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

[rahl]

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

This is a lie

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

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.

 

[rahl]

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

As you know, because we’ve done this moronic dance in a dozen threads, I’ve produced peer reviewed studies. Numerous others have as well.

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

This is a lie.

 

[longview]

This is a lie

Um, Because you say so, is not evidence!
If you believe empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming exists in a peer reviewed study,
then cite the study, and prove me wrong?

 

[longview]

As you know, because we’ve done this moronic dance in a dozen threads, I’ve produced peer reviewed studies. Numerous others have as well.

This is a lie.

Well why not simply cite the peer reviewed study that shows empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming?
I know you cannot because no such study exists, but you continue to act like it does.

 

[longview]

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%.

Why do you think China's fossil fuel emissions as poised to head downward?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

If it is science and facts, then Trumpers are out.........

All the Trump supporters are know are retired people on SS who can't afford to heat and cool their homes because they are living on less than 20k year. Most have a small window unit running in 1 room that is still over 80 degrees. Most sit in the dark on their porch because they cannot afford anything but antenna TV or even the electric bill. While the rich lefties in Hollywood and gated neighborhoods like Pelosi are running several 5 ton AC units using more energy a month than they these poor people have to live on for a year are telling them they are using too much energy like they are the problem. I think the people talking science need to find a mirror so they can see who the problem is.

 

[George50]

Why do you think China's fossil fuel emissions as poised to head downward?

See post 397. dcsports chose to delete the supporting evidence I provided in his reply.

 

[Jezcoe]

All the Trump supporters are know are retired people on SS who can't afford to heat and cool their homes because they are living on less than 20k year. Most have a small window unit running in 1 room that is still over 80 degrees. Most sit in the dark on their porch because they cannot afford anything but antenna TV or even the electric bill. While the rich lefties in Hollywood and gated neighborhoods like Pelosi are running several 5 ton AC units using more energy a month than they these poor people have to live on for a year are telling them they are using too much energy like they are the problem. I think the people talking science need to find a mirror so they can see who the problem is.

I love this thing where the Trump supporters are the downtrodden and the left are all elites.

It makes things a lot simpler when deciding what policy should be.

 

[George50]

All the Trump supporters are know are retired people on SS who can't afford to heat and cool their homes because they are living on less than 20k year. Most have a small window unit running in 1 room that is still over 80 degrees. Most sit in the dark on their porch because they cannot afford anything but antenna TV or even the electric bill. While the rich lefties in Hollywood and gated neighborhoods like Pelosi are running several 5 ton AC units using more energy a month than they these poor people have to live on for a year are telling them they are using too much energy like they are the problem. I think the people talking science need to find a mirror so they can see who the problem is.

And yet these Trump supporters voted for Republicans to take money away from themselves and others in similar circumstances and give it to those lefties you describe and the super wealthy like Elon Musk.

Perhaps one of the greatest mass con games ever. Take $1,000 from the poorest people that you describe and give $389,300 to the wealthiest.



And this doesn’t even include the pain from any of the Trump tariffs that your seniors will endure!

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes when pushed these deniers become so desperate that the deny even basic 3rd grade science like the greenhouse effect.

Nobody denies these gas bottle performances. The problem is when you add the correct ratio of CO2 and water vapor. now most of them are done in an unscientific manner, but it does show an effect.

Have one that is completely scientific you would like to show us?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’m thrilled to experience this extreme weather that’s happening tomorrow as promised since the early 70s.

So far, we had maybe three hot days. This might be a cooler than normal summer.

 

[rahl]

Um, Because you say so, is not evidence!

I know. Because you are lying and have been proven to be lying.

If you believe empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming exists in a peer reviewed study,
then cite the study, and prove me wrong?

 

[rahl]

Well why not simply cite the peer reviewed study that shows empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming?

Because I already have.

I know you cannot because no such study exists, but you continue to act like it does.

This is a lie.

 

[SuperDS77]

And yet these Trump supporters voted for Republicans to take money away from themselves and others in similar circumstances and give it to those lefties you describe and the super wealthy like Elon Musk.

Perhaps one of the greatest mass con games ever. Take $1,000 from the poorest people that you describe and give $389,300 to the wealthiest.

View attachment 67576426

And this doesn’t even include the pain from any of the Trump tariffs that your seniors will endure!

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

No person is being "given" $389k.

Perhaps a chart showing how much each group pays in taxes and the proportional cuts would be more helpful.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, feedbacks do not always lead to runaway scenarios. More often they just lead to a new equilibrium.

Ah... No!!!

If it is called feedback, has a greater than unity return, then it is a lie, or it would lead to a runaway condition.

Feedback cannot be greater than unity, else you have a runaway condition. If the factors truly are a greater than unity condition, and we do not have thermal runaway, then we have maxed out what the earth is capable of heating to, from greenhouse gasses.

You cannot have more warming, in under a greater than unity feedback, the warming does not runaway.

It's like a guitar amp when they purposely cause feedback., the amplifier only has so much power, and you get no more power when you hit the limit.

I guess you are claiming then, without realizing it, that added CO2 will not cause any more warming.

References to papers showing that is the major factor?

They have been shown time and again. One specific paper places the soot warming at 1.1 W/m^2 global.

Most papers never try to claim it is the major factor for ice melt, I bet, in fear they would not be published, the math is easy to determine when they show the numbers of how much soot drops the albedo of snow and ice.

It's true that solar input dwarfs CO₂'s radiative forcing and that adding ~1.8–3 W/m² from increased CO₂ seems small in comparison. But climate change isn’t about the size of the total energy flow—it’s about imbalances in that flow and amplify over time through feedback loops. Even a small persistent imbalance—like the ~1 W/m² Earth is currently retaining—can cause massive changes when sustained for decades or centuries.

Yes, and changes in ASR, dwarf the changes in CO2 forcing. Like the cloud cover percentages I showed in an earlier post. they both heat the surface, and the ASR has been increasing far greater than CO2 forcing. To top that off, the indirect effects of solar changes are almost two times higher than the solar changes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As for melting ice: there's actually strong empirical evidence that small radiative forcings, particularly from GHGs, contribute to ice melt and albedo feedback.

No denial that it "contributes." But that contribution from rising CO2 is far less than the contribution of soot.

The Arctic has lost nearly 50% of its summer sea ice since 1980, while global temperature has increased by just over 1 °C.

The melting is primarily from the ice losing albedo. The soot makes it absorb more sunlight, heating it significantly faster than with no soot.

Paleoclimate records (e.g., from the Last Interglacial and mid-Pliocene) also show that modest CO₂ increases were associated with significant ice retreat and sea level rise.

Yes, and?

Yes. the CO2 followed the ice retreat. That is clear in any paper that shows the proxy records of CO2, temperature, and sea level.

As the earth system heats up, the added energy first goes to melting ice. We see a sea level rise first. There is almost no indication of temperature increase foe a while. We then see CO2 levels rise as the oceans warm. See most often see CO2 lagging temperature, but a few sample sets will show the CO2 leading. regardless, in all cases, the ice retreat, hence added heat (warming) occur first.

So the key point is that feedbacks amplify small forcings, and the Earth system responds to relative changes in energy balance—not just raw totals.

Who knew science was complicated like that?

It is far more complicated than you think. I do understand how complex it is.

It's true that soot plays a role, especially near melting glaciers or ice sheets- but it's a secondary one, not primary.

Nope. Soot is primary in most, if not all regions we have accelerated ice melt.

The dominant primary cause of widespread ice melt and Arctic sea ice loss is long-term warming from CO₂ and other greenhouse gases—as confirmed by both observations and attribution studies. We can get into some of the specific studies and observations looking at the relative role of each, and the mechanisms involved, if you like. It's just that I assumed you had read them.

You are reciting propaganda. Not science.

It's true that the system is not perfectly stable, and that’s precisely why scientists are so concerned. The Earth’s climate has historically responded strongly to relatively small changes in forcing, whether from solar variations, volcanic aerosols, or orbital cycles. For example, during the last glacial-interglacial transition, global temps rose ~5°C due to a modest shift in solar insolation amplified by CO₂ and albedo feedbacks.

I suspect that the proxy records showing only 5 degrees is wrong, that it is more than a 5 degree change. the polar caps and how that data is stored may indicate only five degrees, but globally a larger area of both hemisphere was covered in ice. When you average in a larger area frozen, you get much more than only five degrees.

So yes—small changes, especially in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) or albedo, like from soot or land-use changes, can have huge effects—but this doesn't negate CO₂’s role. In fact, it supports the idea that the system is sensitive to small persistent nudges, including anthropogenic CO₂.

CO2 only has a small role. It is not negated. It is just small.

Now about the 93-page paper—totally fair that it’s long, but I can pull specific, relevant excerpts for you if you're interested. And on "hard to reconcile"—that doesn’t mean “we don’t know,” it often means "data is consistent with multiple plausible mechanisms"—a normal part of refining science, not a failure of it. Just let me know what part you'd like me to quote or unpack.

 

[George50]

No person is being "given" $389k.

Typical. Deny reality. Some are being given much more. Musk paid $250,000,000 for Republicans to tilt the tables his way and he’s going to get a hell of a lot more than that back!

Perhaps a chart showing how much each group pays in taxes and the proportional cuts would be more helpful.

Just trying to try to deflect from what is actually happening.


From your signature:

“Let us be thankful for the fools”...that’s what the big donors are thinking.​

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

Yes, we know that is the common narrative.

So?

Do you have a point? You listed a static average. The ASR has been increasing because the "roughly 29% to 30% is reflected" has been decreasing over the years.

 

[ataraxia]

No denial that it "contributes." But that contribution from rising CO2 is far less than the contribution of soot.

The melting is primarily from the ice losing albedo. The soot makes it absorb more sunlight, heating it significantly faster than with no soot.

Yes, and?

Yes. the CO2 followed the ice retreat. That is clear in any paper that shows the proxy records of CO2, temperature, and sea level.

As the earth system heats up, the added energy first goes to melting ice. We see a sea level rise first. There is almost no indication of temperature increase foe a while. We then see CO2 levels rise as the oceans warm. See most often see CO2 lagging temperature, but a few sample sets will show the CO2 leading. regardless, in all cases, the ice retreat, hence added heat (warming) occur first.

It is far more complicated than you think. I do understand how complex it is.

Nope. Soot is primary in most, if not all regions we have accelerated ice melt.

You are reciting propaganda. Not science.

I suspect that the proxy records showing only 5 degrees is wrong, that it is more than a 5 degree change. the polar caps and how that data is stored may indicate only five degrees, but globally a larger area of both hemisphere was covered in ice. When you average in a larger area frozen, you get much more than only five degrees.

CO2 only has a small role. It is not negated. It is just small.

You are making a lot of assertions. Are there any supporting references for all this? Because right now they just sound like a lot of personal opinions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are making a lot of assertions. Are there any supporting references for all this? Because right now they just sound like a lot of personal opinions.

Yes, for all of it. Ask your ChatGPT to look it up for you.

 

[SuperDS77]

Typical. Deny reality. Some are being given much more. Musk paid $250,000,000 for Republicans to tilt the tables his way and he’s going to get a hell of a lot more than that back!

Yes TYPICAL leftist distortion.

Not denying anything. The REALITY is that if the government TAKES LESS in taxes, that is in no way, shape or form "GIVING".

Just trying to try to deflect from what is actually happening.

Why not show a chart showing how much someone who has $4.3m in income pays in federal taxes.

From your signature:

“Let us be thankful for the fools”...that’s what the big donors are thinking.​

 

[Lord of Planar]

Regarding the use of tools like ChatGPT, I heard a blip on it and searched. I started a new thread:

Thread 'AI is making us dumb....'

Jun 24, 2025

So apparently, relying on AI is making people dumber. Not having to do the actual work, deprives the brain of learning.

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and Brain-only (no tools). Each completed three sessions under the same condition. In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to...

arxiv.org

Full PDF:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872

• Lord of Planar
• Replies: 34
• Forum: AI (Artificial Intelligence)

• 

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, for all of it. Ask your ChatGPT to look it up for you.

When I do, it tells me there is no such thing. Also, even with the references, I can't access the bodies of the papers- only usually their abstracts. So you're in a unique position to enlighten us all, and we are open to it.

I am still open to the idea that you're NOT just making all this up. Maybe it really is a giant conspiracy by the entire international scientific community for the last century and a half. So I'm thinking that all this scientific/observational support for your assertions may be buried deep somewhere in the bodies of the papers- you know, where it says all those secret things which contradict the abstracts of the papers like you say. It would be great if you could show us. Thanks in advance!

 

[ataraxia]

Regarding the use of tools like ChatGPT, I heard a blip on it and searched. I started a new thread:

Thread 'AI is making us dumb....'

Jun 24, 2025

So apparently, relying on AI is making people dumber. Not having to do the actual work, deprives the brain of learning.

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and Brain-only (no tools). Each completed three sessions under the same condition. In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to...

arxiv.org

Full PDF:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872

• Lord of Planar
• Replies: 34
• Forum: AI (Artificial Intelligence)

• 

Funny how you take time to post THESE links, but not to the science articles which you say you are subscribed to and to which we don't have access. I would think you would be eager to share this information which you have access to because you are subscribed to all these journals, and how all the propaganda we keep hearing from these science organizations is not really supported by their actual papers. That would be huge. I for one would be VERY interested. Thanks in advance!

 

[ataraxia]

Yes TYPICAL leftist distortion.

Not denying anything. The REALITY is that if the government TAKES LESS in taxes, that is in no way, shape or form "GIVING".

Why not show a chart showing how much someone who has $4.3m in income pays in federal taxes.

The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today.

www.theatlantic.com

Charity Can’t Replace Social Safety Nets

The federal government is big, and it intervenes. The question is, for whom?

sojo.net