The absurdity of climate change denialists

[Buzz]

Not true. You are incorrect once again.

Wow!! You are just outright lying again. Anyone who wants to fact-check you can see what I quoted from you and then check your actual quotes here and here and see that I didn't change what you said. You are just like longview... without shame.

More is hypothesized about the effects of greenhouse gases in a complex atmosphere. More actual measurements are a like the albedo changes of soot on ice have been conducted. There is still no actual measured impacts of CO2 warming, but there are of soot.

This is just more BS as evidenced by the error bars on this graph from AR5:

As you can see the error ranges of aerosols are definitely larger than the ones for GHGs. You are lying about the science again.

Why do you deny this?

Because the vast majority of climate science says you are wrong.

They are separating forcing impacts. They would have had quantified a CO2 forcing change if they had any to offer. This is a simple fact. To categorize it with "other" like you want us to believe may be true. But all the "other" forcing variables are insignificant by themselves, and that means CO2 is also insignificant for the purpose of this study.

This is just BS. The methodology that the study used would not have been sufficient to accurately distinguish between the different GHG forcings. You are just grasping at straws because you can't back up what you claim.

I do not expect to see any scientists making such a direct claim, as they would be ostracized from the climate science community. Look at all the scientists ostracized already for being a heretic to the agenda. It will take several years, maybe decades, before the science community realizes they cannot keep blaming CO2 when they have no tangible evidence.

Oh... resorting to conspiracy theories again?



And don't you think that if what you and longview keep claiming was true some of the already ostracized scientists would speak up and say so? The fact of the matter is that neither of you two can cite anyone whatsoever. Not even Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Wille Soon, or any other of the numerous climate scientists who have already disgraced themselves and will never work for a legitimate scientific organization or university ever again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wow!! You are just outright lying again. Anyone who wants to fact-check you can see what I quoted from you and then check your actual quotes here and here and see that I didn't change what you said. You are just like longview... without shame.

This is just more BS as evidenced by the error bars on this graph from AR5:
View attachment 67539668
As you can see the error ranges of aerosols are definitely larger than the ones for GHGs. You are lying about the science again.

Because the vast majority of climate science says you are wrong.

This is just BS. The methodology that the study used would not have been sufficient to accurately distinguish between the different GHG forcings. You are just grasping at straws because you can't back up what you claim.

Oh... resorting to conspiracy theories again?



And don't you think that if what you and longview keep claiming was true some of the already ostracized scientists would speak up and say so? The fact of the matter is that neither of you two can cite anyone whatsoever. Not even Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Wille Soon, or any other of the numerous climate scientists who have already disgraced themselves and will never work for a legitimate scientific organization or university ever again.

Sorry, but your Bible is often wrong.

 

[Buzz]

You should try doing the math some time from the stated impacts, instead of denying what is claimed.

That part that says "only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing" is regarding the global scale. When you take what is states for the actions on sheet ice, remember, that impact is,only over the ice. A simple look would be if this ice they look at is 1/15th the surface areas, then the forcing they extrapolate at a global scale is 15 times greater over the ice alone, since that part is its only impact.

You let simple extrapolations mess you up too much.

Yes, once again.

"global warming."

I don't know the area of sea and sheet ice coverage of the global, and have no need to look it up. Once again, if we accept the global extrapolated value of 0.13 W/^2 over land and sea ice in Table 1 of the study, and assume it affects 5% of the global area (most of antarctic has no carbon dropping on it) then that 0.13 becomes 2.6 W/m^2 over the ice it affects, plus the 0.71 atmospheric absorption and scattering, we are looking at an impact to melt ice of 3.31 W/m^2.

Now of course the average is just that. There will be areas like around India that the impact is far greater from their direct activities of inefficient combustion and population. Area like the north ice cap and Greenland will be affected also. Antarctica is affected a little in the outer continental and sea ice areas, but there is relatively little population close enough for the winds to carry much black carbon over Antarctica.

And here we have an absolutely perfect example of denialist goalpost moving. First LoP decides that 1/15 of the planet is covered with ice and snow to come up with a forcing due to soot on snow and ice. Then less than a half hour later he decides it should be 1/20 of the Earth and then decides to add all the rest of the aerosol heating effects even though this was just about soot on snow and ice. And if you do the math as LoP has suggested then he went from a forcing of 1.95 W/m^2 to 3.31 W/m^2. This is just more denialist lies and misinformation.

Now I did some looking around but was unable to find a definitive number for how much snow and ice covers the planet but I think when you consider seasonal snow and ice it is closer to 10%. And when you do the math for that and don't dishonestly add all aerosol forcing the number is 1.3W/m^2. And that is less than CO2 as shown in the graph from my last post.

The fact of the matter is that Lord of Planar can't be trusted to honestly debate climate science.

 

[watsup]

So we can agree there is fairly consistent unanimity between governmental agencies w/ AGW.

At the same time, there's no agreement as to what the temperature is of whatever is warming, and nobody is saying what the temperature should be for whatever is supposed to be warming. Please don't take offense, if you have this information I'd be very grateful if you'd share.

Meanwhile, that lack of info seems significant.

No, it doesn’t. End your strawmanning.

 

[Buzz]

Sorry, but your Bible is often wrong.

Not nearly as much as you are.

Hell... you have no problem just outright lying about stuff.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And here we have an absolutely perfect example of denialist goalpost moving. First LoP decides that 1/15 of the planet is covered with ice and snow to come up with a forcing due to soot on snow and ice. Then less than a half hour later he decides it should be 1/20 of the Earth and then decides to add all the rest of the aerosol heating effects even though this was just about soot on snow and ice. And if you do the math as LoP has suggested then he went from a forcing of 1.95 W/m^2 to 3.31 W/m^2. This is just more denialist lies and misinformation.

Wow. You have some serious comprehension issues. I never said those were the percentages. I was using arbitrary close numbers as an example. I am sorry that I did not specify more clearly. I think anyone else understands what I did.

Now I did some looking around but was unable to find a definitive number for how much snow and ice covers the planet but I think when you consider seasonal snow and ice it is closer to 10%. And when you do the math for that and don't dishonestly add all aerosol forcing the number is 1.3W/m^2. And that is less than CO2 as shown in the graph from my last post.

The fact of the matter is that Lord of Planar can't be trusted to honestly debate climate science.

Spin city by Buzz.... Or is is lack of understanding? I clearly stated...

"if this ice they look at is 1/15th the surface areas"

"I don't know the area of sea and sheet ice coverage"

"and assume it affects 5% of the global"

Buzz. I do not understand why you like to prove to everyone that you have no credibility. It your relentless attacks against me, you keep making yourself look bad.

 

[CLAX1911]

Climate change is both about personal choices and government action.

No it's not nether one of those things make the slightest difference. The climate was changing before civilization, the climate was changing before humans existed, the climate was changing before life began.

This wacky religious belief that somehow your government is your god and nothing to protect you from annihilation is the only thing I think is a hoax about this whole thing

That for example here in Europe there are more options than just owning and driving a car. Leading to lower transport costs for households. That for example majority of college students don't own a car because there are no need.

In Europe countries are tiny.

In the US it was considered an amazing feat an event in our history when did Eastern side of the railroads weren't connected to the western side. That happened in the 19th century.

Try living here most of the time you'll need a car.

The High Cost of Transportation in the United States

What does the average American pay to get around every day in 2024? What portion of their income is devoted to transportation? Is that cost typical across developed countries? Unfortunately, the portion of household expenditure spent on transportation in the United States is often a larger...

itdp.org

What are your taxes like there? I think you probably pay more. It's just that it's taken from you. Remember nothing in this world is free.

A important part of taking action on climate change is also finding alternative to a good life than unsustainable consumption.

I think the first thing to do is figure out why it's happening and not just go along with the popular viewpoint because it's in fashion and it's the new moral code for people who have abandoned traditional religion.

Like for example getting involved in community activities, like watching sports. There a more circular economy can also mean that the products we still need and buy can last longer. Thereby both saving money and creating local jobs.

That won't matter to the climate in the slightest. China is still going to burn 5,000 tons of coal a day.

How the right to repair might change technology

Fixing devices and appliances is currently tricky – but new consumer rights laws are seeking to change that. Chris Stokel-Walker looks at how this might change the technology we use.

www.bbc.com

Never trust any government propaganda they're always lying to you.

 

[JBG]

Climate change is both about personal choices and government action. That for example here in Europe there are more options than just owning and driving a car. Leading to lower transport costs for households. That for example majority of college students don't own a car because there are no need.

The High Cost of Transportation in the United States

What does the average American pay to get around every day in 2024? What portion of their income is devoted to transportation? Is that cost typical across developed countries? Unfortunately, the portion of household expenditure spent on transportation in the United States is often a larger...

itdp.org

A important part of taking action on climate change is also finding alternative to a good life than unsustainable consumption. Like for example getting involved in community activities, like watching sports. There a more circular economy can also mean that the products we still need and buy can last longer. Thereby both saving money and creating local jobs.

How the right to repair might change technology

Fixing devices and appliances is currently tricky – but new consumer rights laws are seeking to change that. Chris Stokel-Walker looks at how this might change the technology we use.

www.bbc.com

I get it, Europe is a paradise? Then why did hundreds of thousands take steerage to come here? How much "unsustainable consumption" have you forgone?

 

[Buzz]

Wow. You have some serious comprehension issues. I never said those were the percentages. I was using arbitrary close numbers as an example. I am sorry that I did not specify more clearly. I think anyone else understands what I did.

Spin city by Buzz.... Or is is lack of understanding? I clearly stated...

"if this ice they look at is 1/15th the surface areas"

"I don't know the area of sea and sheet ice coverage"

"and assume it affects 5% of the global"

Oh... so you just guessed as to how much of the surface of the planet is covered in ice to base your "math" on!! And then changed that number when you wanted to make warming from soot look even higher.



And now you are using the weasel word defense even though you have repeatedly criticized others for doing the same.



As a matter of fact, you have repeatedly claimed that using weasel words is not real science.



My God, Lord... you are such a hypocrite.

Buzz. I do not understand why you like to prove to everyone that you have no credibility. It your relentless attacks against me, you keep making yourself look bad.

Me making myself look bad?? Are you kidding? You haven't shown anything I have said in this thread to be wrong yet.



But you have repeatedly gotten your facts wrong.
You tried to defend longview's BS about CO2 not warming the planet and failed to prove anything.
You inferred meaning from a study based on what was not even discussed in the study.
When I pointed out that you had previously said that longview was wrong about this you lied about it twice.
You provided two studies and a couple of videos to back up your claim that soot melts more ice than CO2 and none of them backed you up.
You completely ignored the study that I provided that explicitly stated that soot was not the main driver of ice melt.
You just made up numbers and used them in your bogus "math".
You cited conspiracy theory as evidence.
You moved the goalposts several times.
And then after all that you defended yourself with the weasel word defense.



It looks to me like you are the one making yourself look bad!!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh... so you just guessed as to how much of the surface of the planet is covered in ice to base your "math" on!! And then changed that number when you wanted to make warming from soot look even higher.



And now you are using the weasel word defense even though you have repeatedly criticized others for doing the same.



As a matter of fact, you have repeatedly claimed that using weasel words is not real science.



My God, Lord... you are such a hypocrite.

Me making myself look bad?? Are you kidding? You haven't shown anything I have said in this thread to be wrong yet.



But you have repeatedly gotten your facts wrong.
You tried to defend longview's BS about CO2 not warming the planet and failed to prove anything.
You inferred meaning from a study based on what was not even discussed in the study.
When I pointed out that you had previously said that longview was wrong about this you lied about it twice.
You provided two studies and a couple of videos to back up your claim that soot melts more ice than CO2 and none of them backed you up.
You completely ignored the study that I provided that explicitly stated that soot was not the main driver of ice melt.
You just made up numbers and used them in your bogus "math".
You cited conspiracy theory as evidence.
You moved the goalposts several times.
And then after all that you defended yourself with the weasel word defense.



It looks to me like you are the one making yourself look bad!!

You still have it all wrong. Maybe you should try arguing about what I actually said, not what you construe it to mean.

That's a whole lot of jive talking you presented.

Oh... so you just guessed as to how much of the surface of the planet is covered in ice to base your "math" on!! And then changed that number when you wanted to make warming from soot look even higher.

Yes, that is exactly what I did. Why do you have a problem with a method to show the actual impact? I was showing that the impact on ice extrapolated on a global scale does not show the impact on the ice itself. I made that perfectly clear what I did, and here you are, failing to comprehend what I did. That is on you. Not me.

And now you are using the weasel word defense even though you have repeatedly criticized others for doing the same.

Call it what you will. My using assumed numbers is exactly what papers do. I never imagined you fell prey to believing such actions as the author assuming it as fact. But maybe that is why you continually to fail understanding peer reviewed papers.

You inferred meaning from a study based on what was not even discussed in the study.

No, you are inferring meaning of CO2 in that study when CO2 is not discussed in any quantitative way.

When I pointed out that you had previously said that longview was wrong about this you lied about it twice.

You would have to remind me with accurate quotes. Your reliability so far is extremely poor of providing accurate quotes, and properly assessing what they mean, when you attack people.

You provided two studies and a couple of videos to back up your claim that soot melts more ice than CO2 and none of them backed you up.
You completely ignored the study that I provided that explicitly stated that soot was not the main driver of ice melt.

Maybe you should consider that different studies and methodologies disagree. I am not sure of the specific study you refer to with that allegation, but I clearly remember one study comparing it with the accepted value by the IPCC. I disagree with that value of warming, and so do many recent studies. CO2 has clearly not been warming as much as the IPCC claims.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Buzz.

You lose when you present things like your last post. You attack me, instead of the science I present. This clearly means you cannot discount what I said related to the science.

What is the logical fallacy called when you attack the person, instead of the message?

 

[watsup]

You attack me, instead of the science I present. This clearly means you cannot discount what I said related to the science.

What is the logical fallacy called when you attack the person, instead of the message?

Love your irony! And you do it so often!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Buzz.

Have you ever considered asking why I make a claim like I do, to actually learn something? Your method of immediately finding something to attack just shows the type of person you are.

My fist example regarding the global forcing attributed to soot on ice was merely an example to show what the number actually represented. I did not care for accuracy, though the surface of ice on the earth averages approximately 10%. I went for the approximate 1/15th and was low-balling what I meant to achieve, but this way I showed my point, and erred on the safer side. Soot does not affect most of the Antarctic content. A more realistic number is probably under 3% for the global surface area that soot affects ice on. That would make my 1/15th example twice as much if true.

My second example, I went for the 5% (1/20th) keeping in mind I still had a large leeway. Again, my intent was to show the impact of soot on ice is far greater than the global extrapolated number.

Your antics show you have no interest in the facts. That all you care about is bullying and making fun of people who disagree with your beliefs. I understand that, because I tend to do the same thing in return when I have someone attack me. I am trying to break that habit.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Love your irony! And you do it so often!

Are you proud to be an obnoxious observer instead of actually participating in a discussion?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Buzz, I would like to point out another factor. It has to do with surface temperature. Greenhouse gas forcing will be stronger in warm areas than it is in cold areas. This is because the returned energy is a percentage of what the surface sends up. It is not a fixed value across the globe, as you seen to misunderstand by using global averages in the IPCC chart.

The northern region where we have some pretty rapid ice melt from soot, has less forcing from greenhouse gasses than average. If surface emissivity and greenhouse gas content were equal, the norther cap area would experience about half the average forcing. Varying emissivty and temperatures do make this rather complicated to be accurate. In the colder arctic areas, the strongest greenhouse gas, H2O, is much less since it is a condensing greenhouse gas. Suffice it to say that the forcing over the northern cap from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is less than half of what the AR5 chart you presented shows.

If all things were equal except temperature, surface emissions of 0C are 81% of the global average. -20C is 60%. -40C is 43%.

Now consider that the primary greenhouse gas, H2O, becomes less and less in the atmosphere as temperature decreases. As the temperature decreases, so does the percentage of downward IR from the greenhouse effect.

It is very easy to see that soot on ice has a greater effect to melt ice than forcing from CO2. If you disagree with me, show us how I am wrong without using cherry picked material. Use actual math and science.

If I need to explain how I derived the numbers above, let me know. Please avoid your knee-jerk reaction of finding something wrong without considering all the angles. It just makes you look bad.

 

[longview]

Wow!! You are just outright lying again. Anyone who wants to fact-check you can see what I quoted from you and then check your actual quotes here and here and see that I didn't change what you said. You are just like longview... without shame.

This is just more BS as evidenced by the error bars on this graph from AR5:
View attachment 67539668
As you can see the error ranges of aerosols are definitely larger than the ones for GHGs. You are lying about the science again.

Because the vast majority of climate science says you are wrong.

This is just BS. The methodology that the study used would not have been sufficient to accurately distinguish between the different GHG forcings. You are just grasping at straws because you can't back up what you claim.

Oh... resorting to conspiracy theories again?



And don't you think that if what you and longview keep claiming was true some of the already ostracized scientists would speak up and say so? The fact of the matter is that neither of you two can cite anyone whatsoever. Not even Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Wille Soon, or any other of the numerous climate scientists who have already disgraced themselves and will never work for a legitimate scientific organization or university ever again.

Buzz you do not even understand that the IPCC's estimates of radiative forcing are just guesses, based on the assumption that
doubling the CO2 level would result in an average of 3.42 W m-2 of energy imbalance.
This is based on IPCC AR5, which shows the CO2 levels in 1750 at 278 ppm and in 2011 at 390.5 ppm.
The radiative forcing energy imbalance shown in your graphic of 1.68 W m-2 come out to a 2XCO2 level of 3.42 W m-2.
This means we can find the error in the IPCC estimate of radiative forcing by comparing it to the measured longwave forcing.
We have peer reviewed studies that show the measured change in longwave energy between 2001 and 2020 was -0.432 W m-2.
The change in the CO2 level between 2001 and 2020 was, 371.32 to 414.21 ppm. NOAA
Using the IPCC's forcing formula That sourced the number on the graph, 4.94 X ln(414.21/371.32) = 0.5399 W m-2.
So we have the estimate based on the graphic at 0.5399 W m-2, and the measured for the same time frame at -0.432 W m-2.
BTW 4.94 X ln(390.5/278) = 1.678 W m-2 that matches the graphic!

The entire IPCC graph is in error, because it did not even get the sign of the radiative forcing correct.

 

[longview]

Buzz you do not even understand that the IPCC's estimates of radiative forcing are just guesses, based on the assumption that
doubling the CO2 level would result in an average of 3.42 W m-2 of energy imbalance.
This is based on IPCC AR5, which shows the CO2 levels in 1750 at 278 ppm and in 2011 at 390.5 ppm.
The radiative forcing energy imbalance shown in your graphic of 1.68 W m-2 come out to a 2XCO2 level of 3.42 W m-2.
This means we can find the error in the IPCC estimate of radiative forcing by comparing it to the measured longwave forcing.
We have peer reviewed studies that show the measured change in longwave energy between 2001 and 2020 was -0.432 W m-2.
The change in the CO2 level between 2001 and 2020 was, 371.32 to 414.21 ppm. NOAA
Using the IPCC's forcing formula That sourced the number on the graph, 4.94 X ln(414.21/371.32) = 0.5399 W m-2.
So we have the estimate based on the graphic at 0.5399 W m-2, and the measured for the same time frame at -0.432 W m-2.
BTW 4.94 X ln(390.5/278) = 1.678 W m-2 that matches the graphic!

The entire IPCC graph is in error, because it did not even get the sign of the radiative forcing correct.

Correction, I typed in the wrong number, 4.94 X ln(414.21/371.32) = 1.6786 W m-2

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It is a conclusion, but the raw data! The opinions means nothing if it is not supported by the observed data.
Also I have linked to several studies that show that since ~year 2000 the trend in OLR is positive, during a period
when the greenhouse gas levels rose!

You have presented no source that have done the same interpretation of the data as you.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

So we can agree there is fairly consistent unanimity between governmental agencies w/ AGW.

At the same time, there's no agreement as to what the temperature is of whatever is warming, and nobody is saying what the temperature should be for whatever is supposed to be warming. Please don't take offense, if you have this information I'd be very grateful if you'd share.

Meanwhile, that lack of info seems significant.

Link to graph of monthly average surface temperature.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/monthly-average-surface-temperatures-by-year There is overwhelming evidence for global warming caused by human emissions of CO2.

While also that the warning has devastating effects all across the world.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/monthly-average-surface-temperatures-by-year

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters

Climate change indicators reached record levels in 2023: WMO

wmo.int

 

[Bergslagstroll]

No it's not nether one of those things make the slightest difference. The climate was changing before civilization, the climate was changing before humans existed, the climate was changing before life began.

This wacky religious belief that somehow your government is your god and nothing to protect you from annihilation is the only thing I think is a hoax about this whole thing

In Europe countries are tiny.

In the US it was considered an amazing feat an event in our history when did Eastern side of the railroads weren't connected to the western side. That happened in the 19th century.

Try living here most of the time you'll need a car.

What are your taxes like there? I think you probably pay more. It's just that it's taken from you. Remember nothing in this world is free.

I think the first thing to do is figure out why it's happening and not just go along with the popular viewpoint because it's in fashion and it's the new moral code for people who have abandoned traditional religion.

That won't matter to the climate in the slightest. China is still going to burn 5,000 tons of coal a day.

Never trust any government propaganda they're always lying to you.

It was the destruction of entire neighborhoods and the displacement of over one million people that led to today's car dependent cities.

How Interstate Highways Gutted Communities—and Reinforced Segregation | HISTORY

America's interstate highway system cut through the heart of dozens of urban neighborhoods.

www.history.com

While there was the same plans for European cities but for example in Netherlands you had strong public protest against those plans.

Cycling nation: The secret to the Netherlands’ biking success

The Netherlands is famous for its cyclists, but how has the country managed to encourage so many people into the saddle?

www.euronews.com

China is also know taking action.

Analysis: China’s emissions set to fall in 2024 after record growth in clean energy - Carbon Brief

China’s CO2 emissions are set to fall in 2024 and could be facing structural decline, due to record growth in clean energy.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[longview]

You have presented no source that have done the same interpretation of the data as you.

All the sources presented say the OLR is increasing!
Here is one again.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

Satellite observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System show that Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the past decade. 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).

But the greenhouse effect says, Scientific basis for the greenhouse effect

that added greenhouse gases will block the some of the OLR, thus reducing the level of OLR, but that did not happen!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I get it, Europe is a paradise? Then why did hundreds of thousands take steerage to come here? How much "unsustainable consumption" have you forgone?

Countries can learn from each other. That for example the American Inflation Reduction Act save families a lot of money and creates economical opportunities.

This Guide Can Help You Save Money and Fight Climate Change (Published 2024)

Whether you are renovating your home, upgrading appliances or eyeing an electric car, this guide can help you take advantage of savings from the Inflation Reduction Act.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/20/inflation-reduction-act-sparked-a-manufacturing-clean-energy-boom.html

While we can all do big and small things. Like for example I got a more expensive but also more sustainable Fairphone. While I can save in the extra money because it can last longer and I can also switch out individual parts.

I also don't fly anymore but Sweden have train connection to the rest of Europe. Even with less population density than many American cities and being in the Northern corner of Sweden.

I also reduce my environmental impact by working from home. There this also give me more free time and better quality of life.

I also eat mostly vegan and vegetarian dishes there this is not a problem because there are so many good alternatives today.

 

[longview]

Link to graph of monthly average surface temperature.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/monthly-average-surface-temperatures-by-year There is overwhelming evidence for global warming caused by human emissions of CO2.

While also that the warning has devastating effects all across the world.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/monthly-average-surface-temperatures-by-year

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters

Climate change indicators reached record levels in 2023: WMO

wmo.int

There is no empirical evidence that added CO2 is changing the temperature.
Warming since 1978 is from increased shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation(ASR) a portion of the spectrum that is transparent
to CO2.
It is difficult to explain to someone without a physics background why energy pulses can only get smaller, but I will try.
Imagine a child's spinning top, when it is first spun, it is stable an upright, and at it's highest energy state.
As it slows does, it looses energy, and what remains is always less than the initial energy level.
At the end of the cycle, there is not enough energy to keep the top upright, and if falls over and the energy decreases
quickly as the sides come in contact with the surface. A no point is the energy released by the slow down greater than the initial energy.
CO2 excited by a 15 um photon, can only produce equal of lower energy output, so it cannot change the
incoming shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

All the sources presented say the OLR is increasing!
Here is one again.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

But the greenhouse effect says, Scientific basis for the greenhouse effect
View attachment 67539954
that added greenhouse gases will block the some of the OLR, thus reducing the level of OLR, but that did not happen!

Your source offer an explanation.

"Climate model AMIP simulations suggest that the larger ASR increase observed during the CERES period is due to additive contributions from effective radiative forcing (ERF) and climate response to warming and it is spatial pattern; while, 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 (Raghuraman et al. 2021; Hodnebrog et al. 2024). Model-based attribution of the CERES results are limited in number because the CMIP6 protocol ends in 2014. The new atmospheric model intercomparison project (AMIP) simulations proposed as part of CERESMIP (Schmidt et al. 2023) will provide updated model simulations through 2021 and will use input data sets, greatly expanding opportunities to assess model performance and attribution of the observed EEI trend."

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There is no empirical evidence that added CO2 is changing the temperature.
Warming since 1978 is from increased shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation(ASR) a portion of the spectrum that is transparent
to CO2.
It is difficult to explain to someone without a physics background why energy pulses can only get smaller, but I will try.
Imagine a child's spinning top, when it is first spun, it is stable an upright, and at it's highest energy state.
As it slows does, it looses energy, and what remains is always less than the initial energy level.
At the end of the cycle, there is not enough energy to keep the top upright, and if falls over and the energy decreases
quickly as the sides come in contact with the surface. A no point is the energy released by the slow down greater than the initial energy.
CO2 excited by a 15 um photon, can only produce equal of lower energy output, so it cannot change the
incoming shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation!

Three is overwhelming evidence.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov