Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[B. W.]

You have clearly no knowledge of the literature in climate science. There are numerous topic were they are disagreeing between each other. The same in Earth Science. They are simply not disagreeing about the basics in atmospheric physics because it is simply unintelligent to disagree in those topics. Do you see numerous scientists disagreeing with the very basics of evolution theory? No. Does it mean they are restrained to do so? No. Does it mean there is no debate about evolution theory? No, there is a debate, but on a very higher level and on subtle details, not about what most of the contrarian of evolution theory are claiming. This is the same situation about climate science.

Another lie and cliché from a zealot that naively accepted some exaggerated claims from B.W. blog article spamming. Honestly, try to stop your double standard. Everything in your view of science is built upon trial of intent. Scientists have a huge interest to disprove each others contrary to your claims.



Actually no scientist said that like this. Science is indeed never settled and Karl Popper explained why a scientific theory is generally impossible to really prove (from a very strict perspective) but scientific theories that are generally accepted are those passing the refutation process. But I admit sometimes experts summarize the things like they are settled, but this is an issue in ALL fields. This is generally due to the low level of knowledge of their audience (and of the media).

The actual theory for climate change and CO2 is a solid theory resisting to refutation. NASA explained is opinion about the consensus: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Nasa also released a report that stated that climate change was NOT due to human activity:

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-08-3...sil-fuels.html

[Daruwind]

Nasa also released a report that stated that climate change was NOT due to human activity:

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-08-3...sil-fuels.html

No, NASA said different thing, that such theory is able to explain past things. Like when humans were not doing crap. And it is one thing that is happening however on top of that you have to add human activity ;-)
From top of the page:

This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science.

Now show me where is written exactly explanation for lower red circle which is basically human activity. Point is, you are jumping to wrong conclusion...

[Daruwind]

Such calibration could potentially lead to sources of error, if done incorrectly. The assumption is that if someone expects to get a certain fault, could they adjust the calibration until they got the results they expected? All the he data in the world world won't mean a thing if people don't trust your integrity.

Note, the errors in calibration and data doesn't have to be deliberate. If a person knew what results to expect, they might honestly adjust thr calibration until it gives the results they knew they should be getting. If you are doing a lab experiment, and everyone else is getting different results, there would be a great temptation. To adjust rhe calibration of your equipment until you got results everyone else got and you expected to get. If you got different results, you would likely shrug it off as bad calibration of your equipment. But that supposedly bad result might actually be right, you might have had a contaminated sample, and everyone else just adjusted their readings and equipment to get the expected results. It would take a brave sole to publish their results that went against everybody else's results, even if they were right.

It you have taken lab classes, you know that if you get results different from everybody else, you are going to logically assune that somehow you made an error, and will Lily throw out those results and repeat the xperiment until you get the results everyone else did. I think only a few individuals would have the courage and honesty to give their results despite it not agreeing with everyone's else's result, especially if they would be accused of being shills for the oil company.

For science to function properly, contrary results to the prevailing wisdom have to be accepted. Not necessarily as accurate, but at least in good faith, and that is not the case in Climate Change. Any one who doubts climate change is branded a heretic and a "shill for the oil company". Non one is going to find or publish any data contradicting the Climate Change dogma, unless they want to commit career suicide and be branded as either totally incompetent or a flunkly of big oil and coal companies. So naturally, all the results confirm climate change, what else would expect?

Only in Climate Change is the mantra "The Science is Settled!" changed, all other areas it is understood the science is never settled. While I believe that the evidence does support the claims of Climate Change, I don't agree that the evidence is so clear cut or overwhelming that no reasonable person could be skeptical, which is what many Climate Change proponents claim. Calling all skeptics "shills for the oil companies" isn't going to convince them, nor will shouting out "the science is settled".

See problem with this thinking is, you never know as scientist if you have final verdict or not. I´m not climate scientist. Just particle/nuclear one. But I can easily point you to history of different models for atoms, particles, standard model up to current Higgs and possible scenarios into future from which we don´t know which one is the correct one. Point is, the work is never done. And very often it is trying to tackle the problem from different angle and repeat the experiements. Getting from simple explanation into more complex one...but this is galaxy away from faking data or calibration to match others.

And I bet 99% of scientist work the data with best effort and knowledge. Like if more groups is getting certain result and you not, it is more probable that you are making systematic mistake than the variant that a few independent groups is making systematic mistake... But that´s it. Like you don´t see "new calibration" or "new way how to work data" to get so different numbers. Climate models with all possible variables are so complex things. With such approach they will catch you or more likely you will sooner or later catch yourself in corner which you would be unable to explain.

tl dr; changes in calibrations, data handling, procedures over time are okey.

[Genava]

Nasa also released a report that stated that climate change was NOT due to human activity:

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-08-3...sil-fuels.html

So your link says that NASA acknowledged (and still acknowledge) the importance of Milankovitch cycles in past climate changes. It is true, no problem with that. However, if you were paying attention to my arguments, you would have realized that the Milankovitch cycles are cooling slightly the Earth for several thousands of years.

Old message:

Again, in this case this is due to changes in orbital parameters, which is not the current situation now. Think about the time scale and about the direction of the change.

[JP226]

No, NASA said different thing, that such theory is able to explain past things. Like when humans were not doing crap. And it is one thing that is happening however on top of that you have to add human activity ;-)
From top of the page:


Now show me where is written exactly explanation for lower red circle which is basically human activity. Point is, you are jumping to wrong conclusion...

Oh My God!!!!! The green line is outpacing the red and blue line? That’s it, game over.

Side note, I think the PPM branding is on point. It’s really brilliant. The crowd definitely hired some professionals. Could you imagine if they had to cap x raise on people increasing co2 from .0391% to .0409% of the atmosphere? Brilliant branding.

[Genava]

Side note, I think the PPM branding is on point. It’s really brilliant. The crowd definitely hired some professionals. Could you imagine if they had to cap x raise on people increasing co2 from .0391% to .0409% of the atmosphere? Brilliant branding.

Atmosphere is composed of 78.08% of Nitrogen and 20.95% of Oxygen. Which made approximately 99% of the atmosphere. Both gases are totally transparent to Earth thermal radiation (infrared radiation emitted by the Earth). So they do not count. They do not act as greenhouse gases. The same for Argon that represents 0.93% of the atmosphere. So proportionally in regards of the active gases, CO2 is a very important part.




Except CO2, the other important greenhouse gas is the water vapor BUT water vapor can easily condensate in Earth atmosphere. Because of the Clapeyron relation, water vapor will react to changes in temperature. The hotter it is, the more vapor there is. The cooler, the less vapor. So water vapor is a feedback process, amplifying changes in temperature (in both way). An increase of CO2, will increase the greenhouse effect, which leads to higher air temperature, which leads to more water vapor etc.

Here a old quote from a geologist:




And indeed, this is what we observe:

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009JD011800

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._1970_and_1997

Infrared radiation and planetary temperature
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

[B. W.]

No, NASA said different thing, that such theory is able to explain past things. Like when humans were not doing crap. And it is one thing that is happening however on top of that you have to add human activity ;-)
From top of the page:


Now show me where is written exactly explanation for lower red circle which is basically human activity. Point is, you are jumping to wrong conclusion...

Person who accused me of using simple charts to make my point uses a simple chart to make his point.

[B. W.]

Atmosphere is composed of 78.08% of Nitrogen and 20.95% of Oxygen. Which made approximately 99% of the atmosphere. Both gases are totally transparent to Earth thermal radiation (infrared radiation emitted by the Earth). So they do not count. They do not act as greenhouse gases. The same for Argon that represents 0.93% of the atmosphere. So proportionally in regards of the active gases, CO2 is a very important part.




Except CO2, the other important greenhouse gas is the water vapor BUT water vapor can easily condensate in Earth atmosphere. Because of the Clapeyron relation, water vapor will react to changes in temperature. The hotter it is, the more vapor there is. The cooler, the less vapor. So water vapor is a feedback process, amplifying changes in temperature (in both way). An increase of CO2, will increase the greenhouse effect, which leads to higher air temperature, which leads to more water vapor etc.

Here a old quote from a geologist:




And indeed, this is what we observe:

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009JD011800

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._1970_and_1997

Infrared radiation and planetary temperature
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

What's truly amazing here is that you believe that a .0009% increase in atmospheric co2 is going to raise the earth's temperature 5 degrees.

[Genava]

What's truly amazing here is that you believe that a .0009% increase in atmospheric co2 is going to raise the earth's temperature 5 degrees.

You are not good at math. 0.0009% represents only 9 ppm. So... nobody said that.

[Common Soldier]

You have clearly no knowledge of the literature in climate science. There are numerous topic were they are disagreeing between each other. The same in Earth Science. They are simply not disagreeing about the basics in atmospheric physics because it is simply unintelligent to disagree in those topics. Do you see numerous scientists disagreeing with the very basics of evolution theory? No. Does it mean they are restrained to do so? No. Does it mean there is no debate about evolution theory? No, there is a debate, but on a very higher level and on subtle details, not about what most of the contrarian of evolution theory are claiming. This is the same situation about climate science.

None of those disagreements go against the dogmatic principles of Climate Change. It is ok to have theological disagreements as long as they don't contradict rhe Climate Change dogma. The upper atmosphere satellite data differed from.what Climate Change said, and got buried, until.some scientist came up with a rationalization to explain the discrepancy. And that was what it clearly was when I read the paper - although it was a plausible explanation, that does not make it necessarily true. If a scientist openly skeptical of Global Warming, they would have zero chance of getting tenure, even if it was in a field like biology.

For example, it is none that in previous warming cycles, CO2 lagged temperature rise, that is an established fact. Instead of exploring the possibility that maybe CO2 wasn't the cause of the warming, they acknowledge because they had no choice that the initial warming was not caused by CO2, but that a thr subsequent warming was. The possibility that perhaps the ontinued increase in temperature was not caused by CO2 is not even considered. Instead there is hand waving feedback loop explanation. Given that it is a positive feedback loop with CO2, they temperature should rise up we are another Venus until something stops it, yet thr limiting mechanism that must exist is ignored. The rise in CO2 with temperature is taken as proof of its role in warming, yet the alternative explanation, that CO2 was just the byproduct of rising temperature, is equally viable. I known that some have proposed rhe initial warming was caused by changes in axial tilt/and or orbit, but I haven't see any plot of the proposed initial warming mechanism against the actual initial warming to verify those proposals. Until that is done, you can't assert as is done that it explains away the initial warming Zhi it is just a theory that remains to be proven.

In fact, we know that rising temperature will lead to rising CO2 as a byproduct, Climate Change propenents own data shows it, while the claim the further CO2 rise caused temperature rise is just a hypothesis. Can you direct me to a model that predicts the degrees of warming effect of CO2 from its concentration based solely on the physical properties of CO2 without starting off with an initial assumption of an amount warming by CO2. Every model that I have seen, when you dig down in them, assuned a certain x level of warming by CO2 at a given w level, and goes on to prdedict an increase in temperature of y for an increase in the amount of CO2 z. The problem that the initial assumption of x amount of hearing by w amount of CO2 could be wrong - perhaps are estimates od CO2 levels in the past were wrong, or perhaps the amount of hearing we ascribed to the CO2 were wrong.

Even the late Stephen Gould treated anti-evolutionist with far greater respect than Climate Change proponets have treated skeptics, even denying that skeptics exist , only deniers. Skeptics of Einstein's Theory of Relativity are treated better, and Relativity has far more solid empirical backing. Keep in mind in Climate Change makes 3 major claims, anyone which is false makes Climate Change false:

1. The Earth is currently warning significantly and will.continue to warm significantly

2. That humans are the cause of this warming

3. That human produced CO2 in particular is the primary cause of the warming.

In anyone od the claims is false, Climate Change is false. Note, the earth has gone through a series of warming and cooling cycles where everyone, including Climate Change proponents, agree that humans were not a factor. So it cannot be denied that a possibility exist that any current warming trend might be caused by natural factor. To deny the possibility that the current warming could not possibly be natural is the same as saying the earth couldn't warm without humans, which we all agree is false statement. That fact it could be natural does not mean it is natural, but the possibility can't be simply dismissed.

Another lie and cliché from a zealot that naively accepted some exaggerated claims from B.W. blog article spamming. Honestly, try to stop your double standard. Everything in your view of science is built upon trial of intent. Scientists have a huge interest to disprove each others contrary to your claims.

That is where we disagree. No scientific issue has been as thoroughly politicized as Climate Change, and scientist have zero interest in disproving it.

Actually no scientist said that like this. Science is indeed never settled and Karl Popper explained why a scientific theory is generally impossible to really prove (from a very strict perspective) but scientific theories that are generally accepted are those passing the refutation process. But I admit sometimes experts summarize the things like they are settled, but this is an issue in ALL fields. This is generally due to the low level of knowledge of their audience (and of the media).

Yes scientist said things exactly like that, not in formal papers, true, but in informal gatherings I have heard exactly that being said. And if is a certainly a common saying of many Climate Change advocates. It is precisely the attitude that they need to summarize things that got the scientist into trouble in Climategate, since although there is no evidence they fudged any data, they certainly expressed the desire to spin the existing evidence to make it more convincing, since they clearly thought the actual evidence wasn't as compelling as they would have liked. Your justification of "sumarizing" due to the level of knowledge of the public is what is causing many to be skeptical, they know enough that the whole story is not being presented and it makes it look like things are being hidden. The argument that "we had to simplify things because you are too simple to understand the full truth" doesn't go over very well.

The actual theory for climate change and CO2 is a solid theory resisting to refutation. NASA explained is opinion about the consensus: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

NASA is an extremely political organization. When it comes to highly politicized issue, like Climate Change, it largely can of be trusted. Take a look at the tales NASA is now spinning aboutnthd loss of the Columbia. Their lies about how there was nothing they could do that they now tell is untrue, thr fact is there are all kinds of things that NASA could have tried, but didn't. NASA still denies the loss of the Challenger was not due to their own flagrant violation of operating procedures, launching when they knew it was too cold, because they were under pressure not to delay the launch. NASA bends to the.prevsiling political wind -when Obama said we had already landed on the moon, NASA policy became NASA had no interest in going back to the moon. Trump comes, and suddenly, it has plans to go to the moon again.

No, when it comes to a highly political topic, I have little faith in what NASA says. On areas where politics are not directly involved, unmanned space probe missions, NASA is ok.

[The spartan]

Even the late Stephen Gould treated anti-evolutionist with far greater respect than Climate Change proponets have treated skeptics, even denying that skeptics exist , only deniers.

Climate change denial

Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics",which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description. Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda.

The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.

It's also mind blowing to me that accusation leveled at a modern subject of scientific study, as far as any form of human studying goes, functioning off of dogma. Isn't the scientific method like, the opposite of dogmatic belief? You really believe the vast majority of scientists are so bad at being scientists that they believe in a massive fictional phenomenon based on...dogma? The scientists are all blind sheep but internet armchair warriors see the truth for what it really is? Give me a break.

[Cope]

It's also mind blowing to me that accusation leveled at a modern subject of scientific study, as far as any form of human studying goes, functioning off of dogma. Isn't the scientific method like, the opposite of dogmatic belief? You really believe the vast majority of scientists are so bad at being scientists that they believe in a massive fictional phenomenon based on...dogma? The scientists are all blind sheep but internet armchair warriors see the truth for what it really is? Give me a break.

In fairness, no one should believe anything without question or doubt; the scientific consensus has been known to be devastatingly wrong in the past, particularly when it is politicized. Those who are interested in cultivating trust in the scientific community should start by ensuring that academia is not dominated by one wing of the political spectrum. Moreover, climate change activists do not, in my mind, help themselves by framing the issue eschatologically or by encouraging cult-like behaviours.

[Genava]

None of those disagreements go against the dogmatic principles of Climate Change. It is ok to have theological disagreements as long as they don't contradict rhe Climate Change dogma.

You are viewing this as a dogma. This is your opinion and you have clearly no evidences to support this except trials of intent. Here you are the one doing a very dogmatic assumption about how scientists work.

I am still waiting your answer about the actual manipulations, lies and dishonesty shown by the so called "skeptics" and your answer about your double standard. When it comes from scientific community you are suspecting the worst even without evidences and when B.W. shared a blog article from deniers you blindly accepted the storytelling without checking what was actually in the original source. This is a clear double standard, which suggests a strong confirmation bias from you.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15835233
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15835733

The upper atmosphere satellite data differed from.what Climate Change said, and got buried, until.some scientist came up with a rationalization to explain the discrepancy. And that was what it clearly was when I read the paper - although it was a plausible explanation, that does not make it necessarily true. If a scientist openly skeptical of Global Warming, they would have zero chance of getting tenure, even if it was in a field like biology.

The fact that upper atmosphere will cool because of increasing greenhouse effect in lower atmosphere (energy balance, more thermal radiation trapped lower) was predicted a long time ago, before the data.

Here p.122 of the 1965 report from President’s Science Advisory Committee, "Restoring the Quality of Our Environment":
http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/
=> "a 25% rise in carbon dioxide would cause stratospheric temperature to fall by perhaps 2°C at an altitude of 30 kilometers and by 4°C at 40 kilometers"

Again, you are behaving like a very dishonest person, accusing scientists without any evidences and moreover with a strong laziness to verify (I already gave you this report before).

Can you direct me to a model that predicts the degrees of warming effect of CO2 from its concentration based solely on the physical properties of CO2 without starting off with an initial assumption of an amount warming by CO2. Every model that I have seen, when you dig down in them, assuned a certain x level of warming by CO2 at a given w level, and goes on to prdedict an increase in temperature of y for an increase in the amount of CO2 z. The problem that the initial assumption of x amount of hearing by w amount of CO2 could be wrong - perhaps are estimates od CO2 levels in the past were wrong, or perhaps the amount of hearing we ascribed to the CO2 were wrong.

If you were not fleeing all the time to come back ignoring all my messages, you would have noticed them. You already asked and I gave you some, I answered here:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15813039

Myhre et al. 1998, "New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases" is a very good article, highly quoted, and he found a radiative forcing 15% lower than the IPCC models used at this time. It does not contradict the theory but clearly it does not fit in your incredible weird view of dogma in scientific community. There are more recent articles but I think this one is a good start at least.

Moreover, I quoted observational papers above. The first one is a summary of the Feldman et al. 2015 article. Maybe the last one from Pierrehumbert is more accessible, at least as an introduction.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009JD011800

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._1970_and_1997

Infrared radiation and planetary temperature
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

In anyone od the claims is false, Climate Change is false. Note, the earth has gone through a series of warming and cooling cycles where everyone, including Climate Change proponents, agree that humans were not a factor. So it cannot be denied that a possibility exist that any current warming trend might be caused by natural factor. To deny the possibility that the current warming could not possibly be natural is the same as saying the earth couldn't warm without humans, which we all agree is false statement. That fact it could be natural does not mean it is natural, but the possibility can't be simply dismissed.

Strawman argument. The scientific community never dismissed this possibility. Here the position of The Geological Society of America (GSA): https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/posit...osition10.aspx

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. [...] The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing, such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth’s orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth’s climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change. Climate models have improved continuously and now reproduce observed continental-scale warming patterns over multiple decades (IPCC, 2013).

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several explanations for the ongoing warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in the observed rate of temperature increase over the last 150 years. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation for the recent trend have similarly failed.

As a result, greenhouse-gas concentrations and solar output are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. The 5th IPCC report (2013) concluded that solar irradiance changes contributed only a few percent to changes in radiative forcing of the atmosphere over the past century. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008).

Greenhouse gas concentrations remain the major explanation for the warming. Observations and climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~40% higher than peak levels measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 1.5 times higher (IPCC, 2013). The measured increases in greenhouse gases are more than enough to explain the observed global temperature increase at Earth’s surface. In fact, considered in isolation, the greenhouse gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but mechanisms that limit increases in near-surface air temperatures from aerosols, ocean heat storage, and possibly clouds have offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of recent greenhouse gas increases.

That is where we disagree. No scientific issue has been as thoroughly politicized as Climate Change, and scientist have zero interest in disproving it.

So why the scientific community took position before the issue became political? Aka the Charney report of 1979 https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charne...y-climate.html

Why Exxon accepted the evidences in 1982? We already discussed this.

Yes scientist said things exactly like that, not in formal papers, true, but in informal gatherings I have heard exactly that being said. And if is a certainly a common saying of many Climate Change advocates. It is precisely the attitude that they need to summarize things that got the scientist into trouble in Climategate, since although there is no evidence they fudged any data, they certainly expressed the desire to spin the existing evidence to make it more convincing, since they clearly thought the actual evidence wasn't as compelling as they would have liked. Your justification of "summarizing" due to the level of knowledge of the public is what is causing many to be skeptical, they know enough that the whole story is not being presented and it makes it look like things are being hidden. The argument that "we had to simplify things because you are too simple to understand the full truth" doesn't go over very well.

But this is an issue in ALL fields. At least you are recognizing that the Climategate is not showing evidences for fudging in the data. Thank you for that because I am a bit tired of the conspiracy views of B.W. and Stario. But remember as well that it was private and informal talks. These oversimplifications and overemphasizes of the evidences and conclusions were not found in published articles, because of peer-review.

No, when it comes to a highly political topic, I have little faith in what NASA says. On areas where politics are not directly involved, unmanned space probe missions, NASA is ok.

What about the other institutions statements in the link? There is even national academies taking a position on the issue.

For example, it is none that in previous warming cycles, CO2 lagged temperature rise, that is an established fact. Instead of exploring the possibility that maybe CO2 wasn't the cause of the warming, they acknowledge because they had no choice that the initial warming was not caused by CO2, but that a thr subsequent warming was. The possibility that perhaps the ontinued increase in temperature was not caused by CO2 is not even considered. Instead there is hand waving feedback loop explanation. Given that it is a positive feedback loop with CO2, they temperature should rise up we are another Venus until something stops it, yet thr limiting mechanism that must exist is ignored. The rise in CO2 with temperature is taken as proof of its role in warming, yet the alternative explanation, that CO2 was just the byproduct of rising temperature, is equally viable. I known that some have proposed rhe initial warming was caused by changes in axial tilt/and or orbit, but I haven't see any plot of the proposed initial warming mechanism against the actual initial warming to verify those proposals. Until that is done, you can't assert as is done that it explains away the initial warming Zhi it is just a theory that remains to be proven.

1984. Modelling the global climate response to orbital forcing and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes. https://www.nature.com/articles/310757a0

1993. Water vapour, CO2 and insolation over the last glacial-interglacial cycles: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...glacial_Cycles

2006. Ice-driven CO2 feedback on ice volume https://www.clim-past.net/2/43/2006/cp-2-43-2006.pdf

Obviously the Milankovitch cycles do not fit perfectly with the data and clearly suggests other drivers acting as well.

And here a review about "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming" https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Global_Warming

In fairness, no one should believe anything without question or doubt; the scientific consensus has been known to be devastatingly wrong in the past, particularly when it is politicized. Those who are interested in cultivating trust in the scientific community should start by ensuring that academia is not dominated by one wing of the political spectrum. Moreover, climate change activists do not, in my mind, help themselves by framing the issue eschatologically or by encouraging cult-like behaviours.

As I asked before in the thread to the others, if this was due to political influence,

1. How is it possible to have a so early agreement in the scientific community? (The President’s Science Advisory Committee report in 1965, the Charney report from National Research Council in 1979 etc.)

2. Why internal communication in oil industries is suggesting they accepted the evidence very early? (Exxon own review in 1982 for example)

3. Why so many different fields is supporting the consensus, from geologists and meteorologists to physicists and chemists ?

4. Why different national academies worldwide, even Russian one, are supporting the consensus?

PS: by using consensus, I mean a general agreement. No orchestrated schemes or top-down decision.

It's also mind blowing to me that accusation leveled at a modern subject of scientific study, as far as any form of human studying goes, functioning off of dogma. Isn't the scientific method like, the opposite of dogmatic belief? You really believe the vast majority of scientists are so bad at being scientists that they believe in a massive fictional phenomenon based on...dogma? The scientists are all blind sheep but internet armchair warriors see the truth for what it really is? Give me a break.

Indeed. I don't understand how someone can end up with a view like this. To sum it up the thread and the accusations, scientists are either corrupted or particularly incompetent... This is weird stuff at this level. Moreover, scientific community is not a solid and homogeneous block with an unique mindset. Scientists come from different countries, different cultures, different fields, use different methodologies... It is very far from a church. I know sometimes issues arise among scientists but generally it is among small groups in some particular areas. I don't understand how he can generalize that much, how he can suspect this possibility as something credible.

[RandomPerson2000]

Indeed. I don't understand how someone can end up with a view like this. To sum it up the thread and the accusations, scientists are either corrupted or particularly incompetent... This is weird stuff at this level. Moreover, scientific community is not a solid and homogeneous block with an unique mindset. Scientists come from different countries, different cultures, different fields, use different methodologies... It is very far from a church. I know sometimes issues arise among scientists but generally it is among small groups in some particular areas. I don't understand how he can generalize that much, how he can suspect this possibility as something credible.

It's just ideologues being ideologues, they will almost always gobble up anything their as long as it supports their viewpoint no matter how stupid or ridiculous it may be. On climate change deniers, a lot of them are extremely partisan conservatives who think that much of the research done on Global Warming by scientists is a part of some Leftist conspiracy to allow the government or some other big organisation to gain a handsome profit from the introduction of new taxes or through the increasing use of renewable energy technologies. Of course the problem with that position is that these people have already made their mind up on climate change long before they had read anything that the scientific community was actually saying.

[Common Soldier]

Atmosphere is composed of 78.08% of Nitrogen and 20.95% of Oxygen. Which made approximately 99% of the atmosphere. Both gases are totally transparent to Earth thermal radiation (infrared radiation emitted by the Earth). So they do not count. They do not act as greenhouse gases. The same for Argon that represents 0.93% of the atmosphere. So proportionally in regards of the active gases, CO2 is a very important part.

CO2 is significantly less than the percentage of water vapor on the average, and water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 in the air is less than the CO2 in the Martian atmosphere, which has a psi of 0.088 psi, while the partial pressure of CO2 on Earth is .0004 x 14.7 = .00588, or almost 15 times less. Despite having 15 times.rhe amount of CO2, Mars is still freezing cold. It is estimated that Martian atmosphere provides only a 5C hearing effect despite having 15 times more greenhouse gases. Ifnrhe effects were linear, the warming effect of the current CO2 level is just 0.33 C. In contrast, without Earth's atmosphere it is estimated Earth's temperatures would be -18 C, whereas it actually is 15C, a 30 degree difference. The 0.33C contribution due to CO2 is rather insignificant. And if you argue that Earth's greater solar flux would mean CO2 would have a bigger impact, ok, earth gets about twice Mars Solar flux, so that just takes it to 0.66C contribution, still insignificant.

The fact that Earth's atmosphere is so much thicker is irrelevant, since as you zaidmost of it is just transparent, so it doesn't contribute to absorption.

Except CO2, the other important greenhouse gas is the water vapor BUT water vapor can easily condensate in Earth atmosphere. Because of the Clapeyron relation, water vapor will react to changes in temperature. The hotter it is, the more vapor there is. The cooler, the less vapor. So water vapor is a feedback process, amplifying changes in temperature (in both way). An increase of CO2, will increase the greenhouse effect, which leads to higher air temperature, which leads to more water vapor etc.

It is more complicated than that, since clouds can reflect light away, increasing cooling. The net effect of water can be complicated when you factor clouds in. Clouds raise temperatures.at night, but cools temperatures during the day. That most of Earth's warming is due to water in it's various us forms is obvious, since Earth has a 30 degree greenhouse effect with 1/15 the amount of CO2, while Mars has a 5C greenhouse effect with 15 times more CO2. Based on the evidence of Mars, even if you raise CO2 to 600 ppm, temperatures should rise only a 1/3 of a degree.

And indeed, this is what we observe:

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

The first study resulted in a forcing of 0.5 W/m2, while the second study claimed a result of 1.5 W/m2 , at odds with the actual measured.results.

The second study achieved its 1.5 W/m2 by subtracting out thr estimate contribution of clouds and humidity. If those estimate contributions are off, then the CO2 contribution wi be off. They got good agreement with the model by manipulating the estimates oc humidity and water vapor. Even theh, according to their study only 1/3 of the increase seen was do to CO2.

Collectively these studies seem like an impressive case for CO2 warming on the surface, but they fail on closure examination.

In the first study, until you know the forcing effect of the other greenhouse cases, it really doesnt the you what effect the CO2 has on overall warming, merely that it does have an effect. But it could be so small compared to others we can ignore it, which does seem to be the case as I argued above based on Mars.

In the 2nd study, through the use of the right estimates to factor out water and clouds, you can get pretty much any values you want for CO2, which did not agree with the direct measurment in the first study.


PS - the case against CO2 is even worse than I thought. Since Mars gravity is about 40% Earth's, that means a 0.088 psi on Mars is really equivalent to around 0.22 PSI on Earth, but Mars really only has around 95% CO2, so more likely 0.2 PSI, or 34 times the CO2 of Earth.

[Genava]

The amount of CO2 in the air is less than the CO2 in the Martian atmosphere, which has a psi of 0.088 psi, while the partial pressure of CO2 on Earth is .0004 x 14.7 = .00588, or almost 15 times less. Despite having 15 times.rhe amount of CO2, Mars is still freezing cold. It is estimated that Martian atmosphere provides only a 5C hearing effect despite having 15 times more greenhouse gases. Ifnrhe effects were linear, the warming effect of the current CO2 level is just 0.33 C. In contrast, without Earth's atmosphere it is estimated Earth's temperatures would be -18 C, whereas it actually is 15C, a 30 degree difference. The 0.33C contribution due to CO2 is rather insignificant. And if you argue that Earth's greater solar flux would mean CO2 would have a bigger impact, ok, earth gets about twice Mars Solar flux, so that just takes it to 0.66C contribution, still insignificant.

The fact that Earth's atmosphere is so much thicker is irrelevant, since as you zaidmost of it is just transparent, so it doesn't contribute to absorption.

When you have read the paper from Pierrehumbert, come back and tell me if you are maintaining the same position. A lot of your claims are not correct (and simply a repeating process of BS from blogs). Pressure has an effect on the absorption properties of greenhouse gases. Your view of Mars greenhouse effect is clearly ridiculous. Read the paper, and come back.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

It is more complicated than that, since clouds can reflect light away, increasing cooling.

And clouds can enhance warming either. There has been several attempts to see if it could end in a negative feedback but no, modeling is not finding this and observational data are more in agreement with a strong water feedback process. I put a paper link in my previous message about this.

The first study resulted in a forcing of 0.5 W/m2, while the second study claimed a result of 1.5 W/m2 , at odds with the actual measured.results.

The first one used an interferometer to differentiate specific wavelength effect contrary to the second one seeing only the general greenhouse effect. Feldman et al. 2015 (the first one) were able to find the seasonal fluctuation of CO2 concentration in the radiative forcing measurement (the downward radiation from greenhouse effect). So you should look deeper in the article and try to understand a bit more the stuff if you want to be credible here.

But I find funny how much you are reacting childishly now I put you in a discomfortable position.

[irontaino]

It's also mind blowing to me that accusation leveled at a modern subject of scientific study, as far as any form of human studying goes, functioning off of dogma. Isn't the scientific method like, the opposite of dogmatic belief? You really believe the vast majority of scientists are so bad at being scientists that they believe in a massive fictional phenomenon based on...dogma? The scientists are all blind sheep but internet armchair warriors see the truth for what it really is? Give me a break.

Science and the scientific method are tools of the globalist elite, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and the mainstream media. It's all a grand conspiracy to turn the frickin' frogs gay or something. Luckily, the globalists didn't count on brave souls like B.W. and Stario entering the words "climate", "change", and "hoax" into a Google search.

[Daruwind]

And one more thought. Unlike many other political topics (like left vs right, USA vs Russia/China or about religion) this one purely based in world outside in science so it has final answer. Climate change and its pace and even if human is responsible. It has final non negotiable answer. Basically nature gives a what we think or talk...it is way similar to discussion in medieval times about flat vs round Earth.

[Coughdrop addict]

Indeed. I don't understand how someone can end up with a view like this.

Because the most important thing in the life of some on the political right is feeling persecuted. They crave it, they fetishize it, they want it more than anything. They want to be poor oppressed martyrs fighting against ultimate evil, and so will accept without question any conspiracy theory that tells them what they want to hear. When you get a social reward for being a victim, you start to seek out sources that tell you you are a oppressed.

The problem? They are probably the least oppressed group in human history. They aren't denied their civil rights, they don't get beaten up or lynched when they vote, no one campaigns on wiping them out. They have never had their freedom to travel restricted, been banned from practicing their religion, or made to adopt a new culture under threat of violence. The absolute worst thing that ever happens to them is that they are sometimes required to treat people who look different from themselves with socially expected courtesy.

Science and the scientific method are tools of the globalist elite, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and the mainstream media. It's all a grand conspiracy to turn the frickin' frogs gay or something. Luckily, the globalists didn't count on brave souls like B.W. and Stario entering the words "climate", "change", and "hoax" into a Google search.

In a similar way to anti-vaxers, I've never seen a climate denier ever say what the endgame of the vast evil conspiracy is. What does the government gain by intentionally giving whole generations autism? What is the terrible fate sure to occur if the US becomes a leader in green energy?

[Cope]

Because the most important thing in the life of some on the political right is feeling persecuted. They crave it, they fetishize it, they want it more than anything. They want to be poor oppressed martyrs fighting against ultimate evil, and so will accept without question any conspiracy theory that tells them what they want to hear. When you get a social reward for being a victim, you start to seek out sources that tell you you are a oppressed.

I love how you pick out apolitical traits which are applicable, to varying to degrees, to most of humanity (in this case in-group bias and victim complexes) and then try and frame them as being uniquely associated with the "political right". And at the same time as you're doing this, you lack the self-awareness to recognize the irony in you accusing others of falling for conspiracy theories.

The only person who falsely perceives themselves as fighting "against ultimate evil" is you.