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

[George50]

He added greenhouse gases caused a negative energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum so they could not have caused any warming!

I showed you how you are wrong with exact quotes from the study you keep quoting.

Instead of just some random words, how about a quote from the study that supports what you are saying.

 

[George50]

Yes, human activity causes the air pollution to begin with an additional human activity changed the laws that later remove the air pollution.

Missed the point.

 

[ataraxia]

There is plenty of positive Net energy imbalance, all of it happens to be happening in the shortwave spectrum.
There is no positive longwave energy imbalance, and added CO2 can only change the longwave energy imbalance.

The idea that all of the current energy imbalance is in the shortwave (SW) spectrum isn’t supported by the data. In fact, both satellite observations and radiative transfer models show that CO₂ is reducing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in its absorption bands, and this is a direct contributor to the net positive energy imbalance. For example, studies using AIRS and IASI data (like Raghuraman et al. 2023 and Whitburn et al. 2021) clearly document decreases in OLR at CO₂ wavelengths, which is exactly what we’d expect if CO₂ were increasing the longwave trapping of heat.

It’s true that shortwave changes—like reductions in aerosol pollution or cloud feedbacks—also contribute to the net imbalance. But that doesn’t mean longwave forcing has disappeared. Both longwave and shortwave imbalances are measurable today, and longwave dominates the initial forcing from added CO₂. The shortwave side has become more important recently due to reduced aerosol cooling, but that doesn't cancel out the well-documented longwave contributions from greenhouse gases.

I am not going to bother with AI generated outputs.

These are references you can click on. Argue with the references, and if you think they are not relevant, let me know why.

 

[George50]

What is not to understand, the CERES instruments were put up on satellites to measure the energy flows in and out of Earth.
They recorded that between 2000 and 2022 Earth gained energy in the shortwave spectrum, and lost energy in the longwave spectrum.
The hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming, requires that Earth gain energy in the longwave spectrum, via a reduction in the OLR.

The study you keep quoting says that greenhouse gases reduced the OLR.

Increasing the CO2 level cannot alter the amount of available sunlight that reaches the surface.

It reduces the OLR which increases warming.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I suspect CO2 does not behave the same with the central band saturated as it does when it is not saturated.
In a sealed environment, CO2 would become all but transparent to longwave radiation, because of that metastable
state at 15 um. The vast majority of the molecules would not absorb anything for most of the time.
After an eternity in quantum time of tens of milliseconds, a molecule would drop back to ground state, and within
nanoseconds a new 15 um photon would excited the molecule back to a stable but transparent mode.
This is what Angstrom observed.
In a closed environment we add a high concentration of Helium to allow greater circulation back to ground state,
but our atmosphere is not 70% helium. Water vapor may fill this role, but only in the portions of the atmosphere
where water vapor exists.

This is the climate-denial "Saturation myth" on steroids, dressed up in technical jargon few people understand. I suspect the reason why you consistently fail to make your posts understandable to this forum's contributors, is that you don't actually want people to understand what you're writing.

Your argument has been refuted already.

There's no saturation at realistic CO2 levels. The atmosphere only fully absorbs a narrow slice around 15 microns. More CO2 keeps widening that slice and pushes the escape point higher up in the atmosphere, where it's colder, and heat loss is less efficient. Even at much higher CO2 levels, full saturation wouldn't happen "even if we increased the CO2 to ten thousand times the present level."

Read below:

RealClimate: A Saturated Gassy Argument

RealClimate: A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global...

www.realclimate.org

RealClimate: Part II: What Ångström didn’t know

RealClimate: By raypierre , with the gratefully acknowledged assistance of Spencer Weart In Part I the long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument was recounted in historical terms. In Part II, I will provide a more detailed analysis for the reader interested in the technical...

www.realclimate.org

 

[W_Heisenberg]

In most areas of expertise, this is true. It is not true in the climate sciences. Any scientist that steps across the line claiming we must do something, is drummed out of the scientific community.

Only in the climate sciences.

This is different.

There is no Second Earth to escape to if we mess this Earth up, and nobody wants to go to Elon Musk's harem on Mars with his 50 to 100 girlfriends.

We get once chance.

There are no second chances.

The conservative approach -- which no conservative seems to be adopting -- is to proceed with caution, not reckless abandon.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

So bringing electricity to billions that never has it means they don't care about their people? I never said they are abandoning coal I said their generating capacity is less and less dependent on fossil fuels something we seem to have stalled on doing. The idea that we should wait on alternative energy because China is using coal is ridiculous. We are still the #2 polluter of fossil carbon and we need to change that. BTW your graphs are out of date China now has 1000 GW of solar energy capacity. More than the rest of the world combined.

China’s installations of wind and solar in May are enough to generate as much electricity as Poland, as the world’s second-biggest economy breaks further records with its rapid buildup of renewable energy infrastructure.
China installed 93 GW of solar capacity last month – almost 100 solar panels every second, according to an analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Wind power installations reached 26 GW, the equivalent of about 5,300 turbines.
While estimates for the amount of power generated by solar panels and wind turbines vary depending on their location and weather conditions, Myllyvirta calculated that May’s installations alone could generate as much electricity as Poland, Sweden or the United Arab Emirates.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...up-or-government-can-stop-clean-energy-future
Between January and May, China added 198 GW of solar and 46 GW of wind, enough to generate as much electricity as Indonesia or Turkey.

“We knew China’s rush to install solar and wind was going to be wild but WOW,” Myllyvirta wrote on social media.

China’s installed solar photovoltaic capacity has now surpassed 1,000 GW for the first time, equivalent to half of the world’s total installed solar capacity

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...with-massive-build-up-of-wind-and-solar-power

Hi Iguanaman,

I apologise and misunderstood you I see now. Though China does not care about their people, but that is a completely different discussion for an other post. If they do something good for their people it is because of alternative reasons, likely money.

Yes, the rate at which they are installing solar is truly staggering. But keep in mind, they have 1.5B people and they are coming from no electricity just 40 years ago. So they do have a bit of catching up to do.


Joey

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The data is clear, our warming is happening because of events in the shortwave spectrum.

This just isn't true. This is a very common global warming denial talking point that the vast majority of climate scientists reject:

"If the CO2 effect was saturated, then increasing CO2 would lead to no change in the greenhouse effect. As satellite measurements (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007) and surface measurements (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006) all find an enhanced greenhouse effect at the CO2 and CH4 bands, this is empirical confirmation that the CO2 effect is not saturated.

Note that hotter objects emit radiation at shorter wavelengths. Hence the sun emits shortwave radiation while the earth emits longwave radiation. This is the basis of the greenhouse effect - shortwave radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere, warms the earth which then emits longwave radiation back out to space. This longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases. The enhanced greenhouse effect observed by the papers listed above are at longwave wavelengths, not shortwave. It's basic science."

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

We've just perused the empirical evidence that humans are raising atmospheric CO2 levels. In earlier posts, we noted that tallying up the planet's heat content shows that our climate is accumulating heat, proof of global warming. But is there any evidence that links the two? Is there empirical...

skepticalscience.com

"I have a new detailed explainer on aerosols. They have a major (but poorly constrained) cooling effect on the climate, masking about 0.5C warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would otherwise have occurred."

The role of aerosol declines in recent warming

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

skepticalscience.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do you allow others you tell you what to believe? I have read all those studies. You obviously have read none of them.

Oreskes (2004): 100% agreement from 928 Peer-reviewed papers on "global climate change" "[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

The 928 papers were divided into six categories:​

explicit endorsement of the consensus​

position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation​

proposals, methods, paleoclimate​

analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.​

Of all the papers, 75% fell into the​

first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly​

accepting the consensus view; 25%​

dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking​

no position on current anthropogenic climate​

change. Remarkably, none of the papers​

disagreed with the consensus position.​

First three catagories. Three different levels of agreement, with only the first of three agreeing greenhouse gasses had the biggest effect, the third of the three agreeing greenhouse gasses has at least a small effect.

Anderegg et al (2010): 97% agreement from the Top 200 most published authors (of climate-related papers) Anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for‘most’ of the "unequivocal" warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over

Talk about cherry picking:

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified​

each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE)​

for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence​

(UE) for ACC. We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively​

(i.e., all names listed) from the following lists: IPCC​

AR4 Working Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors,​

lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed), 2007​

Bali Declaration (212 signers listed), Canadian Meteorological​

and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names​

listed), CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and 37 signers​

of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film​

errors. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had​

a total of 903 names.​

These are all authors profiting one way or another from the agenda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Verheggen et al(2014): 91% agreement that Greenhouse gases have made the strongest or tied-strongest contribution (out of different factors considered) to the reported global warming of ∼0.8 °C since preindustrial times

From:

J. Cook et al., "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming", Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Cook is another activist. He has another paper that breaks the scientific consensus down titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." the abstract:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed​

scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate​

change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed​

AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing​

a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second​

phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of​

self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,​

97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements​

among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that​

the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.​

This is misleading, and pundits claim the 97.1% are enforcing we are causing the greatest amount of warming. The data of the paper clearly does not support that narrative. That 97.1% only agrees we are causing at least some of the warming. Only 0.54% of the papers endorse the 50% or more quantification, and when you remove the papers with no opinion, it increases to only 1.61%. You have to download and unzip the supplemental material for this to be seen. I did just that and imported the file into excel. The data stopped at column F. I added columns H to J for calculations.



Now for some reason, the addition of my enforcement levels 1 to 3 in Excel from the data are 98.04% instead of the authors 97.1% I used the data form paper's supplemental file. If you understand Excel, you can clearly see what I did. Only 64 of the 11,944 papers endorsed AGW at the 50% or greater level.

Why are you guys so easily lied to by the pundits?

 

[George50]

Our warming since ~1979 is because of reductions in air pollution allowing more of the available sunlight to reach the surface.

Now you are arguing with a different theory than your favorite study.

If added greenhouse gases were blocking the escaping longwave radiation enough to cause warming, the OLR would have decreased.

What you keep ignoring (or can't comprehend or won't admit or whatever) is that if longwave surface radiation increases then OLR will increase because the greenhouse effect does not stop 100% of that surface radiation. That happens even though the greenhouse effect is trapping more heat and is thus contributing to warming.

Your paper describes it this way:

the weaker OLR change is associated with compensation between increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases

Which decreases OLR competing with

and increased infrared cooling to space relating to the radiative response to warming

Which Increases OLR.

 

[longview]

Satellite instruments like AIRS and IASI have directly measured the drop in OLR in CO₂ bands, which confirms the greenhouse effect is active. So no, the instruments didn’t miss it— it’s been observed exactly where and how the models predict.

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/191796/grl66741_am.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=3&utm_source=chatgpt.com

It is not that the absorption wavelengths reduced but what happened to the energy, after that.
The least likely is that a 15 um photon is emitted.
More likely is a vibration transfer to something like water vapor, which would then pass the energy on as some longer wavelengths.
The bottom line is that to cause warming from the longwave spectrum the OLR would have to decrease

 

[longview]

The study you keep quoting says that greenhouse gases reduced the OLR.


It reduces the OLR which increases warming.

What was measured was the OLR increased!

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That is too simplistic, CO2 does not always absorb photons at the correct wavelength,
it is busy (transparent) a million times more than it is absorbing. If CO2 were actually causing warming the path would be by decresing
the OLR, since the OLR is not decreasing, CO2 action cannot be causing any warming.

It's perfectly simplistic. And you're just confusing everyone with a bunch of crap that's not physically or even conceptually accurate.

The CO2 is like a clamp on the Earth's outgoing energy, and the clamp keeps expanding and getting tighter. The total outgoing energy by itself doesn't tell you whether the Earth is warming or cooling. What matters is the whole equation. What matters is what energy is left over between what comes in and what goes out. This leftover energy is what is warming the planet. And it's being caused by CO2 being constantly dumped in the atmosphere and building up, and it is not being caused by the clearing of pollution as you suggest, which has already mostly cleared up and is no longer contributing much to anything.

 

[ataraxia]

The bottom line is that to cause warming from the longwave spectrum the OLR would have to decrease

Agreed- and that’s exactly the observation, and exactly at the specific bandwidth for CO2 absorption.

So it all comes together and fits. Isn’t Science cool?

 

[longview]

This just isn't true. This is a very common global warming denial talking point that the vast majority of climate scientists reject:

"If the CO2 effect was saturated, then increasing CO2 would lead to no change in the greenhouse effect. As satellite measurements (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007) and surface measurements (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006) all find an enhanced greenhouse effect at the CO2 and CH4 bands, this is empirical confirmation that the CO2 effect is not saturated.

Note that hotter objects emit radiation at shorter wavelengths. Hence the sun emits shortwave radiation while the earth emits longwave radiation. This is the basis of the greenhouse effect - shortwave radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere, warms the earth which then emits longwave radiation back out to space. This longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases. The enhanced greenhouse effect observed by the papers listed above are at longwave wavelengths, not shortwave. It's basic science."

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

We've just perused the empirical evidence that humans are raising atmospheric CO2 levels. In earlier posts, we noted that tallying up the planet's heat content shows that our climate is accumulating heat, proof of global warming. But is there any evidence that links the two? Is there empirical...

skepticalscience.com

"I have a new detailed explainer on aerosols. They have a major (but poorly constrained) cooling effect on the climate, masking about 0.5C warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would otherwise have occurred."

The role of aerosol declines in recent warming

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

skepticalscience.com

Sorry the data is clear!

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 only positive energy imbalance is ASR!

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Why are you guys so easily lied to by the pundits?

I am running out of time, so I cannot respond in detail. Why shouldn't we trust the experts who spend their lives doing this work on a day-to-day basis. If I have a problem with my plumbing, I call a plumber. If I have a problem with my car, I take my car to a mechanic. If my HVAC system is acting up, I call the HVAC company and ask for help. This is no different.

What on earth makes you think you're right and all of them are wrong? Why are the vast majority, like over 80 to over 90% of the scientists who regularly publish in peer-reviewed articles not to be trusted? The point you're making doesn't make any sense. And why should we trust your conclusions over those of the experts? And maybe you're biased? Have you thought of that?

Do you check your bias at the door when you do your work? It doesn't look like you do.

And you're a conservative, right?

Shouldn't we be conservative with respect to the only planet we have? There is no Second Earth.

 

[longview]

Agreed- and that’s exactly the observation, and exactly at the specific bandwidth for CO2 absorption.

So it all comes together and fits. Isn’t Science cool?

Science is cool, but the data is subjective!
As I said like placing a rock in a flowing low water crossing, that area may be blocked but the water will simply flow around it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

If you understand Excel...

If I understand Excel...

So what if do? What if I don't? What's it to you? You keep needling me and everyone else with these snide comments. I think part of this is a result of the fact that you think every disagreement about this issue is some sort of personal insult to you. That's a "you" problem. Not a "me" problem.

And the rest of us don't have this personal stake in the oil and gas industry like you do.

So, stop taking everything personally. Nobody is attacking you. And if it is your true opinion everyone else is an idiot, why do you consider everything an attack on you?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The pollution you're talking about mostly blocks sunlight coming in. That's shortwave radiation. CO2 works on the other side of the equation, it traps the heat trying to leave Earth, which is longwave radiation. So they affect different parts of the energy balance.

Actually, there is more than one flavor in pollutants. Hundreds if not thousands. To generically diminish them as you did is complete pseudoscience, and punditry. You have aerosols that mostly reflect the sunlight back outward, increasing the earth system albedo. This causes cooling. You have aerosols that absorb the sunlight rather than reflecting it. This atmospheric layer gets warmer, and these same particle most often act like a greenhouse gas too. you have aerosols that help make clouds form, and aerosols that make rain, reducing the clouds in the sky. This reduced the earth system albedo, and causes warming.

We have a mix of different aerosol effects. Just look at the drop in cloud cover over the last 25 years or so, as China industrialized. It is their unmitigated atmospheric pollution doing this. Not the CO2. Remember few years back how smoggy all the Chinese cities were?

Also, pollution effects don't last long. Once the air clears, the cooling effect goes away pretty fast. But CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That means even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the planet would still keep warming for a long time because of the CO2 already up there.

Yes, pollution wash out of the skies easily enough, but they are constant and ongoing NOW! Co2 will stay present longer, but it is not the culprit.

Stop ignoring these other factors that can add up more than CO2 is blamed for.

The pollution that blocked sunlight mostly happened between the 1960s and 1990s. Then, as the air got cleaner, more sunlight started getting through, and this mostly happened from around 1990 to 2005.

It is a different pollutant mix.

But since about 2005, that effect has leveled off. It's not adding much anymore. Meanwhile, global temperatures have kept rising, especially in the last 10 to 15 years. That shows it's not pollution changes driving the warming now, it’s the build-up of CO2 trapping heat

You should look into the clouds. How they have diminished over the years, and what that means.

--

Here's what I don't get.

Do you honestly think that climate scientists haven't taken all of this account?

Do you honestly think they are too stupid to figure all this out?

Is that your opinion? Do you really have such a poor opinion of them?

Here is what you don't get. Very few scientists are vocal about their papers. I will bet most would be unhappy with the spin they are given. Or maybe they write what is wanted, just because the grant money is readily available.

Most these papers do not make claims to the degree the agenda claims. these papers will often " suggest" a reason, or find odds of it being cause by a certain factor. The pundits blow all this out of proportion. make claims beyond what can be indicated in the paper.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

View attachment 67576841

Why did you post these figures? Do you have a problem with this survey?

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e

Everything in this image is consistent with what is mentioned in the abstract, so I am confused as to why you think it's helpful to your argument. All you're doing is highlighting how much of a fringe view you and longview have on this topic.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Cook is another activist.

The thing about knowledge is that once you learn something important, especially something with serious real-world consequences, it creates a kind of moral responsibility. You can’t un-know it, and ignoring it becomes a choice. To some degree one cannot separate activism from the knowledge that global warming is being caused by manmade emissions of CO2. I don't think this must necessarily take the form of shutting down the fossil fuel industry, that's kind of silly, and by all appearances Cook's own activism is about spreading awareness, yet you treat him with disdain. You treat him like an enemy. Why is that? How do you think should Cook approach things? Do you think he's not being honest about his opinions or his methods?

So, let me ask you something, what do you think the percentage is at? And what is your conclusion based on? You don't think Cook should be doing the surveys? You don't like his results? What is your conclusion? What are your results?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why did you post these figures? Do you have a problem with this survey?

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e

These images are out of the Verheggen et al(2014) study. You keep saying the 97+% scientists agree the greenhouse gasses are "most" of the warming. Figure 1 says otherwise as that would only fit under the "strong" category. To top that off. most such papers are referring to what other papers already declare or imply.

Everything in this image is consistent with what is mentioned in the abstract, so I am confused as to why you think it's helpful to your argument.

I am showing the consensus view is not what people make it out to be.

All you're doing is highlighting how much of a fringe view you and longview have on this topic.

Call it what you want, but this viewpoint is from understanding the science instead of believing the propaganda. the vast majority of the people are inundated with the lies so much, it is believable to them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The thing about knowledge is that once you learn something important, especially something with serious real-world consequences, it creates a kind of moral responsibility. You can’t un-know it, and ignoring it becomes a choice. To some degree one cannot separate activism from the knowledge that global warming is being caused by manmade emissions of CO2. I don't think this must necessarily take the form of shutting down the fossil fuel industry, that's kind of silly, and by all appearances Cook's own activism is about spreading awareness, yet you treat him with disdain. You treat him like an enemy. Why is that? How do you think should Cook approach things? Do you think he's not being honest about his opinions or his methods?

So, let me ask you something, what do you think the percentage is at? And what is your conclusion based on? You don't think Cook should be doing the surveys? You don't like his results? What is your conclusion? What are your results?

It is the way crooked skews the facts. He is a blogger and cartoonist. Did you know that? One of the blogs out there with the pervasive lies is his.

Why aren't you asking about the cook study with the data I showed in post 785? Only 1.6% for your criteria you boast.

 

[George50]

We have a mix of different aerosol effects. Just look at the drop in cloud cover over the last 25 years or so, as China industrialized. It is their unmitigated atmospheric pollution doing this. Not the CO2. Remember few years back how smoggy all the Chinese cities were?

Hmmm. The Chinese Communist Party decided to get rid of the pollution. For example, SO2 peaked in 2006, now it’s about one tenth of what it was then.