Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[Avalanche]

Like a lot of folks, at a crossroads in what i think and how I feel about AGW. My Grandfather, born in 1900s, 02 or 07, always said it couldnt get warm enough for him, while his grandfather spoke of how hot it was during his childhood, which I would assume to be early to mid 1800s.

If my only historical perspective was my time here, then yes, its warmer. To what extent, if any, can we make temps rise or cool, seems nominal at best. How cool should we try to make it? In spite of AGW, people still die from cold temps. So exactly where do we want to control the temp to be? Not everyone will be satisfied. Welcome to our new world.

 

[Iceagewhereartthou]

I am truly fascinated by the discussion in this thread and see valid points on both sides. I don't really opine in this thread much as I just don't know enough about this extremely complex issue to make a lot of contributions or take a hard stance. I tend to say that the climate is ever changing and there are far too many cycles and factors for us to say with any certainty that we know exactly what is causing these changes. I do think the climate has warmed in my lifetime; especially in my corner of the world, which is what I am most familiar with. However, my lifetime hasn't even been the blink of eye and the Earth has been way hotter and colder many times over in it's history. It makes sense to me that we are still warming from our last ice age, and from the Little Ice Age of the 16 and 1700s. Are we contributing to or hastening that warming? I think it is certainly possible; but then again, maybe we aren't. I think it's a bit arrogant for us to claim we know for certain one way or the other.

Maybe we should try something different than what we're doing. Let's stop using political manipulation (to an extreme), fear-mongering, and name-calling, to try to get people to fall in line with a movement that most of it's adherents don't even follow. Many of the most vocal preachers and rabid criticizers of AGW are also the most extreme contributors. Hollywood, entertainers, politicians; the one-percenters. The hypocrisy of their never ending finger pointing and their never ending consumption of fossil fuels (through their private jets, mega yachts, multiple mansions, garages full of cars, constant world traveling, and lavish dinner parties of seafood) is beyond sickening. If they want people to take them seriously, find some people who at least try to walk the walk.

I'm a believer we should be good stewards of the Earth because it is our home, but it starts with personal responsibility; not manipulation, fear-mongering, and name-calling. Beyond personal responsibility; I think we should reduce pollution, increase recycling, stop making everything disposable, research better alternatives, and make better choices. But, I think we should do these things because it makes sense to keep our home clean, efficient, and beautiful. Because we have a responsibility (there's that word again) to our feathered, furry, and scaly friends and leafy companions. But not because some people tell us they "know" how to fix the planet and we better fall in line; even though they don't have to. Not because people want to use the issue to manipulate surrendered control to governments and companies more interested in power than stewardship. And not because some people enjoy putting themselves on pedastals over people they see themselves as more enlightened and educated than. I think there is room for common ground here. We can be better stewards (and I think most people are willing to be) without all the bunk.

 

[MichaelJ]

For those who are freaking out because of some of the fires around the globe lately, check this out

 

[NoSnowATL]

 

[Bham 99]

That is truth!

 

[GaWx]

1. John Coleman, the guy in the video who says there is NO man-made GW, died 3.5 years ago. So, his saying this is very old news.
2. John has no met. degree. He has a bachelors in journalism.
3. John has done no studies of his own on AGW. Note that in totally refuting AGW, he backs it up with nothing.
4. Election Wizard has been pushing the BS that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump with no evidence. Therefore, EW has no credibility.

If one is going to look at this clip objectively, this should all be kept in mind.

From all I have read and learned, the physics behind AGW (increased greenhouse gas related global warming) are not debatable. However, what is debatable is how much AGW will end up warming the globe as politics are playing a huge part in the debate by making it worse than reality on the lib side.


From Mike Maguire, a pro met in Indiana who is 100% against the Green New Deal and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, who takes a middle road:

"On the contribution from greenhouse gas warming. I'm with Cliff Mass on this one. Probably 2 deg. F or so contribution from the increase in CO2. "

"For sure the planet is warmer by just over 1 deg. C over the last century with the coldest places during the coldest times of year(and night) warming the most. The physics of CO2 are irrefutable."


"There is real greenhouse gas warming with absolute proven physics. Anybody that claims otherwise is to be avoided as a credible source.

But the authentic science shows pretty conclusively that its 50% of the amount that mainstream science is using for political, non scientific objectives."
--------------------------
So, because he said there is NO AGW, I'm saying John Coleman is wrong.

 

[MichaelJ]

Coleman does indeed not have a degree in any of the Atmospheric Sciences, James Hansen got his degree in Math and Physics, then an MS in Astronomy and finally a PHD in Physics. Michael Mann has his degrees in Math, Computing and Physics and also Geology. While these disciplines are used in Sciences , people like John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer have degrees specific to climate. Christy has a a MS and PHD in Atmospheric Sciences as well as Math. Spencer has a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and a MS and PHD in Meteorology. Curry has degrees in geology and a PHD in geophysical sciences. So why should we put more credence in a math and general physics guy over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

 

[LickWx]

I’m pretty sure some of y’all global warming pushers have hilarious views on what your local climate used to be like . Savannah never averaged sub 60 highs or mild summers . 1960s 1880s 1560s or ever . Neither did Raleigh ever average more than a degree cooler than it is today. Your global warming is so intense Raleigh warmed .35 degrees from 81-10 to 91-20. If we are warming rapidly we should have warmed more , after all the 80s were dropped from our record and they were very cold . We dropped one of our coldest decades and still barely warmed ?

 

[GaWx]

Coleman does indeed not have a degree in any of the Atmospheric Sciences, James Hansen got his degree in Math and Physics, then an MS in Astronomy and finally a PHD in Physics. Michael Mann has his degrees in Math, Computing and Physics and also Geology. While these disciplines are used in Sciences , people like John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer have degrees specific to climate. Christy has a a MS and PHD in Atmospheric Sciences as well as Math. Spencer has a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and a MS and PHD in Meteorology. Curry has degrees in geology and a PHD in geophysical sciences. So why should we put more credence in a math and general physics guy over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

The issue I'm addressing is that Coleman believed there's NO AGW...not even a little...NONE. The three folks who I bolded all do believe there is AGW...just not to catastrophic or modeled levels:


1. John Christy:

a. From Wikipedia:
"In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

b. From John Christy - DeSmog :
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”


2. Judith Curry:

a. From:
Climate Change Skeptic Or Denier? (forbes.com)

"Professor Judith Curry is often interviewed for her thoughts on climate change. While labelled a denier by many, she concedes that to some degree, she is part of the consensus (see: ). “Yes it’s warming. Yes, humans contribute to it. I mean everybody agrees with that; and I’m in the 98%. It’s when you get down to the details that there is genuine disagreement [January 7, 2017].” Is she a denier? A skeptic? A doubter?"

b. From Judith Curry - Wikipedia

"she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable."


3. Roy Spencer:
From: No, Roy Spencer is not a climate “denier” « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

1. "I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).

I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',

In the case of global warming, alarmists apparently insist that you must believe that global warming is a 'crisis' or an 'emergency', or else you will be thrown under the bus."


OTOH, Coleman, who had no atmospheric degree, said in that clip (which was in 2014) that there is definitely NO AGW and provided absolutely no evidence for that assertion. See the big difference here between Coleman and the other three? That's the only point I'm making. Why should we put more credence in a journalism guy (Coleman) over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

If you disagree with this point, please explain. Thank you.

 

[Downeastnc]

I’m pretty sure some of y’all global warming pushers have hilarious views on what your local climate used to be like . Savannah never averaged sub 60 highs or mild summers . 1960s 1880s 1560s or ever . Neither did Raleigh ever average more than a degree cooler than it is today. Your global warming is so intense Raleigh warmed .35 degrees from 81-10 to 91-20. If we are warming rapidly we should have warmed more , after all the 80s were dropped from our record and they were very cold . We dropped one of our coldest decades and still barely warmed ?

The warming is not even over the entire planet.....the effect is felt more in the poles and less as you move towards the equator....

Look its a simple question, the Earth has a natural CO2 cycle, over the last 100 yrs of so man has come along and intervened in that cycle and is now releasing 30-35 gigatons of what was sequestered CO2 annually, CO2 has a known radiative forcing rate, CO2 is increasing faster than any known period in the last several million years, there is no way it is not contributing to warming, how much is a valid question....so your mistake is equating the warming in RDU with the rest of the world......its a much bigger deal for say the folks in Alaska...

As Alaska permafrost melts, roads sink, bridges tilt and greenhouse gases escape

www.adn.com

This graph says it all....

 

[BHS1975]

The problem is we are seeing a lot of unforeseen effects from just 1C of warming that our infrastructure and people are not prepared for and we are shooting past 1.5C by the 2030s unless we take extreme measures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelJ]

The issue I'm addressing is that Coleman believed there's NO AGW...not even a little...NONE. The three folks who I bolded all do believe there is AGW...just not to catastrophic or modeled levels:


1. John Christy:

a. From Wikipedia:
"In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

b. From John Christy - DeSmog :
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”


2. Judith Curry:

a. From:
Climate Change Skeptic Or Denier? (forbes.com)

"Professor Judith Curry is often interviewed for her thoughts on climate change. While labelled a denier by many, she concedes that to some degree, she is part of the consensus (see: ). “Yes it’s warming. Yes, humans contribute to it. I mean everybody agrees with that; and I’m in the 98%. It’s when you get down to the details that there is genuine disagreement [January 7, 2017].” Is she a denier? A skeptic? A doubter?"

b. From Judith Curry - Wikipedia

"she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable."


3. Roy Spencer:
From: No, Roy Spencer is not a climate “denier” « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

1. "I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).

I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',

In the case of global warming, alarmists apparently insist that you must believe that global warming is a 'crisis' or an 'emergency', or else you will be thrown under the bus."


OTOH, Coleman, who had no atmospheric degree, said in that clip (which was in 2014) that there is definitely NO AGW and provided absolutely no evidence for that assertion. See the big difference here between Coleman and the other three? That's the only point I'm making. Why should we put more credence in a journalism guy (Coleman) over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

If you disagree with this point, please explain. Thank you.

If you look back you will see that I said I was a "lukewarmer" ie someone who believes the planet is warming but that it is WAY too early to tell what is causing this. The reason is probably a combination of mainly natural cyclical changes and the increasing population resulting in new houses, roads, buildings etc and possibly a small amount due to greenhouse gases. My point to you was you can point out John Coleman as somene who is not qualified to make his statements (and I agree there, we should putlittle credence in what he says coincerning atmospheric science) but I could point out hundreds of those on the other side who are not qualified to make their statements of the catastrophic effects of a verified 1 degree C rise in our temps but why bother, because the news media use them as their go to guys when reporting on AGW. Many people (I suspect BHS is one) who think the increase of CO2 atoms which are in the atmosphere can continue on a linear rise when it is established this is not true, it rises in a logarithmic manner and even this will reach a point of saturation of CO 2 in the upper atmosphere at some point. Personally I think the saturation will come around 600ppm+ but it is a theory and must be backed up by data but I won't be around when it does. Overall I don't think there is a big difference in our views on AGW but cherry picking the extremes of either side is not productive, thanks

 

[LickWx]

The warming is not even over the entire planet.....the effect is felt more in the poles and less as you move towards the equator....

Look its a simple question, the Earth has a natural CO2 cycle, over the last 100 yrs of so man has come along and intervened in that cycle and is now releasing 30-35 gigatons of what was sequestered CO2 annually, CO2 has a known radiative forcing rate, CO2 is increasing faster than any known period in the last several million years, there is no way it is not contributing to warming, how much is a valid question....so your mistake is equating the warming in RDU with the rest of the world......its a much bigger deal for say the folks in Alaska...

As Alaska permafrost melts, roads sink, bridges tilt and greenhouse gases escape

www.adn.com

This graph says it all....
View attachment 86361

Except apparently , according to your highly esteemed NCEI , the station which warmed the most in the entire US was not in Alaska .... but Charlottesville VA. Lmao. Does that make sense ? Absolutely not . They can’t even properly record the weather and calculate the climate normals .

 

[J.C.]

Am I the only one that thinks that a potentially longer growing season in the more northern and southern latitudes would be a positive outcome with regards to food production? Its like climate alarmist want the late 1700s mini ice age all over again.

 

[LickWx]

Am I the only one that thinks that a potentially longer growing season in the more northern and southern latitudes would be a positive outcome with regards to food production? Its like climate alarmist want the late 1700s mini ice age all over again.

Exactly , a bit warmer climate is a net positive . Not too mention, a warmer world means a wetter Sahel region in Africa . Remember the giant famines and droughts of the 80s in east Africa ? Those are correlated with cooler global temps , specially cold Atlantic .

 

[NoSnowATL]

Exactly , a bit warmer climate is a net positive . Not too mention, a warmer world means a wetter Sahel region in Africa . Remember the giant famines and droughts of the 80s in east Africa ? Those are correlated with cooler global temps , specially cold Atlantic .

Its simple and I've said it a few million times. Just stop trying to control the climate and let whatever happens happen. My guess is that we die from a asteroid before we die from GW.

 

[J.C.]

Exactly , a bit warmer climate is a net positive . Not too mention, a warmer world means a wetter Sahel region in Africa . Remember the giant famines and droughts of the 80s in east Africa ? Those are correlated with cooler global temps , specially cold Atlantic .

We all know what this is about. One particular political party has to keep fear mongering on various issues because of repeated failed policies. I used to believe all of that ---- too. On topic though, it does feel like our region of the country has gone a significant time now without an extreme drought like the one faced back in the late 2000s. If AGW has anything to do with our wetter climate of late, bring it on.

 

[NoSnowATL]

We all know what this is about. One particular political party has to keep fear mongering on various issues because of repeated failed policies. I used to believe all of that ---- too. On topic though, it does feel like our region of the country has gone a significant time now without an extreme drought like the one faced back in the late 2000s. If AGW has anything to do with our wetter climate of late, bring it on.

Nope you forgot, GW is blamed for every single event in weather. Drought, rain, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding etc... hell even if its sunny its because of GW.

 

[Downeastnc]

Except apparently , according to your highly esteemed NCEI , the station which warmed the most in the entire US was not in Alaska .... but Charlottesville VA. Lmao. Does that make sense ? Absolutely not . They can’t even properly record the weather and calculate the climate normals .

Your basically saying disregard all the obvious evidence and data because a few bad data points are included....this is silly. I have no idea what percentage of the warming is our fault, I know its more than zero and less than all....trying to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible is a good thing, I know the evidence points towards humans having a fairly significant impact.....but nations and industries should be incentivized to go as green as possible, same with the auto industry etc.....if for no other reason than to reduce the pollution and other issues fossil fuels produce....I dont buy into the alarmist crap, and I dont support global carbon taxes or other things at this point, but by the same token the deniers saying man is not responsible for warming are just as full of crap as the alarmist

 

[LickWx]

Your basically saying disregard all the obvious evidence and data because a few bad data points are included....this is silly. I have no idea what percentage of the warming is our fault, I know its more than zero and less than all....trying to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible is a good thing, I know the evidence points towards humans having a fairly significant impact.....but nations and industries should be incentivized to go as green as possible, same with the auto industry etc.....if for no other reason than to reduce the pollution and other issues fossil fuels produce....I dont buy into the alarmist crap, and I dont support global carbon taxes or other things at this point, but by the same token the deniers saying man is not responsible for warming are just as full of crap as the alarmist

It’s not a few lol. None of it made sense , Charlotte warmed 1.3 degrees Asheville 1.5 but Boone cooled and Raleigh and Greensboro didn’t budge . Nashville warmed like 2 degrees lmao , it’s embarrassing really.

 

[J.C.]

It’s not a few lol. None of it made sense , Charlotte warmed 1.3 degrees Asheville 1.5 but Boone cooled and Raleigh and Greensboro didn’t budge . Nashville warmed like 2 degrees lmao , it’s embarrassing really.

I'm almost certain a large portion of the warming in cities is due to the increased overnight lows due to UHI. I check all the reporting stations in the Peachtree City NOAA region, and I can tell you for certain that there is some very flawed recording of temperatures going on. I'll provide an example.

This is a station near my area, completely unacceptable:

 

[Bham 99]

Its simple and I've said it a few million times. Just stop trying to control the climate and let whatever happens happen. My guess is that we die from a asteroid before we die from GW.

People need a cause to fight for, to make themselves feel important and everybody else is ignorant.

 

[Bham 99]

It’s not a few lol. None of it made sense , Charlotte warmed 1.3 degrees Asheville 1.5 but Boone cooled and Raleigh and Greensboro didn’t budge . Nashville warmed like 2 degrees lmao , it’s embarrassing really.

Yes you definitely gave us all the reports a couple months back talking about this.

 

[Bham 99]

I'm almost certain a large portion of the warming in cities is due to the increased overnight lows due to UHI. I check all the reporting stations in the Peachtree City NOAA region, and I can tell you for certain that there is some very flawed recording of temperatures going on. I'll provide an example.

This is a station near my area, completely unacceptable:

View attachment 86368

Thank you, no one wants to talk about that

 

[snowlover91]

Something to keep in mind is the UHI effect. Many stations used to be somewhat rural or had less of an UHI effect years ago and now as cities have grown larger and expanded, the UHI creates a warmer microclimate especially in large cities. There have been studies that have shown cities can routinely be 5-10F warmer than the surrounding rural and country areas.

 

[GaWx]

Am I the only one that thinks that a potentially longer growing season in the more northern and southern latitudes would be a positive outcome with regards to food production? Its like climate alarmist want the late 1700s mini ice age all over again.

Not at all. There clearly are some benefits to GW. A warmer world is quite probably a better world when netting all things out. The alarmists will gloss these over of course. The globe has warmed about ~3 F since the late 1800s. That in itself is a good thing even if it is something I don't personally prefer.

 

[VegasEagle]

Think of the world as your bathroom mirror when you take a shower. Hot water makes the room more humid, where the steam collects on your cooler mirror. Which in the real world, warmer temps will melt ice, and, helps evaporate more moisture, that will in return, cause more clouds and more rain globally. Personally, I don't believe mankind affects the temperature, If not just a little bit. People do not understand the mathematics of the amount of energy that is needed to warm the Earth 1 degree. Imagine trying to raise the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ocean by 1 degree. I believe I read that it would that it would take the amount of energy of several nuclear blasts. Also, I'm not sure how much of this extra energy is lost at night, But I would think a good amount would be lost floating back out to space at night. The only thing that make that type of energy is the sun. The sun is stronger than you think. It can burn your skin in hours and fade paint. I pretty sure that my engine in my car makes more heat, than the carbon out of my tail pipe. Also, that carbon is just being put back into the carbon cycle, which some has warned we are becoming carbon poor in nature.. Like I said , it is my opinion but I believe there are small fluctuations in amount of energy the sun puts out . Also you have to include major events like multiple Volcano eruptions also.
P.s. Just the amount of water in the oceans, not lakes, clouds, ice or rivers. Imagine how hot you get your stove top to warm water. (352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallon-sized milk containers! Recent estimates put the volume of the Earth's oceans at 1.332 cubic kilometers. This is equivalent to around , or 352 quintillion, gallons of water.)

 

[Downeastnc]

Think of the world as your bathroom mirror when you take a shower. Hot water makes the room more humid, where the steam collects on your cooler mirror. Which in the real world, warmer temps will melt ice, and, helps evaporate more moisture, that will in return, cause more clouds and more rain globally. Personally, I don't believe mankind affects the temperature, If not just a little bit. People do not understand the mathematics of the amount of energy that is needed to warm the Earth 1 degree. Imagine trying to raise the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ocean by 1 degree. I believe I read that it would that it would take the amount of energy of several nuclear blasts. Also, I'm not sure how much of this extra energy is lost at night, But I would think a good amount would be lost floating back out to space at night. The only thing that make that type of energy is the sun. The sun is stronger than you think. It can burn your skin in hours and fade paint. I pretty sure that my engine in my car makes more heat, than the carbon out of my tail pipe. Also, that carbon is just being put back into the carbon cycle, which some has warned we are becoming carbon poor in nature.. Like I said , it is my opinion but I believe there are small fluctuations in amount of energy the sun puts out . Also you have to include major events like multiple Volcano eruptions also.
P.s. Just the amount of water in the oceans, not lakes, clouds, ice or rivers. Imagine how hot you get your stove top to warm water. (352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallon-sized milk containers! Recent estimates put the volume of the Earth's oceans at 1.332 cubic kilometers. This is equivalent to around , or 352 quintillion, gallons of water.)

The science on this is pretty cut and dry, we know the radiative forcing value of GHG's.....there is also some pretty good understanding of how much CO2 sink there is into global oceans, forest etc....the oceans are the primary sequester of CO2 gas and how FAST can they sequester versus the rate we are producing them is the problem. Mankind is releasing 30-40 gigatons of CO2 annually....oceans can sequester around 3-4 billion tons......so a tenth of what we are producing, global forest/landmass another 8-12 billion, at best the Earth is able to handle not even half of what we are producing annually.....this is why the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is raising at a rate that exceeds anything in the fossil record. This is 100% on us, we are directly responsible for whatever amount of warming we are seeing from this excess CO2....

Take a look at this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Here is the NOAA chart showing the radiative forcing changes from https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing



Since we know how much radiative forcing that extra CO2 produces we are able to make pretty good guesses at how much warming that is causing....and its more than just a little bit.....but I agree that its probably not as much as the warming alarmist claim. This gets the the crux of the issue, one side is chicken little saying the sky is falling and the other side is like if its any warming its just a bit and no big deal....I use to be pretty much on the side of we are not really causing much warming/it has been warmer in the past argument but when I dug down I realized the numbers are not lying and the math and physics involved are pretty undeniable when you look at it without any biases.

 

[BHS1975]

These "heatwaves" out west are the new norm. We just don't realize it yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelJ]

The science on this is pretty cut and dry, we know the radiative forcing value of GHG's.....there is also some pretty good understanding of how much CO2 sink there is into global oceans, forest etc....the oceans are the primary sequester of CO2 gas and how FAST can they sequester versus the rate we are producing them is the problem. Mankind is releasing 30-40 gigatons of CO2 annually....oceans can sequester around 3-4 billion tons......so a tenth of what we are producing, global forest/landmass another 8-12 billion, at best the Earth is able to handle not even half of what we are producing annually.....this is why the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is raising at a rate that exceeds anything in the fossil record. This is 100% on us, we are directly responsible for whatever amount of warming we are seeing from this excess CO2....

Take a look at this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Here is the NOAA chart showing the radiative forcing changes from https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing

View attachment 86397

Since we know how much radiative forcing that extra CO2 produces we are able to make pretty good guesses at how much warming that is causing....and its more than just a little bit.....but I agree that its probably not as much as the warming alarmist claim. This gets the the crux of the issue, one side is chicken little saying the sky is falling and the other side is like if its any warming its just a bit and no big deal....I use to be pretty much on the side of we are not really causing much warming/it has been warmer in the past argument but when I dug down I realized the numbers are not lying and the math and physics involved are pretty undeniable when you look at it without any biases.

Question, how and where did this Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory get started and where was it tested?

 

[MichaelJ]

Fact is the "experts assured us now for 20 years that the Arctic Ice would be gone in the summer (has not), 8 tornadoes would increase (have not) Hurricanes would be more numerous (have not), fires would engulf the planet (have not), snows would be a thing of the past (have not, well except for Columbia SC), droughts would increase in severity (have not), storms would be more severe (have not), temps would rise exponentially due to feedbacks (have not) and ad infinitum. When are these computer models going to be correct? I'll wait right here for the date.

 

[Downeastnc]

Question, how and where did this Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory get started and where was it tested?

Theory? It is not a theory.....if there was no system in place to sequester CO2 then what do you reckon the Earth would look like after hundreds of millions of years of CO2 being gassed out with no way to sequester it ( hint look up Venus ) ........do yourself a favor and read up on some of this stuff before you start sayin stuff like the carbon cycle is a theory....

 

[VegasEagle]

Theory? It is not a theory.....if there was no system in place to sequester CO2 then what do you reckon the Earth would look like after hundreds of millions of years of CO2 being gassed out with no way to sequester it ( hint look up Venus ) ........do yourself a favor and read up on some of this stuff before you start sayin stuff like the carbon cycle is a theory....

I am lost , he did not say anything about the carbon cycle. Is it another way of saying Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory? I will make it simple, explain the billions of barrels of oil.

 

[Downeastnc]

I am lost , he did not say anything about the carbon cycle. Is it another way of saying Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory? I will make it simple, explain the billions of barrels of oil.

There is no such thing as the "Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory...go re read the exchange I was talking about how man is producing more CO2 than the Earth's carbon cycle can handle...if we are making twice as much CO2 than the carbon cycle can handle, what happens to the excess CO2....it builds up in the air....I mean how do you explain these charts....given that we know we are doubling the capacity of what the earth can handle Co2 wise ANNUALLY it no real surprise that the charts looks the way they do, it is undeniable that we humans are rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations the only question is not if we are contributing to the warming but rather how much and what are the ramifications of not changing our CO2 output for several more decades.



or even further back.....

 

[GaWx]

The truth is almost certainly somewhere between and well away from either extreme of far leftist catastrophic alarmists and far rightist denial that AGW even exists at all. It is politicized way too much, which sucks as I really hate political BS/tribalism. This is so far from black and white, but folks on both sides love to make it as if it were since they love to talk more about how the other side is wrong than anything else.

 

[Downeastnc]

The truth is almost certainly somewhere between and well away from either extreme of far leftist catastrophic alarmists and far rightist denial that AGW even exists at all. It is politicized way too much, which sucks as I really hate political BS/tribalism. This is so far from black and white, but folks on both sides love to make it as if it were since they love to talk more about how the other side is wrong than anything else.

This is the problem with this topic, people cant see past their political biases and just look at the data.....there are several truths that both sides need to accept....

1) Man is certainly contributing to the warming, its impossible for us not to be.....

2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day...

 

[GaWx]

This is the problem with this topic, people cant see past their political biases and just look at the data.....there are several truths that both sides need to accept....

1) Man is certainly contributing to the warming, its impossible for us not to be.....

2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day...

I agree with #1 totally. I mean even the 3 brilliant and knowledgeable skeptical folks @MichaelJ mentioned that support his own middle of the road position that even he said is similar to mine, have clearly stated they believe AGW exists. One of them, the brilliant Dr. Roy Spencer said:," I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',"

and

"I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming"

Spencer, Curry, and Christy are skeptics not because they don't believe in AGW but because they don't believe in the alarmist catastrophic scenarios often shown by models and also spouted by leftists for political purposes. Look above for all the quotes I posted from all three of them.

In other words, these three believe that John Coleman is full of BS, but that also the leftist Democrats are full of BS.

You then said:
"2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day.."

Regarding your #2, I agree with the first part 100% as nobody knows the exact amount of impact.

Regarding the 2nd part, I have several things to say: it does appear it is growing more significant every day but I also feel that at some point negative feedback of some kind (possibly unknown) may come in and halt the warming well before climate models say so. It could even happen soon for all I know. Or perhaps some totally different climo factor enters the picture and causes enough cooling to counter the AGW.

Also, I feel that you should have included what @J.C. mentioned: that increased food production and increased greening of our planet are likely positive effects of AGW. By the way, increased greening may itself eventually impart enough negative feedback to halt GW. Also, fewer people freezing to death, lower heating costs, etc. It is conceivable that AGW is a net positive for our planet. I don't know that, but it is something the left will never even mention for obvious reasons. I'm saying this even as one not far from the coast who is concerned about future sea level rises affecting Tybee Island, etc.

 

[VegasEagle]

There is no such thing as the "Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory...go re read the exchange I was talking about how man is producing more CO2 than the Earth's carbon cycle can handle...if we are making twice as much CO2 than the carbon cycle can handle, what happens to the excess CO2....it builds up in the air....I mean how do you explain these charts....given that we know we are doubling the capacity of what the earth can handle Co2 wise ANNUALLY it no real surprise that the charts looks the way they do, it is undeniable that we humans are rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations the only question is not if we are contributing to the warming but rather how much and what are the ramifications of not changing our CO2 output for several more decades.

View attachment 86409

or even further back.....

View attachment 86410

Who says that this is a bad thing. Explain oil and it's role in the carbon cycle.

 

[Downeastnc]

Who says that this is a bad thing. Explain oil and it's role in the carbon cycle.

Who says what is a bad thing, I am not following what your asking, are you asking why doubling the CO2 the earth can process annually is bad?

 

[Downeastnc]

I agree with #1 totally. I mean even the 3 brilliant and knowledgeable skeptical folks @MichaelJ mentioned that support his own middle of the road position that even he said is similar to mine, have clearly stated they believe AGW exists. One of them, the brilliant Dr. Roy Spencer said:," I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',"

and

"I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming"

Spencer, Curry, and Christy are skeptics not because they don't believe in AGW but because they don't believe in the alarmist catastrophic scenarios often shown by models and also spouted by leftists for political purposes. Look above for all the quotes I posted from all three of them.

In other words, these three believe that John Coleman is full of BS, but that also the leftist Democrats are full of BS.

You then said:
"2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day.."

Regarding your #2, I agree with the first part 100% as nobody knows the exact amount of impact.

Regarding the 2nd part, I have several things to say: it does appear it is growing more significant every day but I also feel that at some point negative feedback of some kind (possibly unknown) may come in and halt the warming well before climate models say so. It could even happen soon for all I know. Or perhaps some totally different climo factor enters the picture and causes enough cooling to counter the AGW.

Also, I feel that you should have included what JC mentioned: that increased food production and increased greening of our planet are likely positive effects of AGW. By the way, increased greening may itself eventually impart enough negative feedback to halt GW. Also, fewer people freezing to death, lower heating costs, etc. It is conceivable that AGW is a net positive for our planet. I don't know that, but it is something the left will never even mention for obvious reasons. I'm saying this even as one not far from the coast who is concerned about future sea level rises affecting Tybee Island, etc.

I agree the reforestation of the tundra will help act as a huge carbon sink, but the planet has a natural cycle, a ebb and flow that we are currently throwing out of whack......honestly trying to put a positive spin on it is a bit like polishing a turd, it looks good but it still smells like ----....the problem with this all is we simply do not know what or even if there is a "tipping point".....or if there is a counter point etc built into the system, the roll of the dice is huge here as if there is a tipping point and we pass it then all bets are off...

So there could be some "good" things that come from warming, and warming is going to occur anyways since we are in a interglacial period....still at the end of the day we are putting more into the system than the system can handle, as someone who works with complex machines and systems I can not think of one single one of them that reacts well to overloading......