There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The evidence that the Earth is warming and carbon dioxide is increasing at rates not seen in millenia is overwhelming. Arguments that such evidence is manufactured are rationally unsound and unsupported by any evidence.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

Global temperatures are rising
The ocean is getting warmer
The ice sheets are shrinking
Glaciers are retreating
Snow cover is decreasing
Sea level is rising
Arctic sea ice is declining
Extreme events are increasing in frequency
Ocean acidification is increasing

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age." [Emphasis mine]

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 2
Vostok ice core data; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record
Gaffney, O.; Steffen, W. (2017). "The Anthropocene Equation," The Anthropocene Review (Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2017), 53-61.

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.​

Meh.

current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age.

What is the current rate? What are the next 9 highest rates?

 

[Crick]

I call Bull Shit! Again...

It would help your case if all your previous "bull shit"s hadn't turned out to be simple demonstrations of your ignorance.

Please tell me how a trace gas

From a junior high school level article from Columbia

How can CO2 trap so much heat if it only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere? Aren’t the molecules spaced too far apart?​

Before humans began burning fossil fuels, naturally occurring greenhouse gases helped to make Earth’s climate habitable. Without them, the planet’s average temperature would be below freezing. So we know that even very low, natural levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can make a huge difference in Earth’s climate.

Today, CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 3 million years. And although they still account for only 0.04% of the atmosphere, that still adds up to billions upon billions of tons of heat-trapping gas. For example, in 2019 alone, humans dumped 36.44 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, where it will linger for hundreds of years. So there are plenty of CO2 molecules to provide a heat-trapping blanket across the entire atmosphere.

In addition, “trace amounts of a substance can have a large impact on a system,” explains Smerdon. Borrowing an analogy from Penn State meteorology professor David Titley, Smerdon said that “If someone my size drinks two beers, my blood alcohol content will be about 0.04 percent. That is right when the human body starts to feel the effects of alcohol.” Commercial drivers with a blood alcohol content of 0.04% can be convicted for driving under the influence.

“Similarly, it doesn’t take that much cyanide to poison a person,” adds Smerdon. “It has to do with how that specific substance interacts with the larger system and what it does to influence that system.”

In the case of greenhouse gases, the planet’s temperature is a balance between how much energy comes in versus how much energy goes out. Ultimately, any increase in the amount of heat-trapping means that the Earth’s surface gets hotter. (For a more advanced discussion of the thermodynamics involved, check out this NASA page.)

If there’s more water than CO2 in the atmosphere, how do we know that water isn’t to blame for climate change?​

Water is indeed a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, and thus makes the planet warmer. However, Smerdon says the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a consequence of warming rather than a driving force, because warmer air holds more water.

“We know this on a seasonal level,” he explains. “It’s generally drier in the winter when our local atmosphere is colder, and it’s more humid in the summer when it’s warmer.”

As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases heat up the planet, more water evaporates into the atmosphere, which in turn raises the temperature further. However, a hypothetical villain would not be able to exacerbate climate change by trying to pump more water vapor into the atmosphere, says Smerdon. “It would all rain out because temperature determines how much moisture can actually be held by the atmosphere.”

Similarly, it makes no sense to try to remove water vapor from the atmosphere, because natural, temperature-driven evaporation from plants and bodies of water would immediately replace it. To reduce water vapor in the atmosphere, we must lower global temperatures by reducing other greenhouse gases.

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.

news.climate.columbia.edu

which is being dampened by our atmosphere (no positive feedback loop), can warm the atmosphere?

How is carbon dioxide "being dampened by our atmosphere"? What is that even supposed to mean?

There is no Mid-Tropospheric hot spot. It does not exist.

This is at least the second or third time you've been shown this article.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

phys.org

Modeling is overestimating warming by a factor of ten (this can be explained in the Climate Sensitivity (CS) number used in modeling).

AR6 actually raised their CS estimate and narrowed its range compared to the numbers shown in AR5.

The CS number ratio is 0.024/1 (observed warming / log expected warming) .

Source? Reference? Link?

Your models use a 3/1 number which is off by a factor of 10-100, which is not seen in observed evidence.

The actual scientists of the planet disagree with you. They conclude it is in between 2.5C and 4C (3.25C +/-0.75C) and they back that up with an enormous amount of science. What science, exactly, backs up your claim that it's actual value is 0.024C

 

[Oddball]

The evidence that the Earth is warming and carbon dioxide is increasing at rates not seen in millenia is overwhelming. Arguments that such evidence is manufactured are rationally unsound and unsupported by any evidence.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

Global temperatures are rising
The ocean is getting warmer
The ice sheets are shrinking
Glaciers are retreating
Snow cover is decreasing
Sea level is rising
Arctic sea ice is declining
Extreme events are increasing in frequency
Ocean acidification is increasing

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age." [Emphasis mine]

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 2
Vostok ice core data; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record
Gaffney, O.; Steffen, W. (2017). "The Anthropocene Equation," The Anthropocene Review (Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2017), 53-61.

IPCC....

 

[jc456]

It would help your case if all your previous "bull shit"s hadn't turned out to be simple demonstrations of your ignorance.

From a junior high school level article from Columbia

How can CO2 trap so much heat if it only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere? Aren’t the molecules spaced too far apart?​

Before humans began burning fossil fuels, naturally occurring greenhouse gases helped to make Earth’s climate habitable. Without them, the planet’s average temperature would be below freezing. So we know that even very low, natural levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can make a huge difference in Earth’s climate.

Today, CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 3 million years. And although they still account for only 0.04% of the atmosphere, that still adds up to billions upon billions of tons of heat-trapping gas. For example, in 2019 alone, humans dumped 36.44 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, where it will linger for hundreds of years. So there are plenty of CO2 molecules to provide a heat-trapping blanket across the entire atmosphere.

In addition, “trace amounts of a substance can have a large impact on a system,” explains Smerdon. Borrowing an analogy from Penn State meteorology professor David Titley, Smerdon said that “If someone my size drinks two beers, my blood alcohol content will be about 0.04 percent. That is right when the human body starts to feel the effects of alcohol.” Commercial drivers with a blood alcohol content of 0.04% can be convicted for driving under the influence.

“Similarly, it doesn’t take that much cyanide to poison a person,” adds Smerdon. “It has to do with how that specific substance interacts with the larger system and what it does to influence that system.”

In the case of greenhouse gases, the planet’s temperature is a balance between how much energy comes in versus how much energy goes out. Ultimately, any increase in the amount of heat-trapping means that the Earth’s surface gets hotter. (For a more advanced discussion of the thermodynamics involved, check out this NASA page.)

If there’s more water than CO2 in the atmosphere, how do we know that water isn’t to blame for climate change?​

Water is indeed a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, and thus makes the planet warmer. However, Smerdon says the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a consequence of warming rather than a driving force, because warmer air holds more water.

“We know this on a seasonal level,” he explains. “It’s generally drier in the winter when our local atmosphere is colder, and it’s more humid in the summer when it’s warmer.”

As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases heat up the planet, more water evaporates into the atmosphere, which in turn raises the temperature further. However, a hypothetical villain would not be able to exacerbate climate change by trying to pump more water vapor into the atmosphere, says Smerdon. “It would all rain out because temperature determines how much moisture can actually be held by the atmosphere.”

Similarly, it makes no sense to try to remove water vapor from the atmosphere, because natural, temperature-driven evaporation from plants and bodies of water would immediately replace it. To reduce water vapor in the atmosphere, we must lower global temperatures by reducing other greenhouse gases.

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.

news.climate.columbia.edu

How is carbon dioxide "being dampened by our atmosphere"? What is that even supposed to mean?

This is at least the second or third time you've been shown this article.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

phys.org

AR6 actually raised their CS estimate and narrowed its range compared to the numbers shown in AR5.

Source? Reference? Link?

The actual scientists of the planet disagree with you.

If CO2 is so powerful, why is it only 28 in Chicago in March under full sunshine?

 

[Oddball]

If CO2 is so powerful, why is it only 28 in Chicago in March under full sunshine?

Weather isn't climate.....Until there's a big hurricane, then it is.

Got it?

 

[Anathema]

Please speed it up. The quicker New England becomes sub-tropical rather than Temperate, the sooner I don’t have to waste my week at work manning a Storm Room because parts of our service territory had 36-40” of wet, heavy snow.

 

[jc456]

Weather isn't climate.....Until there's a big hurricane, then it is.

Got it?

Ok…. Got it


Ahem, isn’t a hurricane weather?

 

[Crick]

If CO2 is so powerful, why is it only 28 in Chicago in March under full sunshine?

Because without the CO2 it would have been 27.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The evidence that the Earth is warming and carbon dioxide is increasing at rates not seen in millenia is overwhelming. Arguments that such evidence is manufactured are rationally unsound and unsupported by any evidence.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

Global temperatures are rising
The ocean is getting warmer
The ice sheets are shrinking
Glaciers are retreating
Snow cover is decreasing
Sea level is rising
Arctic sea ice is declining
Extreme events are increasing in frequency
Ocean acidification is increasing

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age." [Emphasis mine]

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 2
Vostok ice core data; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record
Gaffney, O.; Steffen, W. (2017). "The Anthropocene Equation," The Anthropocene Review (Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2017), 53-61.

In a millenia?

Bullshit, it's been about 100,000 years.

CO2 is increasing to higher levels, but temperatures have not yet increased with those.
And we need to ask ourselves, about CO2, whether CO2 is all that.

Look, CO2 went up, temperatures went up. Surely if CO2 were so bad, then temperatures would have KEPT RISING.

They didn't. Why did temperatures DROP when CO2 was at its high point?

 

[Crick]

In a millenia?

I didn't say "in a millenia", I said "in millenia", ie, "in thousands of years"

Bullshit, it's been about 100,000 years.

CO2 is increasing to higher levels, but temperatures have not yet increased with those.
And we need to ask ourselves, about CO2, whether CO2 is all that.

What do you mean it has not yet increased with those. Temperatures ARE increasing due to increasing CO2 but they are lagging. If we stopped adding CO2 this instant, temperatures would continue to rise at least for decades.

Look, CO2 went up, temperatures went up. Surely if CO2 were so bad, then temperatures would have KEPT RISING.

It is rising. There have been longer pauses than this in the past and they did not mark the end of the process. There is no reason for the warming to stop. Rejecting the greenhouse effect is a Flat Earther tactic.

They didn't. Why did temperatures DROP when CO2 was at its high point?

Ask Google.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The evidence is as follows....

Precisely

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE according to highly correlated satellite and balloon data
NO WARMING in the oceans
NO NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in Cane Activity
NO Rise in Ocean Levels


And...

Snow in Saudi, Hollywood, and presto...

Lake Tahoeâs Emerald Bay completely freezes over for the first time in 30 years

The rare event is the result of the region experiencing its snowiest season in 70 years, with more storms expected to hit the state

www.theguardian.com

This is THE MOST OBVIOUS FRAUD in the history of science.

No, you're not looking at this properly.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

climatechange.chicago.gov

Average ocean surface temperatures are rising.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Global land and ocean temperatures are rising.

Satellite and Surface Temperatures | Watts Up With That?

By Andy May In the Great Climate Change Debate between Professor David Karoly and Professor Will Happer, Glenn Tamblyn was called upon to finish the consensus side of the debate after Karoly backed out. The details are described in my latest book. The debate contained an illuminating exchange of...

wattsupwiththat.com

Satellites also show a rising in temperature

The issue here isn't whether temperatures are rising. Temperatures are rising.
The issue is that temperatures rose 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, 300,000 years ago.
Was that human activity? Clearly not.
So how much of what is happening today human activity, how much is natural?

 

[Crick]

He;s not looking at it at all. He just says its all bullshit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say "in a millenia", I said "in millenia", ie, "in thousands of years"

What do you mean it has not yet increased with those. Temperatures ARE increasing due to increasing CO2 but they are lagging. If we stopped adding CO2 this instant, temperatures would continue to rise at least for decades.

It is rising. There have been longer pauses than this in the past and they did not mark the end of the process. There is no reason for the warming to stop. Rejecting the greenhouse effect is a Flat Earther tactic.

Ask Google.

Ask Google? Are you Google? No, I'm replying to you.
Temperatures rose in the past and are rising now.
Higher CO2 doesn't always mean higher temperatures. Clearly. Why?

 

[Crick]

Ask Google? Are you Google? No, I'm replying to you.
Temperatures rose in the past and are rising now.
Higher CO2 doesn't always mean higher temperatures. Clearly. Why?

My apologies. I was tired and tired of responding here.

As you have heard on many occasions there are many different things that can affect the planet's temperature. CO2 is not the only one. When Earth has warmed from orbital changes, the warming will lead to increased CO2 after several hundred years but that CO2 will then begin to act as a positive feedback of its own (found in Jeremy Shakun's work on the early Holocene). Warming and cooling from glacial cycles is much slower than what we're experiencing now and other processes can buffer CO2, most notably erosion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Aren't you all clever.

The evidence still stands. The Earth is getting warmer and human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary cause.

That's not what the evidence at Moana Loa shows. Human activity has zero impact on CO2. The evidence also shows that CO2 LAGS temperature

 

[frigidweirdo]

My apologies. I was tired and tired of responding here.

As you have heard on many occasions there are many different things that can affect the planet's temperature. CO2 is not the only one. When Earth has warmed from orbital changes, the warming will lead to increased CO2 after several hundred years but that CO2 will then begin to act as a positive feedback of its own (found in Jeremy Shakun's work on the early Holocene). Warming and cooling from glacial cycles is much slower than what we're experiencing now and other processes can buffer CO2, most notably erosion.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It stops heat from leaving the Earth, get enough of it and it might STOP heat from getting in.
We know that volancoes, like Krakatoa, actually REDUCED world temperatures when it erupted.
We also know about the Milankovich cycles, though potentially other things have an impact.
Humans are liable to change the world temperature, but how? Perhaps we could be cooling temperatures, or we could be increasing them, but the BIGGEST problem is we don't know what temperatures should be now without human industrialization to make that comparison.

 

[Crick]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It stops heat from leaving the Earth, get enough of it and it might STOP heat from getting in.

Oi... If you examine the spectrum of light coming from the sun versus the spectrum of radiation from the heated surface, you will see that the bulk of incoming energy is in the visible and UV portions of the spectrum while the bulk of outgoing radiation is IR.

We know that volancoes, like Krakatoa, actually REDUCED world temperatures when it erupted.

Aerosols do that. They last a few years at most.

We also know about the Milankovich cycles, though potentially other things have an impact.

I never said otherwise.

Humans are liable to change the world temperature, but how?

By dumping enormous amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere over a span of 150 years and counting.

Perhaps we could be cooling temperatures

Some human processes do produce aerosols, some of which increase the Earth's albedo (reflect incoming light). Unfortunately, most of the soot we produce is carbon - black - and decreases the Earth's albedo.

or we could be increasing them, but the BIGGEST problem is we don't know what temperatures should be now without human industrialization to make that comparison.

What we should have is CO2 at 300 ppm and a minimum of anthropogenic aerosols. If people should decide to take proactive measures to get there (like blocking sunlight in the air or in space) I wish them luck. It would be nice to have something adjustable or removable, like a very large shade close to the sun but you would be talking about many, many billions of dollars to accomplish. And, the unintended consequences could be quite the mess.

 

[jc456]

Because without the CO2 it would have been 27.

So 28 is catastrophic now?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It would help your case if all your previous "bull shit"s hadn't turned out to be simple demonstrations of your ignorance.

From a junior high school level article from Columbia

How can CO2 trap so much heat if it only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere? Aren’t the molecules spaced too far apart?​

Before humans began burning fossil fuels, naturally occurring greenhouse gases helped to make Earth’s climate habitable. Without them, the planet’s average temperature would be below freezing. So we know that even very low, natural levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can make a huge difference in Earth’s climate.

Today, CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 3 million years. And although they still account for only 0.04% of the atmosphere, that still adds up to billions upon billions of tons of heat-trapping gas. For example, in 2019 alone, humans dumped 36.44 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, where it will linger for hundreds of years. So there are plenty of CO2 molecules to provide a heat-trapping blanket across the entire atmosphere.

In addition, “trace amounts of a substance can have a large impact on a system,” explains Smerdon. Borrowing an analogy from Penn State meteorology professor David Titley, Smerdon said that “If someone my size drinks two beers, my blood alcohol content will be about 0.04 percent. That is right when the human body starts to feel the effects of alcohol.” Commercial drivers with a blood alcohol content of 0.04% can be convicted for driving under the influence.

“Similarly, it doesn’t take that much cyanide to poison a person,” adds Smerdon. “It has to do with how that specific substance interacts with the larger system and what it does to influence that system.”

In the case of greenhouse gases, the planet’s temperature is a balance between how much energy comes in versus how much energy goes out. Ultimately, any increase in the amount of heat-trapping means that the Earth’s surface gets hotter. (For a more advanced discussion of the thermodynamics involved, check out this NASA page.)

If there’s more water than CO2 in the atmosphere, how do we know that water isn’t to blame for climate change?​

Water is indeed a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, and thus makes the planet warmer. However, Smerdon says the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a consequence of warming rather than a driving force, because warmer air holds more water.

“We know this on a seasonal level,” he explains. “It’s generally drier in the winter when our local atmosphere is colder, and it’s more humid in the summer when it’s warmer.”

As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases heat up the planet, more water evaporates into the atmosphere, which in turn raises the temperature further. However, a hypothetical villain would not be able to exacerbate climate change by trying to pump more water vapor into the atmosphere, says Smerdon. “It would all rain out because temperature determines how much moisture can actually be held by the atmosphere.”

Similarly, it makes no sense to try to remove water vapor from the atmosphere, because natural, temperature-driven evaporation from plants and bodies of water would immediately replace it. To reduce water vapor in the atmosphere, we must lower global temperatures by reducing other greenhouse gases.

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.

news.climate.columbia.edu

How is carbon dioxide "being dampened by our atmosphere"? What is that even supposed to mean?

This is at least the second or third time you've been shown this article.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

phys.org

AR6 actually raised their CS estimate and narrowed its range compared to the numbers shown in AR5.

Source? Reference? Link?

The actual scientists of the planet disagree with you. They conclude it is in between 2.5C and 4C (3.25C +/-0.75C) and they back that up with an enormous amount of science. What science, exactly, backs up your claim that it's actual value is 0.024C

Your appeals to authority do not phase me. The assumptions they make are from failed modeling that exaggerates warming by no less than a factor of ten. I showed you why that is happening. Your appeals do not make your case. You appear to not have even a basic concept of how the atmosphere works or why, yet you pontificate without knowledge.

Please share with the class how you stopped natural variational processes and made all warming be caused by CO2. That is the major fallacy in the AGW hypothesis. Even if I said it was all due to CO2 it is still less than half of the expected warming by CO2 according to its expected Log values. This means the atmospheres dampening it and there is no "positive feedback loop".

Your own links show the deception and kill the AGW Hypothesis.

 

[jc456]

Because without the CO2 it would have been 27.

1 degree f? I thought it was C?