Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

Sailor presented a recent enlightening video where is was discussed that the Sun is the driver of the weather and that there is a correlation between water vapour and temperature increase.

There are also discussions showing how relatively minute the CO2 gas is in the atmosphere compared to water vapour.

Consider this:

What evidences do you need? If there is not enough evidences for you now, there never will be.

I have yet to see climate deniers showing any convincing arguments or evidences; they only say that for some reasons scientists are lying, or stupids by saying they didn't take into account elements that they did took into account.

That source does not support your claim that CO2's forcing of the temperature increase is insignificant.

The things you listed have been happening at various times througout the history of this planet.
What makes you think that they are signs of catastrophic climate crisis?


Have you ever examined any of the actual evidence offered- either supporting or critical- of CAGW?
Some scientists do lie. They're people. It happens.
Question is: Which ones are lying and which ones are not? How do you know?

Have you ever examined any of the actual evidence offered- either supporting or critical- of CAGW?
Some scientists do lie. They're people. It happens.
Question is: Which ones are lying and which ones are not? How do you know?

<sigh>
It is not *MY* claim.
I am saying I am looking at arguments on "both"/all sides of the fence.

If what someone else writes pisses your orf,
Talk to them,
Not me.

The reason I added that information was to highlight how relatively insignificant CO2 is in the atmosphere.
And, *from memory*,
Man-made CO2 is 3% or 4% of that .04%.
It makes you think,
Well it makes *some* people think.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs heat. Warmed by sunlight, Earth’s land and ocean surfaces continuously radiate thermal infrared energy (heat). Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out. Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth’s average annual temperature would be below freezing instead of close to 60°F. But increases in greenhouse gases have tipped the Earth's energy budget out of balance, trapping additional heat and raising Earth's average temperature.

Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. It absorbs less heat per molecule than the greenhouse gases methane or nitrous oxide, but it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not, which means it adds to the greenhouse effect in a unique way. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise.

This is going into conspiracy theory territory. There are thousands of climate scientists who have been involved in this research, spread across multiple institutions in several different countries, and nearly all of their research supports anthropogenic climate change--

This is going into conspiracy theory territory. There are thousands of climate scientists who have been involved in this research, spread across multiple institutions in several different countries, and nearly all of their research supports anthropogenic climate change--now I don't know if that is CAGW, since you have never defined that term, but they do support that climate change is happening and it's primarily forced by artificial CO2 emissions. However, I get the impression from your posts that for you, for all intents and purposes, CAGW is any anthropogenic climate change where the effects of the man-made CO2 increase and the warming are significant and dangerous. So what you're saying here is just laughable.

This is going into conspiracy theory territory.

So what you're saying here is just laughable.

Great, you just want to learn, so let me explain for you what the scientists are saying, since it contradicts your assertions. Is that OK with you? I want you to read this so you can understand.

There are carbon sources (i.e. that is, things that emit CO2 into the air) and there are carbon sinks (i.e. that is, things that take CO2 from the air). Prior to human interference, they were roughly equal in terms of how much CO2 was being emitted and how much was being taken from the air, so there isn't really any change. However, human activities have tipped the scales, to where carbon sources are now emitting more CO2 into the air than carbon sinks are taking them out. Therefore, CO2 is now beginning to increase, and though the margin is not particularly big, it does add up. Since then, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has increased from about 275 ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution to over 400 ppm. So you are incorrect that humans are responsible for only 3% or 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere:



https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... on-dioxide

My source explains why carbon dioxide matters:

And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not, which means it adds to the greenhouse effect in a unique way. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise.

The irony is staggeringly exquisite.
Intoxicating.

Some things have been proven to be flase,
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.

The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.

Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years. That includes greenhouse gases and aerosols, tiny particles that reflect sunlight. Pollution levels hinge on a host of unpredictable factors. Emissions might rise or fall because of regulations, technological advances, or economic booms and busts.

To take one example, Hausfather points to a famous 1988 model overseen by then–NASA scientist James Hansen. The model predicted that if climate pollution kept rising at an even pace, average global temperatures today would be approximately 0.3°C warmer than they actually are. That has helped make Hansen’s work a popular target for critics of climate science.

Hausfather found that most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model’s basic physics, however. Instead, it arose because pollution levels changed in ways Hansen didn’t predict. For example, the model overestimated the amount of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—that would go into the atmosphere in future years. It also didn’t foresee a precipitous drop in planet-warming refrigerants like some Freon compounds after international regulations from the Montreal Protocol became effective in 1989.

When Hausfather’s team set pollution inputs in Hansen’s model to correspond to actual historical levels, its projected temperature increases lined up with observed temperatures.

The new findings echo what many in the climate science world already know, says Piers Forster, an expert in climate modeling at the United Kingdom’s University of Leeds. Still, he says, “It’s nice to see it confirmed.”

This is going into conspiracy theory territory. There are thousands of climate scientists who have been involved in this research, spread across multiple institutions in several different countries, and nearly all of their research supports anthropogenic climate change--now I don't know if that is CAGW, since you have never defined that term, but they do support that climate change is happening and it's primarily forced by artificial CO2 emissions. However, I get the impression from your posts that for you, for all intents and purposes, CAGW is any anthropogenic climate change where the effects of the man-made CO2 increase and the warming are significant and dangerous. So what you're saying here is just laughable.

Are you including the infamous: "97% of climate scientists agree" nonsense?

Pepe,



No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s: