. There's no freedom of the press, and that makes a big difference.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Most these papers do not make claims to the degree the agenda claims. these papers will often " suggest" a reason, or find odds of it being cause by a certain factor.

That's because climate science is a multi-disciplinary field.

It's like a big group project involved tens of thousands of people. And there just aren't that many well-paying jobs that allow for more than a few hundreds of people to become generalists capable of synthesizing information from a bunch of different fields.

Scientific papers, in general, tend to be hyper focused on specific questions because that's how our educational system, our economy, and our science communities are designed.

That's why we don't have tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles that synthesize the world's collective knowledge about climate science.

That's why we have very few people making the sort of authoritative pronouncements in quantitative terms that you are demanding.

That's why you get surveys that show majority-agreement with the theory of AGW, but in qualitative terms.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The pundits blow all this out of proportion. make claims beyond what can be indicated in the paper.

Which paper(s) are you talking about?

There is no one paper. There are a handful of seminal papers. I already presented a list of them to you.

Here's another list:

Analysis: The most 'cited' climate change papers - Carbon Brief

On Monday, we revealed the results of our survey of scientists in which we asked...

www.carbonbrief.org

Do you want to pick a paper from this list to talk about?

I remember one time you claimed that we cannot trust satellite data because you claimed that the people handling the satellites data were probably not calibrating their instruments properly.

This is a variation on the anti-climate science talking point that the Earth's system is too complex to model.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Why do you allow others you tell you what to believe?

Oh, you mean like Trump? The guy you voted for? The guy who lies not with every other breath, but with every breath? In your day-to-day life don't you sometimes have to rely on the experience and judgment of others? Do you go through your own life verifying every single fact presented to you? Think about your own career. Did you invent your own career from scratch? Did you discover all the knowledge you employ on a daily basis?

With respect to my own views, I tend to trust scientists because I try to look at the world in a scientific way. And my own view of myself is not inflated. I don't think I know everything. I know I know very little. I must trust others. We all have to rely on someone else in one way or another, from the smallest things to the biggest things.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

These are all authors profiting one way or another from the agenda.

What agenda? What are you talking about? Why do any of these people profit of an "agenda"? And if you don't trust these folks, who do you trust? Is there a scientist or a group you trust? Which surveys with the goal of discovering consensus opinion do you think have done the surveys impeccably?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Talk about cherry picking:

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified​

each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE)​

for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence​

(UE) for ACC. We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively​

(i.e., all names listed) from the following lists: IPCC​

AR4 Working Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors,​

lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed), 2007​

Bali Declaration (212 signers listed), Canadian Meteorological​

and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names​

listed), CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and 37 signers​

of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film​

errors. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had​

a total of 903 names.​

Why? Why is this cherry-picking? And which groups do you accept as being suitable for surveys?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Why do you allow others you tell you what to believe? I have read all those studies. You obviously have read none of them.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories:​

explicit endorsement of the consensus​

position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation​

proposals, methods, paleoclimate​

analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.​

Of all the papers, 75% fell into the​

first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly​

accepting the consensus view; 25%​

dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking​

no position on current anthropogenic climate​

change. Remarkably, none of the papers​

disagreed with the consensus position.​

First three catagories. Three different levels of agreement, with only the first of three agreeing greenhouse gasses had the biggest effect, the third of the three agreeing greenhouse gasses has at least a small effect.

What's wrong with including a category like mitigation as representative of the consensus opinion? What's the point of doing a study on mitigating the effects of human emissions of greenhouse gases if you don't think human emissions of greenhouse gases is the principal cause of global warming?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Science is cool, but the data is subjective!
As I said like placing a rock in a flowing low water crossing, that area may be blocked but the water will simply flow around it.

That's not how CO2 works. It is not like one rock in a stream. It's not a hard shield. It is more like adding more and more fog to a room with a heat lamp. Even if the fog is already thick, making it thicker still blocks more of the light and traps more heat. The effect does not shut off, it just slows down gradually. CO2 is not a wall. It is more like a thickening filter.

 

[George50]

It's obviously by region. China is in Asia.

Asia is not representative of China any more than the Americas are representative of the U.S.. Your graph is meaningless with respect to China.

 

[George50]

MUCH more so than the US government. There's no freedom of the press, and that makes a big difference.

It doesn’t seem to make much of a difference any more. People here believe the kind of nonsense shown below because the alternative press just amplifies the administration’s lies and the legitimate press is now being attacked for telling the truth:

The 2020 election was stolen.

Climate change is a hoax.

Most illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals, only some are good people.

Tariffs on China are paid by China.

China operates the Panama canal.

The U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship.

January 6 was a love fest.

EV’s are going to put our automakers out of business.

Trump won the 2024 election by a landslide.

Ukraine started the Russia/Ukraine war.

There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.

Vietnam charges a 90% tariff to the USA.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles.


In the past it was clear that China was no where near as trustworthy a source as the US government but unfortunately that is becoming more and more questionable.

 

[dcsports]

It doesn’t seem to make much of a difference any more. People here believe the kind of nonsense shown below because the alternative press just amplifies the administration’s lies and the legitimate press is now being attacked for telling the truth:

The 2020 election was stolen.

Climate change is a hoax.

Most illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals, only some are good people.

Tariffs on China are paid by China.

China operates the Panama canal.

The U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship.

January 6 was a love fest.

EV’s are going to put our automakers out of business.

Trump won the 2024 election by a landslide.

Ukraine started the Russia/Ukraine war.

There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.

Vietnam charges a 90% tariff to the USA.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles.


In the past it was clear that China was no where near as trustworthy a source as the US government but unfortunately that is becoming more and more questionable.

Sure. And that the 2020 election was perfect, without irregularity. There was no controversy there. Hillary Clinton was an idiot who didn't realize her emails were a risk. Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian disinformation campaign. Joe Biden was sharp as a tack. The difference being that in our country we have freedom of the press, and a freedom to question these types of statements. That doesn't exist in China.

 

[dcsports]

Asia is not representative of China any more than the U.S. is representative of the Americas. Your graph is meaningless with respect to China.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Much of it in the most destructive way possible - like damming up rivers to destroy whole areas.

Plus, they exaggerate and lie.

We did the same thing with rivers for hydro power. But yes, they lie and cannot be trusted.

What pisses me off the most, is we have had modern technology available for ages now to burn coal with far fewer emissions that they built, but they choose to burn coal the dirty way.

 

[George50]

Sure. And that the 2020 election was perfect, without irregularity.

Thanks for making my point. The 2020 election was fine. Are you not aware that the approximately 60 so-called irregularities were adjudicated in court with nothing of any significance coming from it to support Trump’s stolen election nonsense.

There was no controversy there. Hillary Clinton was an idiot who didn't realize her emails were a risk.

Being an idiot is not lying.

Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian disinformation campaign.

People thought it might be a Russian disinformation campaign. That doesn’t mean they were lying.

It turned out that the NYP was the one with the disinformation campaign. They did publish information from the laptop but the NYP has been trying to make the items on the laptop sound like Joe Biden did something wrong. However, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 and a Republican House Oversight committee investigation released in April 2024 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden with regard to Ukraine and his son's business dealings there.

Joe Biden was sharp as a tack.

Joe Biden obviously was not a sharp at the end of his term as he was at the beginning. At least he wasn’t taking about people eating cats and dogs.

The difference being that in our country we have freedom of the press, and a freedom to question these types of statements. That doesn't exist in China.

It’s being eroded here. Trump has declared war on the legitimate press making it far more difficult to do their job. Also, as I mentioned earlier the alternative press has contributed to brainwashing almost half the country into believing a pack of lies. Lies like the 2020 election was stolen that you seem to favor.

 

[Lord of Planar]

China is not on your chart.

They are part of Asia.

 

[George50]

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

That’s true. So why are you trying to deny that your graph showing something that pertains to all of Asia is not representative of China?

 

[George50]

They are part of Asia.

I thought that you are better than this. Asia’s trajectory on SO2 emissions is in no way representative of China’s trajectory as dcsports is trying to claim. You should know better.

 

[Buster Keaton]

Fear is the oldest political tool

 

[Linuxcooldude]

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.

Oh, thanks for the disclaimer “historically”. The U.S. can only control what happens “today”. In the meantime, China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses and pollution “today”.

 

[dcsports]

That’s true. So why are you trying to deny that your graph showing something that pertains to all of Asia is not representative of China?

I thought that you are better than this. Asia’s trajectory on SO2 emissions is in no way representative of China’s trajectory as dcsports is trying to claim. You should know better.

It's the graph available, and visually tells the story. China is the biggest country and biggest contributor to pollution in Asia, just as the US is for North America. No, they aren't the only countries there.

You are working way too hard to try to sell China as a country that doesn't pollute. They are the biggest polluter in the world, by far. Kudos to them for ANY progress, but they have a long way to go to join the rest of the civilized world.

 

[snakestretcher]

I know it is likely too much for you, but look here:

Post in thread 'Scientists warn that greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come'

Thursday at 2:28 PM

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

Cook is another activist. He has another paper that breaks the scientific consensus down titled "Quantifying the consensus on...

• Lord of Planar

Sure, the experts when they speck and take questions.

the problem here is the activists lie about what the science papers say. You are not listening to the experts, you are listing to punditry and lies.

that is what I showed with the Cook stuidy. you have to take the first three categories to add up to past 97%, and only the first of the three categories, at 1.6% is the one that states we created the largest effect. They other two levels of enforcement are only endorsing that we have an effect. An unquantified effect. It could be 0.000000001% of an effect, but it is still an effect.

How many climate scientists do you think Cook represents?