• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guardian: Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week

AGW is not a theory because of scientific consensus.
No, AGW is not a theory because it is a void argument. You must first define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions to even begin to have any theories about it. A theory about a buzzword forms a void argument.
There is scientific consensus because it is a proven theory.
No theory is ever proven, not even a theory of science. Science has no proofs. A theory of science remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification.
It's just like other theories. Take evolution for example. There is a consensus among scientists that the theory of evolution is fact. It's not a theory because there is consensus, but the other way around.
No, it is a theory because it is an explanatory argument. That is what a theory is. It just isn't scientific theory. It is not falsifiable.
The same sorts who make a vain attempt to dispute AGW
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions, then you can talk about theories of AGW. Until you do, you are just using buzzwords.
by cherry picking data are the ones who attempt to dispute the theory of evolution,
The Theory of Evolution is not dependent on data.
and for basically the same reason: It does not fit with their world view.
Some of it's believers do also believe in the Theory of Creation. The Theory of Evolution is not incompatible with the Theory of Creation or the Theory of Abiogenesis.

However, because all three of these theories are not falsifiable, none of them are theories of science. All three are actually religions (or parts of an overall religion).
 
Not correct. CO2 absorbs only a narrow band of IR. It can emit any frequency of light. It does not have to emit on its resonant frequencies.
CO2 can also be warmed and cooled by conduction or convection.

True.

Also true.

A CO2 does not have to emit a photon to get to ground state. It can lose energy by conduction or convection. Once it has done so, it can absorb another photon.

Depends on the photon. Not all photons are equal. They have different energy levels, dependent on their inherent frequency (not number of photons). You are correct that a molecule will not absorb a photon of equal or less energy than the molecule itself already has.

You are ignoring the ability of a molecule to return to ground state by giving up it's energy by thermal conduction or by even becoming a different molecule.

Let's start by establishing a few boundary conditions, Photons in the context I am using are 15 um photons, the ones CO2 may be able to absorb.
Almost any higher frequency photons would have statistically hit a much more common H2O molecule first, and so the only band worth discussing
for CO2 is the 15 um.
You are correct CO2 does not have to emit the same 15 um photon it absorbs, and likely it does not.
I was once trying to describe spontaneous decay to a bunch of Physics students at the University.
The best analogy that I remember was a spinning top, it took a finite amount of energy to start it spinning, and when it comes
to rest, all the energy will be exhausted, but how long it spins and how many bounces it takes in the final few seconds,
look like all the emission possibilities.
The excited CO2 molecule will eventually expend all of it's energy and return to ground state.
While it is statistical in nature, the average time for the spontaneous decay through all means of a CO2 molecule is roughly between 30 and 50 ms.
This is about a billion times slower than a point source could emit 15 um photons, (assuming 1 photon per cycle).
The point is that while CO2 is capable of absorbing 15 um photons, while at ground state, most of it's time is not spent at ground state,
so CO2 would mostly ignore the 15 um photons.
 
It can't possibly be global warming.
{followed by usual Trump blather}
Then again it COULD be. Almost nobody denies the plante is warming.
But when it gets cold around the globe for 5 seconds I'm sure we won't be hearing from the likes of the 'science' guys like you.

Neither count for much.
 
Last edited:
In the case of AGW, very few people don't believe in it. We just disagree with the extent of its warming by the various variables we affect.

"Believe in it" is not an accurate phrase. Believe that the scientific method is the best way we have of understanding the world around us. Believing in something implies fairy tales or religious ideas.

Type "global warming" into the Google window, and you'll get a whole laundry list of websites maintained by people who "believe in" some nonsense and don't believe science.

That said, sure, there are lots of variables, and no one is really sure how much influence each one has, but one thing is quite clear: The Earth is warmer than it was and the greenhouse gasses we're creating are accelerating the warming.
 
{followed by usual Trump blather}
Then again it COULD be. Almost nobody denies the plante is warming.
But when it gets cold around the globe for 5 seconds I'm sure we won't be hearing from the likes of the 'science' guys like you.

Neither count for much.

Yes the denialists have started to come around to the fact that the Earth is getting warmer on average. We still do see some spurious arguments, but mostly they are accepting of that fact, as it is pretty difficult to ignore. Now, they're saying that it's not anthropogenic, which still requires some serious mental gymnastics. Eventually, most of them will come around to that as well.

"When it gets cold around the globe for five seconds?" What is that supposed to mean? Are you expecting a five second cold snap for some reason?
 
"Believe in it" is not an accurate phrase. Believe that the scientific method is the best way we have of understanding the world around us. Believing in something implies fairy tales or religious ideas.

Type "global warming" into the Google window, and you'll get a whole laundry list of websites maintained by people who "believe in" some nonsense and don't believe science.

That said, sure, there are lots of variables, and no one is really sure how much influence each one has, but one thing is quite clear: The Earth is warmer than it was and the greenhouse gasses we're creating are accelerating the warming.

And yet AGW as defined by the IPCC is both science and belief.
The Science portion is that, Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if we double it's level it could warm the surface troposphere system by about 1.1 C.
The belief part, is that the warming from the added CO2 will be amplified through feedbacks to be up to 3.75
times greater. This is all described in TAR in 2001, and the paper Baede, et al 2001 is still cited in IPCC AR5.
Here is the quote,
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.

A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Since 2001 the estimate of the imbalance from doubling the CO2 level has fallen to 3.71 Wm-2,
so the 2XCO2 warming of the surface-troposphere system would be about 1.1 °C.
The size or even the sign of the feedbacks remain highly uncertain.
I contend that the feedbacks cannot be large, least they would have already amplified earlier climate changes out of control,
and earth would not be able to sustain life.
 
And yet AGW as defined by the IPCC is both science and belief.
The Science portion is that, Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if we double it's level it could warm the surface troposphere system by about 1.1 C.
The belief part, is that the warming from the added CO2 will be amplified through feedbacks to be up to 3.75
times greater. This is all described in TAR in 2001, and the paper Baede, et al 2001 is still cited in IPCC AR5.
Here is the quote,

Since 2001 the estimate of the imbalance from doubling the CO2 level has fallen to 3.71 Wm-2,
so the 2XCO2 warming of the surface-troposphere system would be about 1.1 °C.
The size or even the sign of the feedbacks remain highly uncertain.
I contend that the feedbacks cannot be large, least they would have already amplified earlier climate changes out of control,
and earth would not be able to sustain life.

True, we don't know for sure just how much the feedback loops will amplify the effects of CO2. That doesn't make AGW a belief system.
 
"Believe in it" is not an accurate phrase. Believe that the scientific method is the best way we have of understanding the world around us. Believing in something implies fairy tales or religious ideas.
I stand corrected. The sciences I see and understand tells me it is real. I accept and agree with the consensus that mankind has made an impact on our climate. However, calling it Climate Change is an extreem word for our impact. I disagree with the forcing values given to CO2 and other variables quantified. I disagree by significant amounts.

That said, sure, there are lots of variables, and no one is really sure how much influence each one has, but one thing is quite clear: The Earth is warmer than it was and the greenhouse gasses we're creating are accelerating the warming.
Yes, you are correct. But I disagree that the greenhouse gasses have accelerated it in any dangerous way.
 
True, we don't know for sure just how much the feedback loops will amplify the effects of CO2. That doesn't make AGW a belief system.
Science is about something that we say defines an observation, in a way that others can use the same data and arrive at the same results.
AGW is in fact two very distinct concepts, the first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is roughly scientific,
I say roughly, because the greenhouse effect works in theory, but cannot be demonstrated in an experiment that would closely
reflect how CO2 would behave in the atmosphere.
The second concept is how the feedbacks will respond to the warming from the added CO2, and really is much closer to a belief
than actual science. For AGW to be catastrophic requires not only that the amplified feedbacks exists, but that the gain of the
theoretical amplifier be fairly high.
For simplicity, I will use Baede's numbers.
2XCO2 = 1.2°C input to the amplifier, with an output between 1.5 and 4.5°C.
closed loop amplifier Gain is defined as the output/input, so the range of Gain for Baede is between,
1.5/1.2= 1.25 ,and 4.5/1.2=3.75.
The target of the Paris accord is to keep warming below 2°C or a gain of 2/1.2= 1.66.
The question becomes, is there any evidence in the fairly limited record of that kind of gain existing within the climate system?
It is complicated by the fact that the amplifier is defined with a uncertain latency as well as an uncertain gain.
(The time lag between input and output). Most agree that 40 years should be sufficient to see most of the output.
Before 1940 there was .2°C of warming that is acknowledge to not be related to AGW.
Since 1940, the decade averaged temperature has increased by .8 °C. (GISS)
Attribution of that warming is,
CO2 forcing since 1940 5.35 X ln(406.53/311.3)=1.4278 X .3= .428°C

CH4 forcing since 1940 .510 X ln(1.815/1.089)=.260 X .3= .078°C

warming from TSI increase 1361.01-1360.87=.14 X .3= .042°C
This means that there is only .252 °C that cannot be attributed to known major processes.
So how would the Paris Accord gain (1.66)cutoff look when applied to the .2°C of pre 1940 warming?
well .2 X 1.66=.332°C, on the first cycle! we almost have a second cycle so we would have to run one more gain stage,
.332°C X 1.66=.55°C, Well, the gain was too high for even the first cycle, much less the second, so it cannot be that high.
How much could the gain be, knowing that we have an input of .2 °C and two 40 year cycles, and only .252 °C of unknowns to work with?
It looks like a gain of about 1.125, .2 X 1.125=.225, .225 X 1.125=.253°C
What does this mean if we double the CO2 level?
Current estimates of the input warming is 1.1°C, so 1.1 X 1.125= 1.23°C.
 
"Believe in it" is not an accurate phrase.
It is a complete accurate phrase. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. It denies science and mathematics.
Believe that the scientific method
Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
is the best way we have of understanding the world around us.
Wrong. The best way we have of understanding the world around us is to use the disciplines, of math, science, logic, and philosophy.
Believing in something implies fairy tales or religious ideas.
That's right. That's exactly what the Church of Global Warming does.
Type "global warming" into the Google window, and you'll get a whole laundry list of websites maintained by people who "believe in" some nonsense and don't believe science.
Exactly.
That said, sure, there are lots of variables, and no one is really sure how much influence each one has, but one thing is quite clear: The Earth is warmer than it was
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We have no near enough instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.
and the greenhouse gasses we're creating are accelerating the warming.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
 
Science is about something that we say defines an observation, in a way that others can use the same data and arrive at the same results.
Science does not define an observation. Observation has nothing to do with science. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is evidence only. Data is the result of observations and is subject to the same problems, plus a few of its own.

Science is not data. It is not observations. It does not define either. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

AGW is in fact two very distinct concepts,
Ahhh. An attempt to define 'global warming' without using circular definitions?
the first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is roughly scientific,
Nope. Circular definition. A 'greenhouse' gas is only that because it 'causes global warming'. You can't define 'global warming' with 'global warming'. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' gas.
I say roughly, because the greenhouse effect works in theory,
Nope, it doesn't. It denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also builds a paradox.
but cannot be demonstrated in an experiment that would closely
No need. You must define 'global warming' without using circular definitions, and you must account for these theories of science I have mentioned or falsify them.
The second concept is how the feedbacks will respond to the warming from the added CO2,
This is the same concept, not a second one.
and really is much closer to a belief than actual science.
...deleted math from randU...
It's all religion, dude.
 
AGW is in fact two very distinct concepts, the first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is roughly scientific,
I say roughly, because the greenhouse effect works in theory, but cannot be demonstrated in an experiment that would closely
reflect how CO2 would behave in the atmosphere.
We can display how CO2 is a greenhouse gases in a f****** jar. And yes, we have experiments that emulate CO2 in the atmosphere.

Wake up. It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


The second concept is how the feedbacks will respond to the warming from the added CO2, and really is much closer to a belief
than actual science.
No, it really isn't.

We have decades of observations of CO2 levels and temperatures. With every year that passes, we develop better estimates, and the uncertainties fall.


For AGW to be catastrophic requires not only that the amplified feedbacks exists, but that the gain of the
theoretical amplifier be fairly high.
There is no question that feedbacks exist. We're already seeing them in action, such as melting permafrost, changes in clouds, changes in atmospheric water vapor, precipitation amounts and ice albedos.

The gain does not need to be excessively high, because we can hit irreversible damage or tipping points. All that's needed is enough warming to melt enough permafrost to release enough methane, and that presents a risk of runaway warming.
 
It is a complete accurate phrase. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. It denies science and mathematics.

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.

Wrong. The best way we have of understanding the world around us is to use the disciplines, of math, science, logic, and philosophy.

That's right. That's exactly what the Church of Global Warming does.

Exactly.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We have no near enough instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the Earth would be frozen and life as we know it wouldn't exist.

Of course it's a greenhouse gas. I'm not sure just where you're getting your information, but it's all wrong.
 
We can display how CO2 is a greenhouse gases in a f****** jar. And yes, we have experiments that emulate CO2 in the atmosphere.

Wake up. It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

20km of atmosphere is different to a jar.

That is the problem.
 
No, it really isn't.

We have decades of observations of CO2 levels and temperatures. With every year that passes, we develop better estimates, and the uncertainties fall..

Yes, the range of expectations is coming down all the time to a lower level than would make any significant diference to humanity.
 
We can display how CO2 is a greenhouse gases in a f****** jar. And yes, we have experiments that emulate CO2 in the atmosphere.

Wake up. It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.



No, it really isn't.

We have decades of observations of CO2 levels and temperatures. With every year that passes, we develop better estimates, and the uncertainties fall.



There is no question that feedbacks exist. We're already seeing them in action, such as melting permafrost, changes in clouds, changes in atmospheric water vapor, precipitation amounts and ice albedos.

The gain does not need to be excessively high, because we can hit irreversible damage or tipping points. All that's needed is enough warming to melt enough permafrost to release enough methane, and that presents a risk of runaway warming.
We cannot demonstrate how CO2 will act in the atmosphere in a jar, and you need to cite the experiment where someone emulated how it works
in the atmosphere.

It is not the concept that amplified or attenuated feedbacks exist, the belief portion is that they will produce catastrophic warming.
The range is so large because of disagreement between the observed data which comes in low, and the modeled data which comes in higher.
The observed data represents reality much closer than the modeled data, That is why it is called empirical.

Again there is not question that climate feedbacks exists, both amplified and attenuated, the question becomes
what is the net output of the system?
The melting permafrost, and ice albedo, did most of what they were going to do 12,000 years ago at the end of the Younger Dryas.
People and Scientist can point to any weather event and say, "There, There is a sign of feedback!!!" but without a traceable cause and effect,
it is just words.
Methane is another bogyman, but it does not have a bases in rational reality, here is why.
If CO2 level double the current number is that it will cause an energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2,
the amount of warming from a partial doubling of CO2 is based on 5.35 X ln(CO2_high/CO2_low)
For methane that number is .510 X ln(CH4_high/CH4_low).
Current CH4 levels are 1858 PPB, if that level doubled to 3716 PPB, the resulting energy imbalance would be
.510X ln(2)=.35 Wm-2, or about .105 C of warming.
But that is not the end of the story, because CH4 breaks down into CO2,
and so could result in a increase of the CO2 level by 1.8 ppm, an almost completely meaningless number.
By the way CH4 levels have increased roughly 200 PPB in the last 35 years, so a doubling from the starting level would take 280 years.
I am sorry but we are near the upper edge of a fairly narrow temperature band, the only risk of runaway, is for temperatures to start falling.
Our system has spent the about 80% of the last million years in the cold state, it will eventually go back there.
It is looking more and more like it is the amount of atmosphere a planet has the governs it's temperature, not the components of that atmosphere.
 
We cannot demonstrate how CO2 will act in the atmosphere in a jar, and you need to cite the experiment where someone emulated how it works
in the atmosphere.
:roll:

Why do you imagine this is impossible? Pressure, wind, composition, humidity temperature and more can all be controlled in a lab. E.g. CERN's CLOUD experiment is measuring the effects of cosmic rays on clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere, right here on the ground:

chamber.png



It is not the concept that amplified or attenuated feedbacks exist, the belief portion is that they will produce catastrophic warming.
That's nice. But nothing you're writing refutes the fact that feedbacks and tipping points exist. Nor is "runaway warming" the only danger.


The melting permafrost, and ice albedo, did most of what they were going to do 12,000 years ago at the end of the Younger Dryas.
Yeah, no. There's massive amounts of carbon locked up in permafrost. Studies show up to 1.5 trillion tons of carbon is stored in permafrost. Obviously it won't release all of that in a matter of weeks, but it is not mere speculation that melting permafrost could hit a tipping point. And even without tipping points, massive releases of carbon and methane will still increase temperatures.


People and Scientist can point to any weather event and say, "There, There is a sign of feedback!!!" but without a traceable cause and effect,
it is just words.
People may say that, but when it comes to proof, we ought to pay attention to scientists -- who do this crazy thing called make measurements and observations before making those kinds of claims. E.g. we actually monitor CO2 releases by permafrost; so when we see that parts of Siberia and Alaska are warming, and that the permafrost in those regions are releasing more CO2 than they trap? Yeah, that's a feedback effect.

We also have actual measurements of water vapor, plankton growth rates, ice melt rates, melting snow cover extent, comparisons of precipitation....


Methane is another bogyman, but it does not have a bases in rational reality, here is why.
:roll:

Please, spare us your made-up numbers. Methane is not just a known GHG, it is one of the most potent GHGs, trapping at least 28 times more heat than CO2 at equivalent masses. There is also significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane (about 200x more). Even though it has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2 (~9 years vs ~100 years), it is still highly rational to be concerned about potentially massive releases of methane from permafrost.


I am sorry but we are near the upper edge of a fairly narrow temperature band, the only risk of runaway, is for temperatures to start falling.
sigh

Again, runaway temperatures is a danger -- but not the only one. Even without that scenario, temperatures are still rising at an unprecedented rate, and will cause significant damage.


Our system has spent the about 80% of the last million years in the cold state, it will eventually go back there.
Oh, really? Will Dumbledore wave a magic wand and fix everything?


It is looking more and more like it is the amount of atmosphere a planet has the governs it's temperature, not the components of that atmosphere.
Yes, I'm sure the reason why temperatures have increased roughly 0.8C since 1880 is because the mass of Earth's atmosphere changed all on its own.

Please, spare us this nonsense. GHGs are real. We're dumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. This in turn releases GHGs stored by various natural carbon sinks, as well, as makes other changes which alter the planet's energy balance. All the evidence -- land measurements, ocean measurements, satellite measurements, CO2 measurements, sea levels, ice mass and more -- all point in the same direction, which is higher temperatures. And yes, this manifests with record-shattering heat waves around the globe, like we've seen over the past few weeks, and which bumped July 2018 to the 5th hottest on record.
 
:roll:

Why do you imagine this is impossible? Pressure, wind, composition, humidity temperature and more can all be controlled in a lab. E.g. CERN's CLOUD experiment is measuring the effects of cosmic rays on clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere, right here on the ground:

chamber.png




That's nice. But nothing you're writing refutes the fact that feedbacks and tipping points exist. Nor is "runaway warming" the only danger.



Yeah, no. There's massive amounts of carbon locked up in permafrost. Studies show up to 1.5 trillion tons of carbon is stored in permafrost. Obviously it won't release all of that in a matter of weeks, but it is not mere speculation that melting permafrost could hit a tipping point. And even without tipping points, massive releases of carbon and methane will still increase temperatures.



People may say that, but when it comes to proof, we ought to pay attention to scientists -- who do this crazy thing called make measurements and observations before making those kinds of claims. E.g. we actually monitor CO2 releases by permafrost; so when we see that parts of Siberia and Alaska are warming, and that the permafrost in those regions are releasing more CO2 than they trap? Yeah, that's a feedback effect.

We also have actual measurements of water vapor, plankton growth rates, ice melt rates, melting snow cover extent, comparisons of precipitation....



:roll:

Please, spare us your made-up numbers. Methane is not just a known GHG, it is one of the most potent GHGs, trapping at least 28 times more heat than CO2 at equivalent masses. There is also significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane (about 200x more). Even though it has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2 (~9 years vs ~100 years), it is still highly rational to be concerned about potentially massive releases of methane from permafrost.



sigh

Again, runaway temperatures is a danger -- but not the only one. Even without that scenario, temperatures are still rising at an unprecedented rate, and will cause significant damage.



Oh, really? Will Dumbledore wave a magic wand and fix everything?



Yes, I'm sure the reason why temperatures have increased roughly 0.8C since 1880 is because the mass of Earth's atmosphere changed all on its own.

Please, spare us this nonsense. GHGs are real. We're dumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. This in turn releases GHGs stored by various natural carbon sinks, as well, as makes other changes which alter the planet's energy balance. All the evidence -- land measurements, ocean measurements, satellite measurements, CO2 measurements, sea levels, ice mass and more -- all point in the same direction, which is higher temperatures. And yes, this manifests with record-shattering heat waves around the globe, like we've seen over the past few weeks, and which bumped July 2018 to the 5th hottest on record.

So long and verbose! do you understand what a boundary condition is? Containers have walls, and the walls add variables that do not exist in the atmosphere.

If a tipping point in our climate existed, it would have tipped before now.

Melting permafrost sounds scary, but the amount of permafrost that has already melted is likely many times greater than what remains.
Made up numbers about methane, please, the numbers came from the American Chemical Society.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
The radiative forcing for CH4 is determined in a way analogous to that for CO2.
For the increase of CH4 from about 375 to about 675 ppb, ΔFCH4 ≈ 0.3 W·m–2.
And no, methane is quite a bit less effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, at least according to the ACS.

As to unprecedented warming, it could be simple noise, or part of the normal cycles,
the problem is that normal is not defined, so abnormal cannot be referenced.
Are you contesting that roughly 80 % of the last million years was spent in a cold phase?
 
So long and verbose! do you understand what a boundary condition is? Containers have walls, and the walls add variables that do not exist in the atmosphere.
Stop the madness. Again, the experimental chamber can control all the variables, including making changes that emulate what we observe in the atmosphere. It won't be 100% perfect, but it does allow us to change those variables in order to produce viable tests, in conditions we won't find in the real world.


If a tipping point in our climate existed, it would have tipped before now.
Or, not. Unless, of course, you claim to know exactly where all the tipping points are, in which case you can collect your Nobel Prize next year.


Melting permafrost sounds scary, but the amount of permafrost that has already melted is likely many times greater than what remains.
Just what I always wanted: More bull****.

25% of the land mass in the Northern Hemisphere is (still) permafrost. Not much has melted yet. Once it does start to really melt, it could unlock up to 150 billion tons of CO2. In comparison, the US emitted around 5.4 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. Even if only half that amount of permafrost melts, the impact could be immense.


Made up numbers about methane, please, the numbers came from the American Chemical Society.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

And no, methane is quite a bit less effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, at least according to the ACS.


the problem is that normal is not defined, so abnormal cannot be referenced.
*bzzt* wrong, we can get a pretty good idea of normal temperatures, before we started slamming the atmosphere with GHGs. (And no, don't give me your usual bull**** about "but the resolution is different!" We know what's happening, and it is not good.)

Marcott.png
 
We can display how CO2 is a greenhouse gases in a f****** jar.
No, you can't. All you can show is that CO2 absorbs some frequencies of IR light and converts it to thermal energy. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth. It is just another for the surface to COOL itself while heating the atmosphere. ALL of it radiates to space.
And yes, we have experiments that emulate CO2 in the atmosphere.
None.
Wake up. It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth, not even CO2.
No, it really isn't.

We have decades of observations of CO2 levels and temperatures.
None. It is not possible to measure the CO2 content of the Earth (CO2 is not uniformly distributed), or the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough instrumentation. The margin of error of any statistical analysis is so high that any summary says you are guessing.
With every year that passes, we develop better estimates, and the uncertainties fall.
Measurement is not an 'estimate'.
There is no question that feedbacks exist.
None. This is an extension of the original circular argument fallacy.
We're already seeing them in action,
Not.
such as melting permafrost,
Permafrost normally melts each summer. Perhaps you should understand what permafrost actually is.
changes in clouds,
Clouds change anyway. Meh.
changes in atmospheric water vapor,
It is not possible to measure the global water vapor content.
precipitation amounts
It is not possible to measure global precipitation.
and ice albedos.
It is not possible to measure the albedo of Earth. We don't have enough instruments.
The gain does not need to be excessively high, because we can hit irreversible damage or tipping points.
Unstable systems would have already tripped. We wouldn't be here to talk about it. Global temperatures are a stable system.
All that's needed is enough warming to melt enough permafrost to release enough methane, and that presents a risk of runaway warming.
Methane has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
 
Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the Earth would be frozen and life as we know it wouldn't exist.
CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth.
Of course it's a greenhouse gas. I'm not sure just where you're getting your information, but it's all wrong.
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

I get my information from the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
 
Back
Top Bottom