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

[Lord of Planar]

When I do, it tells me there is no such thing. But I am still open to the idea that you're just not making all this up. So I'm thinking that all the scientific/observational support for all 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!

Well, Chat GPT is limited on what it can access.

I will find a few

Soot on ice:

Loading…

www.pnas.org

Loading…

www.science.org

Diminishing cloud cover, see post 165:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700584

I don't have time to keep looking. That's a start though.

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 what all this information you have access to is saying, 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!

I have often linked science articles. i just get tired of looking them up over and over when i have linked so many things over the years.

Is the AI paper paywalled? I didn't think it was. I didn't think I had special access to that paper.

 

[ataraxia]

Well, Chat GPT is limited on what it can access.

I will find a few

Soot on ice:

Loading…

www.pnas.org

Loading…

www.science.org

Diminishing cloud cover, see post 165:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700584

I don't have time to keep looking. That's a start though.

I have often linked science articles. i just get tired of looking them up over and over when i have linked so many things over the years.

Is the AI paper paywalled? I didn't think it was. I didn't think I had special access to that paper.

Sure. No one said soot was not a factor. The point is it's not the primary driver of what is happening.

 

[Bullseye]

They go to church? Awesome

Thanks for more demonstration.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sure. No one said soot was not a factor. The point is it's not the primary driver of what is happening.

When you do the math of the change of albedo on ice, you see it is. They just cannot make that claim outright and get published.

Look at the numbers and do the math.

 

[ataraxia]

When you do the math of the change of albedo on ice, you see it is. They just cannot make that claim outright and get published.

Look at the numbers and do the math.

Yeah sure OK if you say so. Because that's ALL climate change science is based on.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah sure OK if you say so. Because that's ALL climate change science is based on.

You only read what the IPCC cherry picks. You don't care what other real papers say. Then relying on a chatbot is wrong, in that it will always choose the loudest voice over the facts.

 

[ataraxia]

You only read what the IPCC cherry picks. You don't care what other real papers say. Then relying on a chatbot is wrong, in that it will always choose the loudest voice over the facts.

Not at all. I am completely open to reading whatever papers/references/links you are willing to provide.

 

[longview]

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

So it hypothetically might decline?

 

[longview]

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

Again your say so means nothing!

 

[longview]

Because I already have.

This is a lie.

So then prove me wrong and cite where you cited this imaginary empirical evidence that shows added CO2 caused warming?

 

[George50]

Yes TYPICAL leftist distortion.

How so? Perhaps instead typical connedservative denying reality.

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

Denying reality. The Republican bill takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

Just own up to it. That’s what you voted for.

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

Because that has absolutely nothing to do with what the effects of the bill are.

 

[ataraxia]

So then prove me wrong and cite where you cited this imaginary empirical evidence that shows added CO2 caused warming?

Some good review articles, with all the references to the individual peer reviewed articles at the end:

1. Bhatti et al. (2024) – "Greenhouse gases emissions and global climate change: Examining the influence of CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O"​

An environmental‑research journal review summarizing how rising CO₂ (along with other greenhouse gases) quantitatively traps infrared radiation and drives surface warming, backed by observational and modeling data bg.copernicus.org+6reddit.com+6reddit.com+6reddit.com.

---

2. Zhang et al. (2023) – "CO₂, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models"​

Published in Molecules, this review traces the foundational radiative‑transfer physics from Arrhenius and Callendar to modern Earth System Models. It concludes that while feedbacks affect magnitude, the direction — warming from added CO₂ — is “quantitatively robust” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

---

3. Vakilifard et al. (2022) – "Impact of negative and positive CO₂ emissions on global warming metrics…"​

Though focused on removal technologies, this peer‑reviewed study (Biogeosciences) discusses the transient climate response to cumulative CO₂ emissions (TCRE) — a well‑established near‑linear relationship between CO₂ emissions and global temperature rise bg.copernicus.org.

---

4. On the direct impact of CO₂ concentration rise… (2010-ish, IOPscience)​

A peer‑reviewed atmospheric physics article modeling CO₂ growth from ~290 ppmv to ~385 ppmv (1880–2010) and linking it to observed ~1.2 K surface warming through radiative equilibrium modeling iopscience.iop.org+1reddit.com+1.

---

5. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021/2022)​

Although not a single paper, AR6 represents the pinnacle of peer‑reviewed synthesis. It unambiguously states:

• “Human influence on the climate system is clear.”
• Rising CO₂ (from fossil fuels and land-use change) is the dominant cause of warming since the mid‑20th century en.wikipedia.org+2en.wikipedia.org+2en.wikipedia.org+2.

---

 

[iguanaman]

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?

The effect of CO2 on heat was discovered in the 1856. Surely you are not questioning it's validity now.

Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote​

The year was 1856. Foote’s brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming.

Carbon dioxide is an odorless, tasteless, transparent gas that forms when people burn fuels, including coal, oil, gasoline and wood.

As Earth’s surface heats, one might think that the heat would just radiate back into space. But, it’s not that simple. The atmosphere stays hotter than expected mainly due to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and atmospheric water vapor, which all absorb outgoing heat. They’re called “greenhouse gases” because, not unlike the glass of a greenhouse, they trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere and radiate it back to the planet’s surface. The idea that the atmosphere trapped heat was known, but not the cause.

https://theconversation.com/scienti...s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687

 

[iguanaman]

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?

Does adding a blanket make you warmer? This is how foolish you sound. Adding CO2 is the same as adding a blanket.

 

[iguanaman]

Well, Chat GPT is limited on what it can access.

I will find a few

Soot on ice:

Loading…

www.pnas.org

Loading…

www.science.org

Diminishing cloud cover, see post 165:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700584

I don't have time to keep looking. That's a start though.

I have often linked science articles. i just get tired of looking them up over and over when i have linked so many things over the years.

Is the AI paper paywalled? I didn't think it was. I didn't think I had special access to that paper.

Diminishing cloud cover are a predicted feedback of the temperature driven shift in the jet streams. You just can't catch a break...

Winds make storm clouds shrink​

Why are storm clouds shrinking? It’s mostly due to global wind pattern changes. The Hadley cell is widening. Jet streams are shifting toward the poles. The ITCZ is narrowing. These trends match what climate models predict for a warming planet.

The researchers also found that high-latitude storm clouds are retreating because of the warming-driven shift in jet streams. This creates fewer clouds in key cooling zones.

“It’s an important piece in the puzzle of understanding the extraordinary recent warming we observed, and a wake-up call for urgent climate action,” Jakob notes.

https://www.earth.com/news/clouds-are-shrinking-and-making-the-earth-hotter/

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not at all. I am completely open to reading whatever papers/references/links you are willing to provide.

Same here, with the propaganda you link. that is why I generally quote parts, but I don't have the time to waste for you today. I have posted and quoted material before, but you deny the science. Why should this time be an y different? Look at those other posts. I give quotes and links. I don't ask for anything that I don't normally do.

 

[MikePrime]

Scientist warn of xyz my entire life.

For some liberals its impossible to acknowledge that can you care about the climate and co2 output and also admit that there is alot of fearmongering and propaganda over the past 50 years.

still waiting on 75% of species to be die off and for Florida to be underwater.

 

[GOP Hippo]

I don't know that it's really even that. It's perceived as a wedge issue, and something the 'left' can use to demonize the 'right'.

Climate change is the largest source of spending worldwide. Suckers buy in with no proof of climate change. There are never any results to show any positive affects from spending on climate change.

With sucker countries, like the US, climate change reduces economic output and increases government spending.

 

[iguanaman]

Same here, with the propaganda you link. that is why I generally quote parts, but I don't have the time to waste for you today. I have posted and quoted material before, but you deny the science. Why should this time be an y different? Look at those other posts. I give quotes and links. I don't ask for anything that I don't normally do.

Nothing you have ever posted refutes the fact that CO2 is the Earth's thermostat. It cannot be refuted and it has plenty of scientific evidence that it is correct. Being the most prevalent non-condensing greenhouse gas makes it so.

 

[iguanaman]

Scientist warn of xyz my entire life.

For some liberals its impossible to acknowledge that can you care about the climate and co2 output and also admit that there is alot of fearmongering and propaganda over the past 50 years.

still waiting on 75% of species to be die off and for Florida to be underwater.

So you want to be the frog? The fact that you will not live to see the worst of global warming does not mean it is not a massive problem. Once the fossil carbon is released it is very difficult to remove and will affect the earth's climate for many 1000's of years.

 

[MikePrime]

So you want to be the frog?

Love it. Used to be an Al Gore guy when i was young. Used this analogy for other things, i abused the frog in the pot analogy in the 2000s.

I appreciate the concern for co2 output.

Do you not agree that there has been fearmongering and a lot of false predictions?

 

[ataraxia]

Same here, with the propaganda you link. that is why I generally quote parts, but I don't have the time to waste for you today. I have posted and quoted material before, but you deny the science. Why should this time be an y different? Look at those other posts. I give quotes and links. I don't ask for anything that I don't normally do.

Yeah sure OK.

 

[George50]

So it hypothetically might decline?

It’s flat now, plans are to go with wind and solar because it’s cheaper than coal.

 

[tshade]

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.

this is a poor attempt to distract & deflect............

Are you suggesting that most Trumpers are losers who do poorly in an economic sense?? People talking science have at least average brains. It ain't "rocket science" Pipewrench....

 

[dcsports]

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. [deflection removed]

Stop, read, think, then respond.

I didn't say "don't act". The US has been acting. I said, you can't decrease global CO2 emissions without addressing Chinal. And it's laughable to claim they have been doing more to address these than the US, when they own the issue.

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.

According to who? China? That is laughable nonsense. China has been adding coal plants over the past 4 decades - hence the issue. The US has been transitioning away.