This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[Stuartbirdan2]

Carbon dioxide is coupled to temperature in other ways. For instance, warmer temperatures release more carbon from soils and permafrost, warmer oceans absorb less carbon from the atmosphere, and warmer periods prevent the fertilization of marine phytoplankton that can take up excess carbon dioxide.

Paleoclimate data also reveals that climate change is about more than temperature. During times with lowest temperatures, snow lines were lower, continents were drier, and tropical monsoons were weaker. While some of these changes may be independent, some could be tied to changing levels of carbon dioxide. Understanding what changes may occur in the future and to what extent remains a topic of vigorous research

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation
by Bart Verheggen
Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased in my opinion. Still, they find a strong consensus on human causation of climate change: 87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes (question v007). Responses were given on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In line with Bray (2010) a response between 5 and 7 is considered agreement with anthropogenic causation. In their 2008 survey the level of agreement based on the same question was 83.5% and in 2013 it was 80.9%

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk

 

[Sunsettommy]

Again, without it's atmosphere it would be minus 44 degrees. Earth would be minus 18 for comparison so the difference is 26 degrees. As for high atmosphere mass. By what means would it increase heat. Atmospheres are open systems.

Now you suddenly abandon Venus for Earth that is very different atmosphere wise, you are now beginning to run around in circles since the transfer of solar energy and distribution are radically different from each other where Visible light easily reach the Earths surface in abundance while only 5% does for Venus,

Visible wavelengths, only 5% of the sunlight reaches the surface of Venus.

The troposphere of Venus does not receive sunlight at wavelengths below 400 nanometres, since the UV is absorbed by SO2 and the aerosols in the cloud layer.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

 

[forkup]

What damage are you referring to since I have posted official data many times showing no made trends and there are only 5 official climates known and NONE of them are changing even my Eastern Washington region remain the same the entire interglacial period known as BSk

Köppen climate classification​

The Köppen climate classification divides Earth climates into five main climate groups, with each group being divided based on patterns of seasonal precipitation and temperature. The five main groups are A (tropical), B (arid), C (temperate), D (continental), and E (polar).

LINK

=======

You are being hyperbolic here and dishonest and false too.

These damages. Economic losses from weather- and climate-related extremes in Europe

Hyperbolic am I.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Wow, one of those is 100% right and everything he has posted here is 100% irrefutable, to the point where the other, a lying taxpayer funded Jew Supremacist Cocksucking "Faux Skeptic" CO2 FRAUD Mossad, cannot answer basic climate questions and pushes a theory that translates "water causes ice"..... while 3rd graders might notice water is too warm to do that...

Hang in there ! I appreciate all the information you post.

 

[HikerGuy83]

"a lot of stuff" = the ACTUAL data, not the fudge...

I get that......I have just been slow to sit down and really apply myself.

I know that you talk about weather ballon and satellite temps that refute the idea we are actually warming. Another thing I really need to dig into.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The part where these true statements are used as a justification for trying to avoid minimizing the damage that rapid climate change causes.

What damage is specific to this time that has not been present before ?

 

[Sunsettommy]

These damages. Economic losses from weather- and climate-related extremes in Europe

View attachment 1153074

Hyperbolic am I.

Yes since you made this unsupported claim that is a good example of Hyperbole which I refuted easily that you ignored to run to a metric that isn't directly tied to weather events.

The rest of the world has long since accepted that the climate is changing, it's changing rapidly, and people should try to mitigate its consequences.

You claim it is changing rapidly but my source which you ignored says there no visible change at all.

You are being dishonest now.

 

[EMH]

I get that......I have just been slow to sit down and really apply myself.

I know that you talk about weather ballon and satellite temps that refute the idea we are actually warming. Another thing I really need to dig into.

It isn't that hard.

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and for more than three decades of rising atmospheric CO2, both showed precisely no warming in highly correlated fashion. Then both were fudged in 2005 over laughable BS excuses.

Surface Air Pressure 100% validates the actual data and refutes the fudge.

= EARTH (ATMOSPHERE) NOT WARMING

 

[ReinyDays]

I see your point about fixed annual insolation via the cosine of latitude. But when snow cover increases, you raise the surface albedo, so more of that same sunlight gets reflected and less is absorbed. In energy-budget terms, Net Absorbed = I·cos φ·(1 − α). A small rise in α immediately reduces net absorption. Over consecutive seasons, that persistent reduction accumulates cooler ground temperatures, allowing even more snow to linger. The energy driving the feedback isn’t ‘new’, it’s the same solar input redistributed by a changing albedo

A small rise in albedo does immediately reduce net absorption, but only a little bit ...

Your equation is only the average though a year ... or at the equinox ... if you're predicting doom and gloom, this would come at the winter solstice ... Net Absorbed = I cos (lat + 23º) (1-a) ... note latitude has to be less than 67º or albedo goes infinite ... six months later we use cos (lat - 23º)(1-a) ... tiny changes here make tiny changes there ...

Keep in mind ... obliquity ranges from 22º15' to 24º15' ... that's only 130 miles along the ground ... and we're right about the middle of that range right now ... small changes make for small changes ...

So much more of the world is between the Sixtieth parallels ... the poles serve as more as exhaust vents to outer space ...

 

[forkup]

Now you suddenly abandon Venus for Earth that is very different atmosphere wise, you are now beginning to run around in circles since the transfer of solar energy and distribution are radically different from each other where Visible light easily reach the Earths surface in abundance while only 5% does for Venus,

No I was simply pointed out that Venus its proximity to the sun accounts for a whopping 18 degrees C increase relative to earth and that there is no physical way for atmospheric pressure to account for an increase in temperature in planet meaning that it has to be the composition of the atmosphere that accounts for temperature. In the case of Venus, it's mostly CO2. Also how does less sunlight reaching the planet cause an increase in temperature? I tell you how. That heat is trapped by CO2.

 

[forkup]

Yes since you made this unsupported claim that is a good example of Hyperbole which I refuted easily that you ignored to run to a metric that isn't directly tied to weather events.



You claim it is changing rapidly but my source which you ignored says there no visible change at all.

You are being dishonest now.

Wait economic losses from weather and climate related extremes aren't tied to weather? Boy that's some logic.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

The British Antarctic Survey organises its activities from its UK headquarters on the outskirts of the city of Cambridge. The original building, constructed in 1975, has been extended twice since then. It now provides offices, laboratories and workshops to support all the scientific and logistic activities in the Antarctic

 

[ReinyDays]

What you posted isn't from the actual abstract. But from another study that was never adopted by the IPCC.

Then post a link to the real one ...

 

[HikerGuy83]

The rest of the world

Sorry....but that is the political part.

It's become a cult and you can't something against it without feeling their wrath.

The UN is posting unsupportable BS about this and calling for what......the U.S. to shut down? You won't seen India or China doing it.

The fact that we blew past going heavy into nuclear can be attributed to the same idiots who want everyone riding bicycles. Stupid decisions have stupid consequences.

Not that I believe (or disbelieve) AGW.

But, I do know that the alarmist crowd are now on the outs. And it's not just with Republicans.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-agriculture/2024/04/01/inside-dems-internal-climate-feud-00149894

Read the article: A climate slant to the inflation reduction act. What a load of BS.

 

[HikerGuy83]

These damages. Economic losses from weather- and climate-related extremes in Europe

View attachment 1153074

Hyperbolic am I.

Any article written by a group like: The Europenan Environment Agency is OUT.

Nobody in these groups is objective. And No, I am not spending my time proving it to myself again.

 

[forkup]

A small rise in albedo does immediately reduce net absorption, but only a little bit ...

Your equation is only the average though a year ... or at the equinox ... if you're predicting doom and gloom, this would come at the winter solstice ... Net Absorbed = I cos (lat + 23º) (1-a) ... note latitude has to be less than 67º or albedo goes infinite ... six months later we use cos (lat - 23º)(1-a) ... tiny changes here make tiny changes there ...

Keep in mind ... obliquity ranges from 22º15' to 24º15' ... that's only 130 miles along the ground ... and we're right about the middle of that range right now ... small changes make for small changes ...

So much more of the world is between the Sixtieth parallels ... the poles serve as more as exhaust vents to outer space ...

I get you’re using cos(lat±23°) to show an almost negligible seasonal tweak. But every season that extra snow boosts albedo, cutting net absorption by I·cos φ·(1–α). Do that winter after winter, and those tiny shortfalls pile up until the climate shifts. It’s the year-on-year accumulation, not a one-off solstice snapshot, that drives the feedback loop

 

[HikerGuy83]

Wait economic losses from weather

Have been happening for a long long time.

In 1816, Tambora creates the year with no summer.

Hmmmmmmm........

climate related extremes

What is a climate related extreme.

You have made me curious. Looking for parameters.