They still do not have the empirical evidence, and you cannot that they do.
Wow...
Yes.
Bullish. Stop lying about what I say.
OK I'll bite (yet again).
arxiv.org
We have been over this, and you have never cited a study with empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
You obviously think all the science abstracts are written by media talking heads.
Correction: that's just something you have asserted, with no supporting evidence. Pretty wild claim. Let's see some evidence for it. Quote us from the bodies of the papers where it shows that the conclusions in the abstracts are wrong.
Repeating nonsense over and over again does not make it less nonsense.
LOL... Do you ever read and understand such material?OK I'll bite (yet again).
An authoritative recent study found that from 1960–2019, CO₂ contributed nearly 63% of total human-caused radiative forcing, with methane and N₂O adding 11% and 6%, respectively. They emphasize how CO₂ emissions dominate modern climate change impacts:
Carbon cycle and climate feedbacks under CO2 and non-CO2 overshoot pathways
Abstract. Reducing emissions of non-carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), complements CO2 mitigation in limiting global warming. However, estimating carbon–climate feedback for these gases remains fraught with uncertainties, especially under...esd.copernicus.org
Yes, and did you read it? I doubt you understood it at all. You seem to deny this:Here is a paper looking at the quantum physical chemistry mechanisms behind WHY and HOW CO2 does this:
Fermi Resonance and the Quantum Mechanical Basis of Global Warming
Although the scientific principles of anthropogenic climate change are well-established, existing calculations of the warming effect of carbon dioxide rely on spectral absorption databases, which obscures the physical foundations of the climate problem. Here we show how CO2 radiative forcing can...
So now your turn.
You may not be understanding the physics. The 5.4 W/m²/K value is not saying that 5.4 W/m² of forcing causes 1 °C of warming—it's an upper limit estimate for the climate feedback parameter λ, which describes how much energy is radiated back to space per degree of surface warming, assuming a blackbody Earth with no atmosphere. The IPCC’s 1.82 W/m² figure is the actual radiative forcing from increased CO₂, not the feedback response. These are totally different quantities. That’s why actual warming per W/m² is less than 1°C, due to Earth’s real-world feedbacks. Also, the bit about “recalibrating methane and N₂O” just means the authors are aligning their models with observationally validated forcings—that’s standard in climate modeling, and science in general.
See post #353: references showing why it does, and how it does it.
What’s your point? The growth in power generation in China is in wind and solar, not hydro.
A statement based on nothing and not representative of current trends.
We both read it wrong. They discussed feedback, but this isn't that.
Thank you for demonstrating that you do not know what empirical data means!OK I'll bite (yet again).
An authoritative recent study found that from 1960–2019, CO₂ contributed nearly 63% of total human-caused radiative forcing, with methane and N₂O adding 11% and 6%, respectively. They emphasize how CO₂ emissions dominate modern climate change impacts:
Carbon cycle and climate feedbacks under CO2 and non-CO2 overshoot pathways
Abstract. Reducing emissions of non-carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), complements CO2 mitigation in limiting global warming. However, estimating carbon–climate feedback for these gases remains fraught with uncertainties, especially under...
Here is a paper looking at the quantum physical chemistry mechanisms behind WHY and HOW CO2 does this:
Fermi Resonance and the Quantum Mechanical Basis of Global Warming
Although the scientific principles of anthropogenic climate change are well-established, existing calculations of the warming effect of carbon dioxide rely on spectral absorption databases, which obscures the physical foundations of the climate problem. Here we show how CO2 radiative forcing can...
So now your turn.
Yep. The 5.4 W/m²/K is the change in outgoing thermal radiation per degree of surface warming, assuming a perfect blackbody at 288 K—but that’s just a baseline. In the real Earth system, you're also right that this gets modulated by factors like atmospheric absorption, emissivity, and cloud cover, which is why the actual climate feedback parameter is lower—closer to 1.5–2.0 W/m²/K. And yes, at equilibrium, incoming and outgoing energy balance—that’s the whole point of climate sensitivity: how much warming is needed to restore that balance after a forcing like CO₂ pushes it out of whack.
First, simulations in climate science are based on empirical observations—they’re not just made up; they use satellite data, lab-measured spectra, and historical climate records to constrain and validate models.
Nope the citations in post # 353 do not show any empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
Sure they do. The first shows that it does, the second shows the mechanism through which it does.
Yes, I know.
Nobody has yet to show me, as many times as I asked, a quantification of this mythical feedback.
How about this. If the increase from 278 ppm to 390 ppm has the forcing of 1.82, on top of an absolute forcing of 500, then what does the simple math say?
As I have already shown and you clearly did not read, the simulations are based calculations of how
It is computed, not measured (Empirical).
Between 2000 and 2022 the CO2 level increased, but the assumed decrease in OLR never happened, as OLR increased!
No the first study is about simulations.
Feedbacks aren’t “magical,” but physically grounded and empirically supported. That's how nature works. Your Stefan-Boltzmann-based estimate gives ~0.26°C for CO₂’s direct warming alone, and that’s exactly right—but that's without feedbacks.
You keep denying an important fact.
Show the actual feedback.
Stop right there.
The fact that a CO₂ molecule contains a radioactive isotope like carbon-14 CO2 doesn’t make much difference in how it behaves as a greenhouse gas. Radiative properties—like how CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation—depend mostly on molecular vibration and rotation, which are only slightly affected by the extra mass of ¹⁴C. But even then, the shift is tiny and doesn’t change the overall effect. Carbon 14 isotopies of CO2 contributes less than 0.0000001% of total CO2 molecules, and its absorption spectrum barely shifts and overlaps with the dominant Carbon 12 CO2 spectrum.
OK. Then maybe you can show us any studies that say its role is negligible?
You’re right that when you look at a basic Earth energy budget, the instantaneous number for water vapor forcing may look small—but feedback isn’t measured by energy budgets directly. It’s inferred from how outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) changes with temperature. Satellite missions like NASA’s CERES and AIRS have shown that as surface temperatures rise, OLR doesn’t increase as fast as blackbody expectations, due to enhanced water vapor trapping more heat (e.g., Dessler et al., Science, 2010). That’s the feedback. And it’s not just theoretical—it’s baked into how climate sensitivity estimates are derived. Multiple studies (like Soden & Held 2006, and Sherwood et al. 2020) find that water vapor feedback alone roughly doubles the warming caused by CO₂ alone. So it may look small on a diagram, but its cumulative effect is large—and measurable.