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

[Lord of Planar]

1. In the Verheggen survey, if I'm reading it correctly, It's still 65% in favor of AGW even if you take into account everyone who did not respond. And what you're probably doing is assuming that everyone who did not respond had a negative view towards AGW.

No. Not everyone. I do assume that most who disagree chose not to participate instead of shining the spotlight on them though.

That is not statistically likely. The opinions scattered among these 400-ish people who did not respond probably follows more of a normal distribution.

I will suggest someplace between normal and what I just said.

2. This notion that scientists are afraid of stating their true opinion because of some agenda sounds like nothing more than a crazy conspiracy theory, and there is really no way for me to argue against it.

No. This is a real phenomena. The powers to be literally destroy the carers of scientists.

This is not a very scientific way of looking at things if you ask me. And every valid point I could ever make in this regard could always be dismissed in a similar manner. The author of the survey? Part of the agenda, of course. The people surveyed? Part of the agenda, of course. And so it goes, on and on.

To a degree, yes. Publish or perish. There are certain things to help gat a climate paper more likely published, and you see such common practices throught so many.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I understand. It's a pain to write these posts. Each of my posts take me a very long time for me to write. I always find myself spending more time on these posts than I originally intend to. So, I get it. I don't really expect you to respond in any sort of substantive way, and I am quite honestly surprised you've responded as much as you have because I know my posts are annoying to you.

This is a very complex topic. So many aspects that interact. Takes too long to make good explanations. So much deceptions that have not been dusmissed but still prevail in works. The greenhouse effect being 33 degrees for example. That is flat out false. It is probably only about 15 degrees, the rest of the heat simply because an atmosphere exists vs a vacuum.

At the same time, if you want to persuade others, if that's your goal, you're going to have to do more than you've done.

Thats just it. I dont really care if I persuade you or others. After so many years saying mostly the same things year after year, people do not listen. I decided I can only point people in the right direction. Most often what I say is dismissed with no consideration. So why should I care when others just want to regergitate propaganda instead of actually learning the topic?

You complain about me denying every valid point you make, but that's what debating on this forum is all about. Do you really want to talk to someone who already agrees with you? Where is the fun in that? I also think my rebuttals have been scientifically sound and well written. For example, I think I wrote a good response to your intensity graphs. I am not disagreeing just to be disagreeable. I'm saying, "Hey, look, there's a good explanation as to why your argument is wrong, and here is the explanation...." And in a case like that, for example, the graphs you presented earlier in this thread, if I think the absorption graphs are more useful than the intensity graphs, I am not just waving my hands in the air and "denying every valid point" you make. I am presenting an argument. And if my own understanding is incorrect, I'd like to know.

Do you mean the picket fence idea? That is just going off of Cook's blog and you have to verify everything you find there. I am a bit weak on the spectral lines, but if I recall correctly, other lines between do not matter. I think of it like my first career. Telecommunications and the 3 dB width. I think of it as rhe effect being wider rhan rhe discrete value.

 

[Volunteer]

Look at how rich those who are propagating it are getting, like Al Gore.

Gore is only a pundit like you and me, not a scientist. You think he is in the same league as oil billionaires? His net worth is below one half of one billion. You are following chump change money.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Gore is only a pundit like you and me, not a scientist. You think he is in the same league as oil billionaires? His net worth is below one half of one billion. You are following chump change money.

He has made millions on carbon credit trading. The entire AGW scam has taken a financial life of its own.

 

[Volunteer]

He has made millions on carbon credit trading..

Yes, he did, millions, while fossil fuel investors have made hundreds of billions, which is on a different scale of fortune and wealth altogether. I thought we are to follow the money!

 

[mrjurrs]

It absolutely was. Throwing billions at other countries to gain buy-in on a non-binding treaty, really in exchange for nothing, is silly.

And the biggest offender - by FAR - is China.

It's cute that you think China is the worst offender because they create more today.

Do you believe history has an impact on greenhouse gases?

 

[Fearandloathing]

No.

I am saying that when the pundits claim 97%+ of the scientists say the effect is 50% or greater, they are lying. The category 1 for that claim is only 1.6%.

THEY are lying although they have documented their work while your claim is completely unsubstantiated ...

YOU ARE LYING

 

[Fearandloathing]

Bollocks

"On one end of the political spectrum, the environmental advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists defines junk science as “work presented as valid science that falls outside the rigors of the scientific method and the peer review process. It can take the form of presentation of selective results, politically motivated distortions of scientifically sound papers, or the publishing of quasi scientific non-reviewed journals." (http://www.ucsusa.org/junkscience/whatisjunk.html). On the other side, Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., and co-author of the book Silencing Science, manages an entertaining and provocative Web page (http://www.junkscience.com) that debunks what he considers junk science. He lists numerous cases in which junk science has been used to support attacks on businesses and their products."

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-junk-science-dilemma

All caps and bold DO NOT make anything more accurate.

In fact they scream 'falsehood, falsehood".


Every accusation made here is an admission.

Your need for childish attention exceeds your grasp of science

 

[dcsports]

It's cute that you think China is the worst offender because they create more today.

Do you believe history has an impact on greenhouse gases?

I think you intended to say "It's correct". They are by far the largest producer now and will soon be on a cumulative basis.

"Historical accumulation" can contribute, but the Earth has the ability to 'heal itself' and dissipate it over time - which is why it's important to cut back. But noted previously (several times) while the US and Europe contributed a lot during and following the industrial revolution, we also learned a great deal from this, and those lessons can be used by other countries. Most of the world has heeded those lessons - and for example, doesn't add big polluting and unfiltered coal plants for power.

And I gave you this response, but noting again, I'm not interested in your gaslighting and sniping.

 

[mrjurrs]

I think you intended to say "It's correct". They are by far the largest producer now and will soon be on a cumulative basis.

"Historical accumulation" can contribute, but the Earth has the ability to 'heal itself' and dissipate it over time - which is why it's important to cut back. But noted previously (several times) while the US and Europe contributed a lot during and following the industrial revolution, we also learned a great deal from this, and those lessons can be used by other countries. Most of the world has heeded those lessons - and for example, doesn't add big polluting and unfiltered coal plants for power.

And I gave you this response, but noting again, I'm not interested in your gaslighting and sniping.

Heal itself? Not while dumping in more than is leaving. How about if you look at in real terms?

"...will soon be..." disproves your claim. Who's doing the actual gaslighting?

 

[dcsports]

Heal itself? Not while dumping in more than is leaving.

ding ding. That is my point. And China keeps pumping more and more out.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's cute that you think China is the worst offender because they create more today.

Do you believe history has an impact on greenhouse gases?

Looking forward, China will on a continuous basis generate arounf four times what we will.

 

[Lord of Planar]

THEY are lying although they have documented their work while your claim is completely unsubstantiated ...

YOU ARE LYING

Yes, my 1.6% is in those facts.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes, my 1.6% is in those facts.

Cook's study was unusual. Instead of surveying scientists directly by asking the scientists specific questions, Cook used the abstracts from a bunch of studies to infer an author's opinion. There just aren't that many abstracts which would be expected to explicitly express an opinion on AGW, let alone in a quantifiable way. This 1.6% is just the percentage of papers Cook found that gave AGW an explicit endorsement with quantification. If you don't like Cook's 97% figure then you must reject the study outright or you have to attack the way he infers an author's position on AGW.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It is just far more complicated than such a simplistic approach.

Be specific. It's clear you think the Verheggen survey does not capture the true opinions of climate scientists. Can you articulate why you think the Verheggen survey does not capture the true opinions of climate scientists, specifically?

Do you agree, at the very least, that 65% of climate scientists believe in the theory of AGW as indicated by Verheggen's survey?

There appears to be no survey you accept. You give the impression that you think every single thing I present is bullshit, so should I just give up showing you surveys that prove the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So many years later it does not matter what they believe. What matters is what they can validate in papers. The scirnce does not line up with their belief so it appears they either want to scire briwnie ooints with the 800 gigaton IPCCC gorilla, or they ate cinvinced thrmself without proper scientific skeptisism. Maybe they are not aware of other aspects that detract from the agenda pushed.

Be specific. Can you articulate what exactly you think hasn't been validated that needs to be validated with respect to AGW? Your posts a little confusing, you're all over the place. Sometimes you say you agree with basic mechanisms of AGW and claim the scientists are just not calculating everything correctly, but then you do things like reference conspiracy theories and bring up talking points common amongst climate science deniers, like the CO2 saturation myth.

Human activities like using coal, oil, and gas for energy release gases into the air that trap heat from the sun. Gases like CO2 build up in the atmosphere and make the Earth warmer over time. This extra trapped heat is what causes global warming. The consensus of the scientific community is that human activities, particularly the release of CO2, is the dominant reason why the Earth is warming. This is the issue put simply. This is AGW. Now, can you tell me what part of this theory you think hasn't been validated by the papers, or hasn't been validated through a synthesis of human civilization's body of knowledge about the climate?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Do you mean the picket fence idea? That is just going off of Cook's blog and you have to verify everything you find there.

I don't think you're spending much time reading my posts.

I used three different sources to rebut your CO2 saturation myth argument, none of them were Cook's blog.

1. The RealClimate blog's contributors can be found here, all are professional, working climate scientists:

RealClimate

Biographies of contributing authors

www.realclimate.org

2. I also gave you a link to the AIP website (American Institute of Physics (AIP)):

The Discovery of Global Warming

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics.

history.aip.org

“The site was developed and written by Spencer Weart, who was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics from 1974 to 2009. He is trained as a physicist and historian, and is the author of several books including The Discovery of Global Warming (Harvard University Press, 2003).”

3. I also gave you a third link from the Science of Doom blog written by someone named Steve Carson. The blog is anonymous, but commentary on internet suggests the blog is authored by the following Steve Carson:

About this Blog

What’s the blog about? Climate science. Who’s it for? People interested in the science behind the climate stories we read about every day. People who want to learn. People who want to c…

scienceofdoom.com

Dr. Steven Carson has been teaching the Summer II Oceanography course for GEMS since 2008. He received his BA from Brown University and Ph.D. from Columbia University in Geochemistry. After 8 years of college teaching, mostly environmental science at Barnard College, Steve was a researcher at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ for 10 years modeling ocean chemistry. At GFDL, he started doing classroom presentations and teacher workshops and joined the faculty of Princeton University’s QUEST summer professional development program teaching science to teachers. These experiences inspired Steve to become a public school teacher through New Jersey’s alternate route program and he has taught full time at John Witherspoon Middle School in Princeton since 2002. Steve received the New Jersey Outstanding Earth Science Teacher (OEST) Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) in 2013 in recognition of his teaching excellence at the K-12 level.

 

[rahl]

He has made millions on carbon credit trading. The entire AGW scam has taken a financial life of its own.

Prove it’s a scam. Publish your research which disproves the entire scientific community.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Do you mean the picket fence idea?

I am a bit weak on the spectral lines, but if I recall correctly, other lines between do not matter. I think of it like my first career. Telecommunications and the 3 dB width. I think of it as rhe effect being wider rhan rhe discrete value.

My understanding is that a similar idea applies to CO2, not just water vapor.

Water vapor lines are smeared near the ground, but they still leave lots of tiny gaps, especially around 8 to 14 microns, the part of the infrared spectrum where Earth gives off the most heat. And you can see indications of this in your own graphs:

Post in thread 'Pentagon Halts Critical Hurricane Data Feed, Raising Alarm Ahead of Peak Storm Season'

Jul 1, 2025

What you're posting here is straight-up climate science denialism:

1. NASA's rebuttal:

View attachment 67577560

"All atmospheric gases have a unique pattern of energy absorption: they absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in wavelengths (12-15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the “window” through which heat radiated by the surface would normally...

• Lord of Planar

CO2's lines also spread, and those "wings" slide into the gaps and grab more of the escaping heat.

As you climb higher, water vapor fades to almost nothing while CO2 stays evenly mixed, so CO2's wings become the main barrier to outgoing heat in the thin, dry upper air.

That's why extra CO2 keeps slowing Earth's heat loss, and therefore warming the surface, even though water vapor is thick near the ground.

When we add more CO2 the wings get deeper, soaking up still more energy across the width they cover.

More CO2 also pushes the average escape height higher, and because that higher layer is colder, it radiates less efficiently.

CO2 acts like a blanket that keeps adding thicker layers to itself.

That is my understanding. Does it match yours?

And just to be clear: do you agree water vapor isn't a solid, impenetrable shield?

And just to be clear: do you agree that heat still works its way upward, and that high up it is mainly CO2, not water vapor, blocking the last of the heat?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

After so many years saying mostly the same things year after year, people do not listen. I decided I can only point people in the right direction. Most often what I say is dismissed with no consideration. So why should I care when others just want to regergitate propaganda instead of actually learning the topic?

The vast majority of the population, including members of this forum, simply do not have the patience, education, or experience to argue with you about the specific details of this topic. It's not more complicated than that. So, if your goal is to persuade others you have to teach them at the same time you persuade them. There is no way around it. And, yes, in addition to teaching them you have to put up with people just being rude or not willing to listen, but this is the world we live in. This is our reality. This what debating about politics an informal debate forum is all about.

I also understand that it takes an enormous amount of effort to do this, and no one is paying you to do it. So I don't blame you.

Thats just it. I dont really care if I persuade you or others.

That's perfectly fine. You don't need to say anything more if you don't feel like it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Be specific. It's clear you think the Verheggen survey does not capture the true opinions of climate scientists. Can you articulate why you think the Verheggen survey does not capture the true opinions of climate scientists, specifically?

I thought I covered that. The names are known. The opinion is on record. Human nature has people saying what the powers to be want to hear to be part of the team. The better writers have of claiming they are believers, the more likely they are to ce chosen for more research papers.

Even those who actually believe the idea, for at least the third time....

It does not matter what the believe. What matters is what they can show with credible evidence. Opinion does not matter is science. What matters is what can be shown with facts.

Do you agree, at the very least, that 65% of climate scientists believe in the theory of AGW as indicated by Verheggen's survey?

I forget the specifics of that study. As the idea that we have the majority of effects with the net sum of out activities? Yes. Not greenhouse gasses alone.

There appears to be no survey you accept. You give the impression that you think every single thing I present is bullshit, so should I just give up showing you surveys that prove the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW?

Even if I accepted they are honest in their opinion, That actually detracts from my view of them as scientists. Maybe I prefer to believe they are gaming the system for personal benefit instead of actually believing what cannot be proven. I think we all understand the self interest and human nature that I suggest. I want the scientists to have proper scientific skepticism. Again, it is what they can prove. Not what they believe, that matters.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Be specific. Can you articulate what exactly you think hasn't been validated that needs to be validated with respect to AGW? Your posts a little confusing, you're all over the place. Sometimes you say you agree with basic mechanisms of AGW and claim the scientists are just not calculating everything correctly, but then you do things like reference conspiracy theories and bring up talking points common amongst climate science deniers, like the CO2 saturation myth.

I have no doubt that what we consider AGW that it is true. The combined land use changes, pollutants, and greenhouse gas effects are real.

Again, what I disagree with is the quantification of each variable.

Human activities like using coal, oil, and gas for energy release gases into the air that trap heat from the sun. Gases like CO2 build up in the atmosphere and make the Earth warmer over time. This extra trapped heat is what causes global warming. The consensus of the scientific community is that human activities, particularly the release of CO2, is the dominant reason why the Earth is warming. This is the issue put simply. This is AGW. Now, can you tell me what part of this theory you think hasn't been validated by the papers, or hasn't been validated through a synthesis of human civilization's body of knowledge about the climate?

The only part of this that has been validated in my viewpoint is the accelerated melting of ice from soot, and other pollutants, and the heat changes from land use changes. I accept the idea that greenhouse gasses trap heat. The ideas in science are very solid that we have such spectral physics in play in the atmosphere. What I do not accept is the high values that the IPCCC and others claim CO2 has. The math does not add up to get the sensitivity that ask us to believe. I believe the sensitivity of CO2 is about 0.5 degrees, and no more that 1 degree. But then, I have no way of proving that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think you're spending much time reading my posts.

You are correct. I have too much happening in real life right now.

I used three different sources to rebut your CO2 saturation myth argument, none of them were Cook's blog.

1. The RealClimate blog's contributors can be found here, all are professional, working climate scientists:

RealClimate

Biographies of contributing authors

www.realclimate.org

My mistake. That is Gavin's blog. please note that he is a prolific scientist when it comes to papers, but he cannot prove in his papers what he claims as fact in the blog.

Cook also has a blog.

2. I also gave you a link to the AIP website (American Institute of Physics (AIP)):

The Discovery of Global Warming

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics.

history.aip.org

“The site was developed and written by Spencer Weart, who was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics from 1974 to 2009. He is trained as a physicist and historian, and is the author of several books including The Discovery of Global Warming (Harvard University Press, 2003).”

Yes, I skipped the link and just didn't take the time for it.

3. I also gave you a third link from the Science of Doom blog written by someone named Steve Carson. The blog is anonymous, but commentary on internet suggests the blog is authored by the following Steve Carson:

About this Blog

What’s the blog about? Climate science. Who’s it for? People interested in the science behind the climate stories we read about every day. People who want to learn. People who want to c…

scienceofdoom.com

Dr. Steven Carson has been teaching the Summer II Oceanography course for GEMS since 2008. He received his BA from Brown University and Ph.D. from Columbia University in Geochemistry. After 8 years of college teaching, mostly environmental science at Barnard College, Steve was a researcher at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ for 10 years modeling ocean chemistry. At GFDL, he started doing classroom presentations and teacher workshops and joined the faculty of Princeton University’s QUEST summer professional development program teaching science to teachers. These experiences inspired Steve to become a public school teacher through New Jersey’s alternate route program and he has taught full time at John Witherspoon Middle School in Princeton since 2002. Steve received the New Jersey Outstanding Earth Science Teacher (OEST) Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) in 2013 in recognition of his teaching excellence at the K-12 level.

Skipped this too.

I rarely ever visit a blog. I only go to them to see what others reference, and never trust them. I always seek out source material. The only blog I have ever trusted was "The Rocket Scientists Journal." It is long gone, but had very good explanations regarding solar and CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

My understanding is that a similar idea applies to CO2, not just water vapor.

Water vapor lines are smeared near the ground, but they still leave lots of tiny gaps, especially around 8 to 14 microns, the part of the infrared spectrum where Earth gives off the most heat. And you can see indications of this in your own graphs:

Post in thread 'Pentagon Halts Critical Hurricane Data Feed, Raising Alarm Ahead of Peak Storm Season'

Jul 1, 2025

What you're posting here is straight-up climate science denialism:

1. NASA's rebuttal:

View attachment 67577560

"All atmospheric gases have a unique pattern of energy absorption: they absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in wavelengths (12-15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the “window” through which heat radiated by the surface would normally...

• Lord of Planar

CO2's lines also spread, and those "wings" slide into the gaps and grab more of the escaping heat.

The wings matter little. They quickly drop to only 1% of the middle values which becomes insignificant. We do not clearly know the overlap in that approximate 15 micron center, and that is the only place CO2 can have any significant effect for returning downward longwave. Do you remember me showing you the shape of the curves by spectralcalc, in both the log10 and linear?

As you climb higher, water vapor fades to almost nothing while CO2 stays evenly mixed, so CO2's wings become the main barrier to outgoing heat in the thin, dry upper air.

That's why extra CO2 keeps slowing Earth's heat loss, and therefore warming the surface, even though water vapor is thick near the ground.

When we add more CO2 the wings get deeper, soaking up still more energy across the width they cover.

More CO2 also pushes the average escape height higher, and because that higher layer is colder, it radiates less efficiently.

CO2 acts like a blanket that keeps adding thicker layers to itself.

That is my understanding. Does it match yours?

Yes, when only looking at upward longwave captured and redirected. However in your previous lined image, the spectral interference at arounf 2, 2.8, and 4.3 microns is now interacting with the incoming solar and redirecting some of it back outward. Increased CO2 is reducing ASR. Not by any huge number, but this needs to be subtracted from the net total. Any reduced ASR has a total reduction of a little over 2 times what the reduction is, because it reduces the absorbed solar to the solar and atmosphere, which reduces the atmospheric heat response. All these variables interact with each other. The forcing from greenhouse gasses increase and decrease as the heat source increases or decreases. Therefore, returned solar outward from CO2 in the upper atmosphere decreases the surface and atmosphere heat. The reduced atmosphere heat reduces the backradiation. The reduced ASR reduces the heat of the surface by the sun, which reduces the total surface longwave upward, reducing the heat source for the greenhouse effect.

And just to be clear: do you agree water vapor isn't a solid, impenetrable shield?

Of course not. But I consider the spectral lines as "fuzzy," still trapping heat in the gaps in that picket fence.

And just to be clear: do you agree that heat still works its way upward, and that high up it is mainly CO2, not water vapor, blocking the last of the heat?

there is probably a better word than "blocking," but I cannot think of it at the moment.

When CO2 captures heat, it releases it in a random direction. Net per molecule half up and half down. CO2 like anything else also emits energy based on temperature. The stratosphere is much colder than the near surface in the troposphere by our standards, but we use the Kelvin scale for such calculations. If we assume a 288 degree surface temperature and a 250 degree for 40 km, the radiance is about 57% of the near surface.

That is probably a bad comparison. The temperature drops near linear until about 10 km up. The atmospheric pressure is about 20% that of the surface. The temperature around 220 K. The radiance is only about 34% of the surface, but cold by human standards still is significant in the heat it emits. It also changes from the earths region. I used "US Standard:"



Just looking at a graph is too arbitrary for actual numbers, but it does give a sense of general limits.

 

[Volunteer]

Be specific. Can you articulate what exactly you think hasn't been validated that needs to be validated with respect to AGW?
The consensus of the scientific community is that human activities, particularly the release of CO2, is the dominant reason why the Earth is warming. Now, can you tell me what part of this theory you think hasn't been validated by the papers?

We cannot expect a substantiated answer from him.