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

[George50]

Well Science attempts to set up valid repeatable experiments to test hypothesis,
The experiment set up to validate that added CO2 caused warming failed.
The CERES instruments were supposed to measure the decrease in OLR as the greenhouse gas levels rose,
but instead measured an increased in OLR!

The “experiment” as you call it did not fail. Greenhouse gas increases do decrease OLR. If all other factors were held constant, we would have seen a decrease in OLR. But of course all other factors were not held constant and those other factors caused OLR to increase more than greenhouse gases decreased it.

 

[longview]

This is not correct. That's not how the models work. The models start from first principles, and every consequence is a result of those first principles, which we derived from laboratory experiments and observational evidence. So, no, they don't start with the "fundamental idea that added CO2 caused an increase in the longwave energy imbalance by decreasing the OLR."



Your statement is false. We see the wings or bands of the infrared spectrum absorbed by CO2 gradually expand over time as CO2 levels rise, and all of this is predicted by the simulations and confirmed by satellite and surface measurements.

Lets review!
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,

They assume that the OLR will decrease as the CO2 level increases.
Here is another source
Why we get the same forcing for each doubling of CO2

It is well known that the radiative forcing (i.e., effected decrease in outgoing longwave radiation) from carbon dioxide is approximately logarithmic in its concentration, producing about four watts per square meter of global-mean forcing for each doubling.

They are stating that this is a well known fact.
The observed data is the opposite.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR)
that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

The greenhouse gas levels did increase between 2000 and 2022, so the OLR was supposed to decrease, but it increased!

 

[longview]

Climate change models don't assume that increasing CO₂ always decreases total OLR—they show that CO₂ initially reduces OLR by trapping more heat, but as the Earth warms in response, OLR gradually increases again to reach a new energy balance.

The paper you cited isn’t challenging that—it explores how the feedback strength (how OLR responds to warming) varies with temperature, not whether CO₂ causes warming in the first place.

Of course the models all assume that increasing CO2 decreases OLR that is the initial perturbation.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That is exactly what happened the CO2 levels lag the temperature by up to 800 years. This is an experiment that does work in the lab, colder water holds more dissolved CO2 than warmer water.

Yes, that happened, as a result of orbital changes, and then the CO2 caused more warming. You can see it in the graphs.

Again there is a hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming, but no empirical evidence that it actually happens.

This is just not true. And, again, you don't understand the definition of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be both laboratory evidence and observational evidence.

What we do have empirical evidence of is that between 2000 and 2022 the CO2 levels did increase, but the predicted decrease in OLR (required for the forcing to come from the longwave spectrum) did not happen, OLR actually increased slightly.

The models predicted a decrease in OLR at the CO2 absorption bands, resulting in less energy escaping, and then the Earth responding by emitting more energy across the rest of the spectrum.

And when we see the OLR increasing it's because the average temperature of the entire Earth is increasing. Everything is getting hotter.

You are focusing on one little piece, not the big picture.

 

[longview]

The “experiment” as you call it did not fail. Greenhouse gas increases do decrease OLR. If all other factors were held constant, we would have seen a decrease in OLR. But of course all other factors were not held constant and those other factors caused OLR to increase more than greenhouse gases decreased it.

I agree but the atmosphere is complex, and the other factors are not constant, the net results is that the
added greenhouse gases did not produce any positive longwave energy imbalance (And did produce a slight negative longwave energy imbalance).

 

[longview]

Yes, that happened, as a result of orbital changes, and then the CO2 caused more warming. You can see it in the graphs.



This is just not true. And, again, you don't understand the definition of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be both laboratory evidence and observational evidence.



The models predicted a decrease in OLR at the CO2 absorption bands, resulting in less energy escaping, and then the Earth responding by emitting more energy across the rest of the spectrum.

And when we see the OLR increasing it's because the average temperature of the entire Earth is increasing. Everything is getting hotter.

You are focusing on one little piece, not the big picture.

The observational evidence is saying that added greenhouse gases have NOT increased the longwave energy imbalance.

CO2 for example can only emit energy at less than or equal to what it captured, so any spread across the spectrum would be restricted to the OLR!

The Increase in Planck radiation is already included in the forcing formula, which is partly why it is a natural log curve.
A warmer Earth is a more effective radiator.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Lets review!

CO2-Dependence of Longwave Clear-Sky Feedback Is Sensitive to Temperature

They assume that the OLR will decrease as the CO2 level increases.

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,

Nope. You don't understand. The calculation is derived from the simulation, but the simulation itself is built from first principles physics. "Simulation" is not the same thing as "assumption." Climate models simulate how radiation moves through the atmosphere based on first principles physics.

A simulation is just putting physical variables into an algorithm based on known laws. That's all it is.

A simulation is like a fancy algorithm that takes known physical rules and input values, then calculates what happens. It doesn’t assume the outcome, it follows from the math.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

They are stating that this is a well known fact.

It is well known that the radiative forcing (i.e., effected decrease in outgoing longwave radiation) from carbon dioxide is approximately logarithmic in its concentration, producing about four watts per square meter of global-mean forcing for each doubling.

ASR - Atmospheric System Research

www.asr.science.energy.gov

What this author is describing is the result of calculations based on spectral data, it's not an assumption. You can argue that his calculations are wrong, or that the spectral data is inaccurate, but you can’t claim it’s just something he assumed.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

They are stating that this is a well known fact.
The observed data is the opposite.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR)
that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

This increase in OLR is exactly what was predicted. As the Earth warms, it emits more infrared radiation overall, it glows brighter. But the specific bands where CO2 absorbs remain suppressed. What matters is the total energy balance. The final result comes from the whole spectrum, and how the CO2 bands compare to the rest. That's what creates the greenhouse effect and keeps the planet warming.

Again, the Earth is a dynamic system. That is why the simulations are so useful. And absent a Second Earth, the simulations are the best tools we can use. It's the only practical way we can come close to performing a laboratory experiment on a whole other Second Earth. And as the simulations improve the need for a Second Earth decreases. The simulations are getting better at predicting the future.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The greenhouse gas levels did increase between 2000 and 2022, so the OLR was supposed to decrease, but it increased!

Because the whole planet glowed brighter across the entire spectrum! OLR increased because the planet got hotter, it's glowing more, just like the models said it would! The CO2 bands are still suppressed, and the wings of those bands keep expanding as CO2 rises! That's why we're still warming!

 

[W_Heisenberg]

CO2 for example can only emit energy at less than or equal to what it captured, so any spread across the spectrum would be restricted to the OLR!

You are not looking at the big picture.

Here's what's happening: as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the absorption bands widen, more of the surrounding spectrum gets blocked on the wings. At the same time, the atmosphere becomes more opaque to infrared radiation, especially in those CO2 bands. That means heat can't escape as easily, it has to make it to higher, thinner, colder layers of the atmosphere before it can radiate into space. But it's harder for heat to escape from those colder layers because cold air emits less radiation.

So the more CO2 we add, the more wavelengths get blocked, and the less efficient Earth becomes at shedding heat.

That’s what drives continued warming, and all of this is predicted with great accuracy by our simulations.

 

[George50]

Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

We are warming because of increased shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation, a portion of the spectrum where CO2 is transparent.

Actually your referenced paper paints a picture a little more complex than that.

According to your citation:

As far as the ASR is concerned it increased because:

We find that large decreases in stratocumulus and middle clouds over the sub-tropics and decreases in low and middle clouds at mid-latitudes are the primary reasons for increasing ASR trends in the northern hemisphere (NH). These changes are especially large over the eastern and northern Pacific Ocean, and coincide with large increases in sea-surface temperature (SST).

As far as the OLR is concerned it increased because:

The decrease in cloud fraction and higher SSTs over the NH sub-tropics lead to a significant increase in OLR from cloud-free regions, which partially compensate for the NH ASR increase.

However the citation also states that:

the weaker OLR change is associated with compensation between increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases and increased infrared cooling to space relating to the radiative response to warming

In other words OLR went up because there was more longwave radiation emitted from the surface (because of increased sea surface temperatures) and fewer clouds to help stop that radiation from escaping into space. On the other hand though there was increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases (increased greenhouse effect) which was decreasing OLR (thus increasing ERF).

Obviously, since the greenhouse effect does not stop ALL longwave radiation from the surface anytime that surface radiation increases OLR will go up, even if the greenhouse effect also increases!

So bottom line your statement should really read:

We are warming because of increased Absorbed Solar Radiation plus an increased greenhouse effect from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases.

 

[iguanaman]

They CLAIM to be making rapid increases in solar- they claim a lot of things that aren't true. They haven't been decreasing the use of coal - it's been increasing. And again, they've added to this massively over the past 3-4 decades. We're not talking about a span of a few years.

And looping back to the OP.... if you want to decrease greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale, you have to address China (and to a lesser extent, India). You have to address the countries that produce the most, and are increasing while everyone else is decreasing. Not clear why some are trying so hard to argue against that.

China Coal Production, 1981 – 2025 | CEIC Data

China Coal Production was reported at 4,710.000 Tonne mn in Dec 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 4,558.553 Tonne mn for Dec 2022.

www.ceicdata.com

View attachment 67576589

On a per capita basis China is far below the US in CO2 emissions. We emit nearly double the Chinese on a per person basis and historically we have added twice as much fossil CO2 to the air as China has. You keep forgetting that China has been upgrading their people at the same time as we are in a world crisis from AGW. If you have a way for China to provide electricity for all their people while not increasing their CO2 emissions please share it with them. They will be more than happy to hear you out. You are using China as a cop out for our continued high use of fossil energy when the reality is that we are the most polluting country on earth and the country that has contributed the most to global warming caused by fossil CO2. That is why we need to lead the way in reducing our dependence on fossil energy.

China's per capita CO2 emissions are significantly lower than those of the United States. While China is the world's largest emitter of CO2 overall, its large population means that, on a per-person basis, its emissions are considerably less than those of the US.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• US per capita emissions are significantly higher:
  According to Visual Capitalist, the US produces almost double the emissions per person compared to China. Specifically, the US emits around 14 tonnes of CO2 per person, while China emits around 8 tonnes per person.
• China's total emissions are higher:
  reports Climate.gov, despite the lower per capita emissions, China's total annual emissions have been the world's largest since the mid-2000s, surpassing the US.
• Historical emissions:
  according to the Carbon Tax Center, on a historical basis (cumulative emissions), the US's climate-damage responsibility is almost double that of China.
• Reasons for the difference:
  a post on Quora explains, the higher per capita emissions in the US are partly due to factors like greater reliance on personal vehicles and less use of public transportation compared to China.
• China's transition:
  a report on Carbon Brief says China is also investing heavily in low-carbon energy transition, including renewable energy and electric vehicles.

https://www.google.com/search?q=On+...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[George50]

I agree but the atmosphere is complex, and the other factors are not constant, the net results is that the
added greenhouse gases did not produce any positive longwave energy imbalance (And did produce a slight negative longwave energy imbalance).

Perhaps post 637 will make it clearer to you.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The Increase in Planck radiation is already included in the forcing formula, which is partly why it is a natural log curve. A warmer Earth is a more effective radiator.

I am going to rephrase your statement for the benefit of other members of the forum.

This is what you're saying in plain English:

"You don’t need to worry about CO2 blocking energy, because Earth will just warm and radiate more to compensate."

But what you're not accurately communicating is that greenhouse gases make it harder for energy to escape. So even though the planet is glowing more, some of that heat is still being trapped, especially in the ever-expanding parts of the spectrum that CO2 blocks.

 

[ataraxia]

Of course the models all assume that increasing CO2 decreases OLR that is the initial perturbation.

Sure, because the models have proven to work better that way. So why would you want to do it any other way?

 

[iguanaman]

The Importance of Manufacturing to the U.S. Economy​

Manufacturing is the backbone of the U.S. economy. As a critical driver of economic growth and innovation, manufacturing provides millions of jobs, fosters technological advancements, and ensures the stability of countless supply chains. It plays a vital role in national security, community development, and the country’s global competitiveness.

However, this industry has been under attack. For decades, manufacturing has faced a negative reputation. Many have viewed it as a “dirty” industry characterized by low-skilled, repetitive work in unsafe environments. This perception deterred younger generations from considering careers in the field, contributing to a workforce shortage and an aging employee base.


The narrative began shifting as technological advancements transformed manufacturing into a high-tech, dynamic industry. Modern manufacturing involves sophisticated processes, clean environments, and opportunities to work with cutting-edge technologies.

So you think the future for Americans is making tube socks for the World? Our economy has been advancing past manufacturing to white collar jobs. That said we have experienced a boom in manufacturing under Biden and now the industry has massive job shortages.

President Trump has been upending the global economy in the name of bringing manufacturing back. President Joe Biden signed into law massive investments aimed at doing something similar. The American manufacturing sector is reviving after decades of decay.

But there's something a bit weird undercutting this movement to reshore factory jobs: American manufacturers say they are struggling to fill the jobs they already have.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are nearly half a million open manufacturing jobs right now.

Last year, the Manufacturing Institute, a nonprofit aimed at developing America's manufacturing workforce, and Deloitte, a consultancy firm, surveyed more than 200 manufacturing companies. More than 65% of the firms said recruiting and retaining workers was their No. 1 business challenge.

Part of the story has been a tight labor market. There have been similar worker recruitment and retention issues in other sectors, like construction and transportation. But the shortfall of manufacturing workers is about more than just that — and with both major political parties pushing to reshore manufacturing, analysts expect the industry's workforce issues to get even more challenging.

https://www.npr.org/sections/planet...illing-the-manufacturing-jobs-we-already-have

 

[iguanaman]

We've addressed the per capita point MANY times, and it fails to address the topic. China is emitting three times the amount of CO2 of the US, plus much more particulate matter and other pollutants. The US has been decreasing CO2 emissions, and increasing output, for 3-4 decades. Again, if we're going to address GLOBAL output of CO2, that cannot be done without addressing China.

And yes, we absolutely should put political and economic pressure on them to do so.

Historically US cumulative CO2 emissions are double what China has emitted since 1900. We are the most polluting nation on earth and that is not going to change anytime soon. We need to cut our emissions far more than China does to make up for all the CO2 we have emitted since 1900. China is the world leader in green energy, why are we not the leader? We are falling behind instead. Where is the political and economic pressure on us?

Here's why China is considered a green energy leader:

1. Dominance in renewable energy capacity:

• China has the largest installed capacity of both wind and solar power globally.
  
• It accounts for a significant share of global renewable energy capacity, with some estimates suggesting it could reach half of the world's renewables by the end of the decade.
  
• China has been rapidly increasing its renewable energy capacity, with new installations often exceeding those of the rest of the world combined.
  

2. Leading in renewable energy manufacturing:

• China is the world's largest manufacturer of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, producing more than 80% of global supply.
  
• It also dominates the manufacturing of electric vehicle (EV) batteries and has a strong position in other green technologies.
  

3. Significant investments in green energy:

• China has been the world's largest investor in renewable energy, with investments often dwarfing those of other major economies.
• This includes investments in solar and wind power, electric vehicles, battery storage, and other clean energy technologies.

4. Supportive government policies:

• The Chinese government has implemented various policies to promote renewable energy, including financial incentives, subsidies, and ambitious targets for renewable energy deployment.
• These policies have played a crucial role in driving the growth of the renewable energy sector in China.

5. Global influence on the green energy transition:

• China's leadership in renewable energy has significant implications for the global energy transition.
  
• Its large-scale deployment of renewable energy technologies has helped drive down costs, making them more accessible to other countries.
  
• China is also actively involved in exporting green technologies and infrastructure to developing nations, contributing to global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Chi...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[dcsports]

Historically US cumulative CO2 emissions are double what China has emitted since 1900. We are the most polluting nation on earth and that is not going to change anytime soon. We need to cut our emissions far more than China does to make up for all the CO2 we have emitted since 1900. China is the world leader in green energy, why are we not the leader? We are falling behind instead. Where is the political and economic pressure on us?

We're talking about global emissions - now - and that has to be addressed with the countries who are pumping it out.

"Cumulative" I'm not going to add up, as it's essentially an educated guess in any case. Yes, the US and Europe put out more - half a century ago - and learned a lot from that. We're not the 'most polluting nation on Earth ' - that's China. Period. And we can't impact the global production of greenhouse gasses without addressing China, period.

Here's why China is considered a green energy leader:

Again, this is not the topic of the thread, but they need to prove themselves before they are considered a leader, for reasons previously discussed.

 

[iguanaman]

Except that the CO2 level did increase between 2000 and 2022, and the measured heat retention (longwave energy imbalance)
decreased, (less trapped heat). The simple examples do not match our complex atmosphere!

The temperature increases during that time are monumental and match the models well. You can't see the forest for the trees. CO2 is the earth's thermostat and there are mountains of data that support that. Plus we can see it with our own eyes.

 

[iguanaman]

We're talking about global emissions - now - and that has to be addressed with the countries who are pumping it out.

"Cumulative" I'm not going to add up, as it's essentially an educated guess in any case. Yes, the US and Europe put out more - half a century ago - and learned a lot from that. We're not the 'most polluting nation on Earth ' - that's China. Period. And we can't impact the global production of greenhouse gasses without addressing China, period.


Again, this is not the topic of the thread, but they need to prove themselves before they are considered a leader, for reasons previously discussed.

We can't address that fact the each American has 2 times the Carbon emissions of each Chinese and cutting our emissions would help immensely so..... We need to clean our own house before we look down on others. When our per capita emissions equal China then we can pressure them. That means we need to cut ours in half.

 

[dcsports]

On a per capita basis China is far below the US in CO2 emissions. We emit nearly double the Chinese on a per person basis and historically we have added twice as much fossil CO2 to the air as China has. You keep forgetting that China has been upgrading their people at the same time as we are in a world crisis from AGW. If you have a way for China to provide electricity for all their people while not increasing their CO2 emissions please share it with them. They will be more than happy to hear you out. You are using China as a cop out for our continued high use of fossil energy when the reality is that we are the most polluting country on earth and the country that has contributed the most to global warming caused by fossil CO2. That is why we need to lead the way in reducing our dependence on fossil energy.

Again, per capita is NOT HELPFUL when discussing global emissions of greenhouse gasses. The countries didn't develop at the same time, and lessons learned in the industrial revolution and new technology innovations should be followed by other nations. Developing nations other than China and India (and they aren't exactly third world) - aren't having the same issue. It's those two. Per GDP is BETTER, but really it's an addition game.

 

[iguanaman]

Again, per capita is NOT HELPFUL when discussing global emissions of greenhouse gasses. The countries didn't develop at the same time, and lessons learned in the industrial revolution and new technology innovations should be followed by other nations. Developing nations other than China and India (and they aren't exactly third world) - aren't having the same issue. It's those two.

So all the CO2 that the US has emitted over the years does not matter and neither does the per capita number. How convenient for you. The size of a nation certainly is important but ignoring that we are still #2 in world CO2 emissions and we need to do better. China is leading the world in green energy and you need to admit it. We need to at least equal China in alternative energy production before we can point fingers. We have a lot of work to do.

Renewable Energy Capacity:

In 2023, China had a total renewable energy capacity of 1,322 gigawatts (GW), more than double the US's 468 GW, according to Synergy Files.
China's solar power additions alone in 2023 exceeded the total installed solar capacity of the US and Europe combined, says Synergy Files.
China's renewable energy capacity reached 1,827 gigawatts (GW) by 2024, while the US had around 428 GW, according to Statista.

Manufacturing:
China dominates the global production of solar panels and other green energy technologies.
It produces over 90% of the world's solar panels.
China holds a large share of global production output in most green technologies and components, and this share has been growing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Chi...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[longview]

Nope. You don't understand. The calculation is derived from the simulation, but the simulation itself is built from first principles physics. "Simulation" is not the same thing as "assumption." Climate models simulate how radiation moves through the atmosphere based on first principles physics.

A simulation is just putting physical variables into an algorithm based on known laws. That's all it is.

A simulation is like a fancy algorithm that takes known physical rules and input values, then calculates what happens. It doesn’t assume the outcome, it follows from the math.

Sorry you are wrong the forcing from ether a doubling of the CO2 level (ECS) or a annual 1% increase (TCR)is loaded in as the initial perturbation.
They assumed the forcing is a physics fact, when it is not!, The forcing formula itself goes back to the assumption that CO2 is 20% of the total greenhouse effect.

 

[longview]

Sure, because the models have proven to work better that way. So why would you want to do it any other way?

Well they might want the models to actually simulate the climate as opposed to tracking a something that has no result.
As it stands right now the alarmist have many believing that achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions will change the future climate,
the reality is that Net Zero will happen because of market conditions, and the Climate will continue on whatever trajectory it was already
on. It it hubris to assume we can control the weather!