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

[iguanaman]

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?

IMO there has been more denialism and selfish pushback than anything else. The misconception that AGW is a overnight phenomena instead of a generational condition is probably what you are talking about. Then there is is the fact that global warming at this rate is a unknown in that the Earth has never warmed this fast before. That tends to make any predictions more difficult. Scientists like to have precedents but most of the computer simulations have become very accurate with time.

 

[longview]

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.

---

1. Has no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.

2. says this,

We examine the mathematical quantifications of planetary energy budget developed by Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) and Guy Stewart Callendar (1898-1964) and construct an empirical approximation of the latter, which we show to be successful at retrospectively predicting global warming over the course of the twentieth century. This approximation is then used to calculate warming in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases during the twenty-first century, projecting a temperature increase at the lower bound of results generated by an ensemble of ESMs (as presented in the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

3. describes what I was saying, Warming from added CO2 is caused by decreasing the OLR.

During the positive emission phase, uncertainty in is dominated by the radiative feedback parameter (OL1) (R2 ∼ 61 %) (Table 2), which perturbs outgoing longwave radiation proportionally to ΔT (Matthews and Caldeira, 2007).

4. is looking at model results.

Using simplified global models the warming of the surface is computed and a relatively modest effect is found, only: from the reported CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere from 290 to 385 ppmv in 1880 to 2010 we derive a direct temperature rise of 0.26±0.01 K.

5. is Wikipedia that can be publicly edited.

 

[dcsports]

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.

We have been leading, and making great strides in both developing and implementing cleaner technology.

We have not addressed China. No one has. That's the problem. Improvements made across the world have been wasted by China (and India).

 

[iguanaman]

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.

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.

China has been bringing electricity to billions of people who never had it and coal was the fastest way to do it. At least China has embraced the concept of net zero CO2 emissions instead of the denialism of our current President. Until we can match China's production of green energy we are in no position to complain about their emissions. When are we going to shut down our coal generating plants?

 

[dcsports]

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%.

I have addressed, repeatedly. You haven't 'proved me wrong'. And you keep stating things that are incorrect.

 

[Cope]

Everyone should just move to Arizona, to get used to the heat increase. Then as it rises over the new few hundred thousand years, we can all migrate slowly north, until Canada decides that they NOW care about illegal immigration and not let Americans in.

 

[longview]

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

It may work, but that has more to do with a population who has never had electricity, reliable or otherwise.
In India they have something called the solar village kit Solar Village
While not the grid the 1st world enjoys, to have lights, refrigeration, fans and running water, is a vast
improvement over not having those things.

 

[Jezcoe]

We have been leading, and making great strides in both developing and implementing cleaner technology.

What is the official position of the President of the United States?

It's Drill Baby Drill.

What is the position of the EPA?

It's Drill Baby Drill

What is the position of the GOP controlled congress.?

It's Drill baby Drill.

Etc.

Etc.

 

[dcsports]

China has been bringing electricity to billions of people who never had it and coal was the fastest way to do it. At least China has embraced the concept of net zero CO2 emissions instead of the denialism of our current President. Until we can match China's production of green energy we are in no position to complain about their emissions. When are we going to shut down our coal generating plants?

They increased pollution massively, knowing they were doing so. They didn't care. It wasn't out of some sense of altruism.

Some goal may have talked about 'net zero' but they haven't embraced anything. Or even started down the path.

We've been closing down coal plants, and only have newer (cleaner) ones remaining as we work out a way to replace them.

 

[MikePrime]

IMO there has been more denialism and selfish pushback than anything else. The misconception that AGW is a overnight phenomena instead of a generational condition is probably what you are talking about.

But that exactly my point, is that at this point is history (2025) it has been 55 years of this talk, so its inherently not a misconception of it being an overnight event, but a real observation of the fact that its been 55 years later and many of the predictions have not come true. 55 years is not overnight.

Then there is is the fact that global warming at this rate is a unknown in that the Earth has never warmed this fast before.

The Earth has warmed this fast before and faster and many times before.

That tends to make any predictions more difficult. Scientists like to have precedents but most of the computer simulations have become very accurate with time.

So this statement admits that previous models of science have a larger degree of margin of error which these apocalyptic theories were made on.

 

[dcsports]

What is the official position of the President of the United States?
...

Etc.

So, deflection. OK. Thank you.

Actually, the position of the President of the United States is we shouldn't be so dependent on a country with terrible practices. I would prefer more targeted tariffs - tied to specific goals around pollution, human rights, and intellectual property, but we're subsidizing their bad actions.

 

[Jezcoe]

So, deflection. OK. Thank you.

How is talking about the stated official policy of the US in this matter a deflection?

 

[rahl]

Again your say so means nothing!

I know. Which is why there is a written record kept on the forum of the peer reviewed studies you’ve been given which you keep lying about. Which is why this is so hilarious in every thread you do this in

 

[rahl]

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

Already have. Numerous others have as well. Including this very thread.

 

[longview]

I know. Which is why there is a written record kept on the forum of the peer reviewed studies you’ve been given which you keep lying about. Which is why this is so hilarious in every thread you do this in

And you you cannot cite where in this written record you have supposedly presented a link
to the empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming. Why is that?

 

[longview]

Already have. Numerous others have as well. Including this very thread.

Again you say so has no value!

 

[iguanaman]

But that exactly my point, is that at this point is history (2025) it has been 55 years of this talk, so its inherently not a misconception of it being an overnight event, but a real observation of the fact that its been 55 years later and many of the predictions have not come true. 55 years is not overnight.

The Earth has warmed this fast before and faster and many times before.

So this statement admits that previous models of science have a larger degree of margin of error which these apocalyptic theories were made on.

What "predictions" are you referring to?
When has the earth warmed as fast as it is today? There is no evidence that it has for at least 24,000 years.

Since the start of modern human civilization, roughly 10,000 years ago, global temperatures have remained relatively stable and cool compared to earlier times in our planet’s history. We’ve established our agriculture, civilizations, our general way of life in this climate- but now we’re facing the fact that this climate is changing as more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.

An increase in greenhouse gases, released by volcanic eruptions and other natural processes, likely also caused the rapid warming trend that peaked with the PETM. However, this warm up took roughly 20,000 years- today’s will only take 200.

https://www.counton2.com/weather/a-moment-of-science/hasnt-the-earth-been-warmer-than-it-is-today/

 

[iguanaman]

They increased pollution massively, knowing they were doing so. They didn't care. It wasn't out of some sense of altruism.

Some goal may have talked about 'net zero' but they haven't embraced anything. Or even started down the path.

We've been closing down coal plants, and only have newer (cleaner) ones remaining as we work out a way to replace them.

China is the world's largest producer of alternative energy and more is going online every year. Less than 50% of their generating capacity is from fossil energy. There is no such thing as clean coal when it comes to CO2. Coal releases the most CO2 per watt of any type of generator plant.

In 2020, for example, China pledged to reach 1,200 gigawatts of renewables capacity by 2030, more than double its capacity at that time. At its present pace, it will meet that target by 2025, and could boast as much as 1,000 gigawatts of solar power alone by the end of 2026, an achievement that would make a substantial contribution to the 11,000 gigawatts of installed renewable capacity that the world needs to meet the 2030 targets of the Paris Agreement. Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China’s total installed generation capacity, a dramatic reduction from a decade ago when fossil fuels accounted for two-thirds of its power capacity.

In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined, then doubled additional solar in 2023.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/chin...uels now make up,thirds of its power capacity.

 

[rahl]

And you you cannot cite where in this written record you have supposedly presented a link
to the empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming. Why is that?

Proven lie

 

[rahl]

Again you say so has no value!

I know. The studies do, as evidenced by the written record of the forum. It’s so funny when you lie, get caught, and double down on lying. Then repeat this same stupidity in thread after thread.

Why have you not published your paper refuting the entire scientific community? What are you waiting for?

 

[ataraxia]

1. Has no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.

It's quantitating the linear correlation between the two. How much more empirical does it get than that?

2. says this,

So are you saying it's wrong in saying this: "These projections thus provide a compelling case that global climate will continue to undergo significant warming in response to ongoing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."

3. describes what I was saying, Warming from added CO2 is caused by decreasing the OLR.

So are you saying it's wrong when it concludes:"Hence, incorporating negative emissions enhances the ability to meet climate targets and avoid risk of continued warming after net zero is reached."

4. is looking at model results.

So? It's an established scientific model. Are you this upset with anyone using the heliocentric model of the solar system, the atomic model of matter, or the Newtonian model of gravity as well?

That's how science works. I thought you worked in the field.

 

[longview]

Proven lie

Again your words mean nothing without a citation! And your citations in post#462 did not contain empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!

 

[longview]

I know. The studies do, as evidenced by the written record of the forum. It’s so funny when you lie, get caught, and double down on lying. Then repeat this same stupidity in thread after thread.

Why have you not published your paper refuting the entire scientific community? What are you waiting for?

And you still cannot support your statement!

 

[rahl]

Again your words mean nothing without a citation!

Which you’ve already been given.

And your citations in post#462 did not contain empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!

 

[rahl]

And you still cannot support your statement!

Proven lie


Why are you so scared to publish your paper and receive your Nobel prize for disproving the entire scientific community? I don’t get it.