• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.
China is doing a lot to help. China is way ahead of us on EVs and building wind and solar to power them. Their government is very supportive of that effort.

We were doing a lot to help until January of 2025. Our government was very supportive of that effort.

Now we are doing what we can to make things worse. Our government is very supportive of that. We are in drill baby drill and kill EVs mode.

What could we do to help? Go back to what we were doing before and more. Stop Trump and other Republicans from fighting progress. One big area that could help would be for the US to quickly ramp up adoption of EVs. We are way, way behind the rest of the world.
 
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.
AnnualPlot-2023-1-1536x846.png
We did warm, but not because of anything happening in the longwave spectrum, as it lost energy.
We warmed because more of the available sunlight reached the surface, not because of added greenhouse gases.
 
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.
Again, per capita is not helpful when discussing global emissions. Per GDP is better - and China is terrible there. But the problem is that global emissions is a game of addition - and we have to address the countries that are pumping out the pollution.

And we (US and most countries) have been working to reduce emissions (while increasing output). China and India have not.
 
science and facts = replicable experiments that confirm theories/hypotheses , which has never been the case with AGW ... people who claim that science is anything else are evil crooks that must be sent to prison for a very long time!
Then who do you believe??
 
Well they might want the models to actually simulate the climate as opposed to tracking a something that has no result.
Sure. That's called science.
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!
How do you know this? Seems more like wishful thinking and not wanting to take any responsibility, than an assertion grounded in facts and science.
 
Again, per capita is not helpful when discussing global emissions. Per GDP is better - and China is terrible there. But the problem is that global emissions is a game of addition - and we have to address the countries that are pumping out the pollution.

And we (US and most countries) have been working to reduce emissions (while increasing output). China and India have not.

China is already ahead of the US on this.

 
China is doing a lot to help. China is way ahead of us on EVs and building wind and solar to power them. Their government is very supportive of that effort.

We were doing a lot to help until January of 2025. Our government was very supportive of that effort.

Now we are doing what we can to make things worse. Our government is very supportive of that. We are in drill baby drill and kill EVs mode.

What could we do to help? Go back to what we were doing before and more. Stop Trump and other Republicans from fighting progress. One big area that could help would be for the US to quickly ramp up adoption of EVs. We are way, way behind the rest of the world.
The US IS doing a lot to help, and has been since the 70s. Not even just to combat 'global warming' - but because cleaner air and environment is better for everyone. Most of the world started focusing on it then. And we're still moving in the right direction, adding more alternative energy production, phasing out coal plants, and further developing and adopting EV technology.

China is welcome to join the party.... but they are VERY late to it. Any impact they have is likely way overstated. And even the changes they have made are often in the most destructive way possible. Their dam building projects would never be allowed in the US as they caused widespread destruction and displacement of people and wildlife. Sure, they've stamped out EVs... strip mining miles of earth to mine lithium and discharging residual there. (Worth noting the questionable environmental value of EVs at this point, given the environmental destruction to mine for the materials).

Again - back to the topic - greenhouse gasses. We can't reduce global emissions without reigning in China and India.
 
And we (US and most countries) have been working to reduce emissions (while increasing output). China and India have not.
Where are you getting this from?


 
Again, per capita is not helpful when discussing global emissions. Per GDP is better - and China is terrible there. But the problem is that global emissions is a game of addition - and we have to address the countries that are pumping out the pollution.

And we (US and most countries) have been working to reduce emissions (while increasing output). China and India have not.

China is rapidly expanding its use of clean energy, though coal remains a major part of its energy production.
 
There is a greater than a 95% chance that you are wrong and that we are the primary cause of the aberration in climate change.
I am not saying we are not the primary cause of the warming since 1979, there is just little we can or should do about it.
We spent perhaps centuries adding air pollution (Mostly SO2) to the skies, dimming the available sunlight.
In the late 1970 laws change and by 1985 the dimming had reversed to brightening, We released a lot of slow natural warming
in a few decades.
 
Sure. That's called science.

How do you know this? Seems more like wishful thinking and not wanting to take any responsibility, than an assertion grounded in facts and science.
How do I know that achieving Net Zero will not change the trajectory of the climate, Science!
The increases in CO2 between 2000 and 2022, did not add anything to Earth's longwave energy imbalance,
so stopping the growth in the CO2 level(Net Zero) will not change what is causing our energy imbalance.
We are shooting at the wrong target!
 
What "predictions" are you referring to?
Since you responded to me with an Al Gore analogy, do you really want me to go over the wrong things he has said or the things he has wrongly conflated with climate change??
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/


2024-global-temperature-anomaly-recap.gif
Blatantly false.

1750889972481.webp
 
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.

You're confusing definitions with assumptions. Just because we define forcing a certain way doesn't mean we assume its value, we calculate it based on physics.

Yes, CO2 is increased in the simulation, but the resulting energy imbalance is calculated. The model doesn’t assume how the system reacts, it simulates it using radiative transfer and energy balance laws.

They assumed the forcing is a physics fact, when it is not!

Nope. Climate models compute radiative forcing using known physics and real CO2 absorption spectra. They don't make it up, and they don't assume the outcome.

The forcing formula itself goes back to the assumption that CO2 is 20% of the total greenhouse effect.

That "CO₂ is 20% of the greenhouse effect" number refers to how we describe the current energy balance, it’s like labeling a pie chart.

But the radiative forcing formula comes from spectral physics, from how CO2 interacts with infrared light across the spectrum.

That 20% figure isn't something simulations assume, it's something they could output, after calculating how each greenhouse gas affects the planet's radiation budget.
 

Mike, this graph displays temps from Greenland only, not global temps. It covers thousands of years, not a few decades.

This is a common anti-climate science talking point, as well.


Please, try harder.

The rest of us have heard all of these pro-fossil fuel arguments before.
 
We did warm, but not because of anything happening in the longwave spectrum, as it lost energy.
We warmed because more of the available sunlight reached the surface, not because of added greenhouse gases.
Awesome. Publish your paper disproving the entire scientific community and collect your Nobel!
 
I am not saying we are not the primary cause of the warming since 1979, there is just little we can or should do about it.
We spent perhaps centuries adding air pollution (Mostly SO2) to the skies, dimming the available sunlight.
In the late 1970 laws change and by 1985 the dimming had reversed to brightening, We released a lot of slow natural warming
in a few decades.

You are saying CO2 emitted by manmade activities isn't the principal cause.

But the evidence is overwhelmingly against your claim.
 
Last edited:
We did warm, but not because of anything happening in the longwave spectrum, as it lost energy.

More energy is escaping because the Earth is hotter, but at the same time, the CO2 bands continue to trap infrared radiation.

As CO2 builds up, it blocks more and more of the infrared spectrum, especially in the wings of its absorption band.

While that's happening, the Earth becomes less efficient at shedding heat, because the radiation has to escape from higher layers of the atmosphere.

But the higher you go, the colder it gets, and colder air emits less energy.

So the big CO2 "blanket" keeps expanding upward, and heat has a harder time escaping.

This is why the planet keeps warming.

And the reason why you cannot accept this, I suspect, is because at some point in your life you were involved in an industry that contributed to the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, and you feel bad that you are potentially causing great harm to everyone else.

Remember when Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

We warmed because more of the available sunlight reached the surface, not because of added greenhouse gases.

This is almost certainly false. This is also an extreme, fringe view that is not held by the vast majority of scientists involved in climate science.

This is the kind of people folks involved in the oil and gas industry constantly talk about in an effort to morally justify their day-to-day actions.

I want to be clear about one thing though. I support the oil and gas industry. This industry is essential to our national security and our economy, but I think we need to transition, as quickly as possible, to other forms of energy production. But this first begins with the recognition of what we're doing to our planet.
 
So you think the future for Americans is making tube socks for the World?
We should be manufacturing everything including socks. We should be a world leader in manufacturing not having to kiss Xi Jinping's backside for a paper mask in a pandemic or any other vital equipment. We have millions of law abiding immigrants waiting to come into this country and do those jobs along with citizens. We need to send all the criminals back to where they came from here illegally and start doing things the right way. Now we got to hunt down all the Iranian sleeper cells Biden let into the country before they do another 911 or worse. With the ridiculous open border nonsense we are lucky if they haven't already brought a nuke into our country.
 
China is rapidly expanding its use of clean energy, though coal remains a major part of its energy production.
Yes, they rapidly expand their use of coal over the past 3-4 decades.

Repeating, but they're biggest expansion of 'clean' energy has been done in the most environmentally damaging way possible. And to the actual topic, they continue to increase the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.
 
Yes, they rapidly expand their use of coal over the past 3-4 decades.

Repeating, but they're biggest expansion of 'clean' energy has been done in the most environmentally damaging way possible. And to the actual topic, they continue to increase the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.

I like America. I don't like China.

But facts are facts:

energy.webp
 
I am not saying we are not the primary cause of the warming since 1979, there is just little we can or should do about it.
We spent perhaps centuries adding air pollution (Mostly SO2) to the skies, dimming the available sunlight.
In the late 1970 laws change and by 1985 the dimming had reversed to brightening, We released a lot of slow natural warming
in a few decades.
Despite the improvements by most of the world, we continue to pump out greenhouse gasses and particulate matter at an increasing rate, thanks to countries like China and India.

The world tends to mitigate harm over time. The issue isn't what we put out 'over a few decades' - along with Europe, but what continues to be pumped out.
 
Mike, this graph displays temps from Greenland only, not global temps. It covers thousands of years, not a few decades.
How do you think global temperatures are calculated before the 20th century?
This is a common anti-climate science talking point, as well.


Please, try harder.

The rest of us have heard all of these pro-fossil fuel arguments before.
Your link provides nothing and even says "After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees" without debunking it.

Scientific evidence shows that agriculture was able to be succeed at altitudes higher than today just 3-5 thousand years ago. There were warmer times in relatively recent human history.
 
How do you think global temperatures are calculated before the 20th century?

Scientists rely on a variety of methods, not just data from Greenland ice cores:

Antarctic Ice cores
Corals
Pollen
Tree rings
Caves (stalactites, stalagmites, and other formations)
Pack rat middens
Ocean sediments
Lake sediments


 
Back
Top Bottom