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

[iguanaman]

The 22 years between 2000 and 2022 are important because it is the only period we had the capability to measure the energy paths in and out of Earth! Before that it was just speculation from half measures. What is unknown is if added CO2 ever reduced the OLR!

The OLR will continue to increase the warmer our planet gets. It is basic high school science. How much more it would be increasing without CO2 is determined by our energy balance numbers. We are way out of whack with our energy balance. It is a key indicator of AGW.


Here are some key numbers related to Earth's energy balance:

1. Incoming Solar Radiation:

• Total Solar Irradiance (TSI): The average solar energy at the top of the atmosphere is about 1,360 watts per square meter (W/m²).
• Average Incoming Solar Radiation: Averaged over the globe, this is approximately 340 W/m².
• Fate of Incoming Radiation: Roughly 29-30% is reflected back into space by clouds, bright surfaces, and the atmosphere. Around 23% is absorbed by the atmosphere, while about 47-48% is absorbed by the Earth's surface.

1. Outgoing Terrestrial Radiation (Heat):

• Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR): Earth emits thermal infrared radiation back into space.
• Atmospheric Emission: The atmosphere radiates a significant portion of this energy back into space.
• Surface Emission (Net): The net upward radiation from the surface is reduced by the greenhouse effect.

1. Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI):

• Definition: The EEI is the difference between incoming and outgoing energy.
• Recent Values: The Earth has a positive energy imbalance, meaning it's accumulating energy. Values for recent periods include approximately +0.76 ± 0.2 W/m² (2006-2020) and 0.90 ± 0.15 W/m² (2005-2019). Data for 2011-2023 suggests a value around 0.96 [0.67 to 1.26] W/m².

1. Storage of Excess Heat:

• Oceans: Over 90 percent of the excess energy since 1970 is stored in the ocean.
• Other Components: The remaining heat is stored in the land, ice, and atmosphere.

In summary, Earth's energy balance is dynamic. While historically close to equilibrium, human activities have caused a positive energy imbalance, leading to global warming. This imbalance is a key indicator for understanding climate change.

Google Search

 

[justoneman]

Yes and several times the earth has experienced mass extinctions that wiped out most all life on the planet. You point is?

You are correct. Your point?

 

[Parker_Chess]

They've been warning us for years and severe weather events get worse and worse

 

[longview]

The OLR will continue to increase the warmer our planet gets. It is basic high school science. How much more it would be increasing without CO2 is determined by our energy balance numbers. We are way out of whack with our energy balance. It is a key indicator of AGW.


Here are some key numbers related to Earth's energy balance:

1. Incoming Solar Radiation:

• Total Solar Irradiance (TSI): The average solar energy at the top of the atmosphere is about 1,360 watts per square meter (W/m²).
• Average Incoming Solar Radiation: Averaged over the globe, this is approximately 340 W/m².
• Fate of Incoming Radiation: Roughly 29-30% is reflected back into space by clouds, bright surfaces, and the atmosphere. Around 23% is absorbed by the atmosphere, while about 47-48% is absorbed by the Earth's surface.

1. Outgoing Terrestrial Radiation (Heat):

• Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR): Earth emits thermal infrared radiation back into space.
• Atmospheric Emission: The atmosphere radiates a significant portion of this energy back into space.
• Surface Emission (Net): The net upward radiation from the surface is reduced by the greenhouse effect.

1. Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI):

• Definition: The EEI is the difference between incoming and outgoing energy.
• Recent Values: The Earth has a positive energy imbalance, meaning it's accumulating energy. Values for recent periods include approximately +0.76 ± 0.2 W/m² (2006-2020) and 0.90 ± 0.15 W/m² (2005-2019). Data for 2011-2023 suggests a value around 0.96 [0.67 to 1.26] W/m².

1. Storage of Excess Heat:

• Oceans: Over 90 percent of the excess energy since 1970 is stored in the ocean.
• Other Components: The remaining heat is stored in the land, ice, and atmosphere.

In summary, Earth's energy balance is dynamic. While historically close to equilibrium, human activities have caused a positive energy imbalance, leading to global warming. This imbalance is a key indicator for understanding climate change.

Google Search

What your goggle search is missing is that CO2 forced warming requires the energy imbalance from the added CO2 to exceed the Increased Planck radiation!

 

[longview]

Yes and several times the earth has experienced mass extinctions that wiped out most all life on the planet. You point is?

The number of temperature cycles far exceed the number of extinction events.
Consider that Earth has had 8 major glacial cycles in the last 800,000 years but only one extinction event.

 

[snakestretcher]

And many go to church every Sunday. Your simplistic thought process is tragic.

They go to church? Awesome

 

[snakestretcher]

We do not know if added CO2 EVER caused warming, we only know that no warming from added CO2 could have resulted from
emissions since year 2000.
We are not doing nothing, as US emissions are falling while the population is growing.
At some level this means we are doing the same things, but with less energy.

We absolutely do now. Check CO2 mission before and after the Industrial Revolution.

Visualizing Changes in CO₂ Emissions Since 1900

How much do global CO₂ emissions change on a year-to-year basis? Here, we show the annual rate of change in emissions since 1900.

www.visualcapitalist.com

The History of Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Explore historical carbon dioxide emissions from 1850 to the present. See how the top-emitting countries and regions have changed over time.

www.wri.org

 

[snakestretcher]

The number of temperature cycles far exceed the number of extinction events.
Consider that Earth has had 8 major glacial cycles in the last 800,000 years but only one extinction event.

Earth has suffered five major extinction events throughout its history.

There have been five mass extinctions in Earth's history

When did the "Big Five" mass extinctions happen, and what were their causes?

ourworldindata.org

 

[dcsports]

My point is that complaining about China does nothing and no... we are not leading.

The current administration is rolling back the very meager regulations and incentives that have been put into place.

My point (looping back to the OP) is that we cannot change global greenhouse gas production without addressing China. We can't. If "complaining about China" does nothing, then don't complain about global air pollution. We have to address that country.

The 'US is not leading' is noise - the US has been leading, and has made a difference, as noted. Rolling back recent, poorly conceived, regulations is a non-factor.

 

[dcsports]

It’s overblown.

That is true and it certainly is being addressed.

Most of your post is deflection. I'll address this first one.

No, it's not overblown. It's a math equation. You can't reduce global CO2 emissions without addressing the country producing half of them, and still increasing production.

And very little is being done to address China, if anything. Probably the most effective thing that's happened is their embarrassment of having an Olympics there and putting on a global stage what they were doing.

 

[snakestretcher]

My point (looping back to the OP) is that we cannot change global greenhouse gas production without addressing China. We can't. If "complaining about China" does nothing, then don't complain about global air pollution. We have to address that country.

The 'US is not leading' is noise - the US has been leading, and has made a difference, as noted. Rolling back recent, poorly conceived, regulations is a non-factor.

Wtf? You want to wait until China does something before acting? What sort of stupidity is that? Moreover China is spending massively more than the US on both addressing emissions and cleaning up pollution. America remains, per capita, the world's worst polluter-and due to Trump's stupidity in removing EPA restrictions on emissions and pollution control, nothing will change until someone with a functioning brain reverses Trump's ignorance. America leading? Don't make me laugh.

On climate change, what’s a fair effort for US, China

China and the United States could share the carbon dioxide emissions crown. China is, by far, the world’s largest emitte

www.politifact.com

 

[snakestretcher]

Most of your post is deflection. I'll address this first one.

No, it's not overblown. It's a math equation. You can't reduce global CO2 emissions without addressing the country producing half of them, and still increasing production.

And very little is being done to address China, if anything. Probably the most effective thing that's happened is their embarrassment of having an Olympics there and putting on a global stage what they were doing.

Laughable nonsense. China has spent $546 billions, so far, toward addressing climate change and CO2 emissions, while America spent a paltry $141 billion. Much of China's spend is toward transitioning from coal-powered energy production to greener sources.

On climate change, what’s a fair effort for US, China

China and the United States could share the carbon dioxide emissions crown. China is, by far, the world’s largest emitte

www.politifact.com

Trump signs orders to allow coal-fired power plants to remain open

Move aimed at addressing rise in power demand for datacenters, AI and EVs, but environmentalists call it a step back

www.theguardian.com

Trump aims to boost coal, in part by ordering power plants to stay open

However, the executive orders will likely have little effect on coal-fired generation, according to analysts.

www.utilitydive.com

 

[Jezcoe]

My point (looping back to the OP) is that we cannot change global greenhouse gas production without addressing China. We can't. If "complaining about China" does nothing, then don't complain about global air pollution. We have to address that country.

The 'US is not leading' is noise - the US has been leading, and has made a difference, as noted. Rolling back recent, poorly conceived, regulations is a non-factor.

We can address China while leading on the issue.

The US has not been leading on this and any meager steps that we have taken are actively being rolled back as we speak.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Thanks Biden, and your policies that supported record oil production. Asshole.

 

[rahl]

I have been citing and quoting peer reviewed studies for what I am saying, what have you shown, besides that you do not know what empirical evidence means?

You have been repeatedly shown CO2, via peer reviewed research, is the main cause of the current warming.

 

[rahl]

Ah your statement of defeat, you are unable to field a scientific argument!

And back to you lying again.

 

[longview]

We absolutely do now. Check CO2 mission before and after the Industrial Revolution.

Visualizing Changes in CO₂ Emissions Since 1900

How much do global CO₂ emissions change on a year-to-year basis? Here, we show the annual rate of change in emissions since 1900.

www.visualcapitalist.com

The History of Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Explore historical carbon dioxide emissions from 1850 to the present. See how the top-emitting countries and regions have changed over time.

www.wri.org

Sorry your article citations are just that the CO2 levels have increased, a point not in contention.
The articles do not show any empirical evidence that added CO2 actually caused any warming.

 

[longview]

Earth has suffered five major extinction events throughout its history.

There have been five mass extinctions in Earth's history

When did the "Big Five" mass extinctions happen, and what were their causes?

ourworldindata.org

Yes, and thousands of temperature cycles, why would you relate one to the other.

 

[longview]

You have been repeatedly shown CO2, via peer reviewed research, is the main cause of the current warming.

No, you have cited sources that assume that CO2 causes warming from simulations that assume
that added CO2 causes a longwave energy imbalance via a reduction in the OLR.
The problem is that the assumptions are wrong, because now we have observed data showing the
greenhouse gas levels increased, and the OLR did not decrease.

 

[longview]

And back to you lying again.

No lie, you cannot produce a citation you claim exists, so you attempted to deflect to something else.

 

[rahl]

No, you have cited sources that assume that CO2 causes warming from simulations that assume
that added CO2 causes a longwave energy imbalance via a reduction in the OLR.

No. You’ve been given peer reviewed papers.

The problem is that the assumptions are wrong, because now we have observed data showing the
greenhouse gas levels increased, and the OLR did not decrease.

this is a proven lie.

 

[rahl]

No lie, you cannot produce a citation you claim exists, so you attempted to deflect to something else.

This is also a lie.

 

[longview]

No. You’ve been given peer reviewed papers.

this is a proven lie.

You have cited peer reviewed studies that make assumptions, but do not have empirical data
that added CO2 causes warming.

As for the assumptions used in computer simulations.
I have cited studies that say this.
CO2-Dependence of Longwave Clear-Sky Feedback Is Sensitive to Temperature

To compute the radiative forcing F2<em>x</em> (W/m2) at (CO2,T<em>s</em>), we simulate the OLR decrease per CO2 doubling,

Think about it for just a second, there is no measurement for how much positive energy imbalance an increase in
the CO2 level will add, so they assume a number. They make the assumption as good as they can by looking at the
line by line absorption curve and calculating the power under the curve, but it is still an assumption.
Now we have empirical data that shows added greenhouse gases caused a negative energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.

 

[longview]

This is also a lie.

Well when you could not produce a citation, your next comment was,

Then stop ****ing around, publish your paper disproving the entire scientific community, and collect your Nobel. You understand everyone knows why you and Lord haven’t and can’t do this right?

A clear deflection, since you could not argue with data!

 

[George50]

Most of your post is deflection. I'll address this first one.

No, it's not overblown. It's a math equation. You can't reduce global CO2 emissions without addressing the country producing half of them, and still increasing production.

And very little is being done to address China, if anything. Probably the most effective thing that's happened is their embarrassment of having an Olympics there and putting on a global stage what they were doing.

Interesting how you don’t want to address or repeat any of the things I stated in my post that prove you wrong:

China is basically flat on fossil fuel emissions and poised to head downwards soon.
They are ramping up wind and solar electric generation quickly.
They are way, way ahead of the rest of the world on EV adoption and plan to power them by wind and solar.

Even when you quote a supposed “fact” you are wrong. China represents 30% of global emissions, not 50%.