Global Warming: For Experts Only

[jem]

fundamental science is in a lab is one thing. we have fundamental experimental science by NASA showing co2 also has cooling properties.
whether adding additional man made co2 warms or cools is a much more complicated question than fundamental science. The earth has a very dynamic complex system with negative feedbacks. And perhaps the most important feedback we have right now is clouds and we don't know the answer to co2 impact on clouds. .

we don't know... we are waiting for the scientists to figure out how clouds impact warming and cooling and if an how co2 impacts clouds. Then we can begin to figure out what man made co2 is doing.

for instance co2 could warm. But the amount of co2 in the lower atmosphere could be governed by temperature and any additional co2 could be off gassed or synced.

False.
You still need to address the real issue.
The fundamental basic principles of physical chemistry show that (man made) CO2 will warm the Earth.
(man made) CO2 must cause warming according to those basic principles of physical chemistry.

Where there isn't any peer reviewed science is in the bizarre assumption that any amount of (man made) CO2 will not adversely effect the planet to the detriment of human and all other species.....



and has been for a very long time and nothing you refer to is any where near likely to overthrow the fact.

 

[jem]

but go ahead prove I'm lying you troll.
but please explain how do you have the balls to lie about science which I have showed you probably one hundred times by now.

see the blue line.. that is temperature.
it leads the tan line up and down... that is co2.

many peer reviewed studies confirm that co2 lags.
i have shown you the studies over and over.

the only relationship between co2 (not even man made co2) and warming is that co2 trails the warming up and trails the cooling down.

lie

And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming.

lie

Some agw nutters speculate co2 ampliefies the warming.
But that is just a guess it is absolutely not fundamental science

lie



you are a liar

 

[LacesOut]

the only relationship between co2 (not even man made co2) and warming is that co2 trails the warming up and trails the cooling down.

lie

And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming.

lie

Some agw nutters speculate co2 ampliefies the warming.
But that is just a guess it is absolutely not fundamental science

lie



you are a liar

You are the liar.
Leave this to men of science.

 

[futurecurrents]

fundamental science is in a lab is one thing. we have fundamental experimental science by NASA showing co2 also has cooling properties.
whether adding additional man made co2 warms or cools is a much more complicated question than fundamental science. The earth has a very dynamic complex system with negative feedbacks. And perhaps the most important feedback we have right now is clouds and we don't know the answer to co2 impact on clouds. .

we don't know... we are waiting for the scientists to figure out how clouds impact warming and cooling and if an how co2 impacts clouds. Then we can begin to figure out what man made co2 is doing.

for instance co2 could warm. But the amount of co2 in the lower atmosphere could be governed by temperature and any additional co2 could be off gassed or synced.

Wow, some great lawyer-speak there. No outright lies but nothing of any substance either. Well done.

 

[futurecurrents]

You are the liar.
Leave this to men of science.

Oh I have. You OTOH have not.

Troll.

 

[futurecurrents]

but go ahead prove I'm lying you troll.
but please explain how do you have the balls to lie about science which I have showed you probably one hundred times by now.

see the blue line.. that is temperature.
it leads the tan line up and down... that is co2.

many peer reviewed studies confirm that co2 lags.
i have shown you the studies over and over.

Yes you are so intellectually dishonest as to richly deserve the label "LIAR".

 

[gwb-trading]

Yes you are so intellectually dishonest as to richly deserve the label "LIAR".

You are unable to understand or properly debate science so you just call other people liars and other names while continually re-posting the same nonsense hundreds of times like a retarded parrot. Completely absurd.

 

[futurecurrents]

You are unable to understand or properly debate science so you just call other people liars and other names while continually re-posting the same nonsense hundreds of times like a retarded parrot. Completely absurd.

No, I call people liars that are clearly liars. You aren't a liar, just an ignorant stubborn deluded dickhead.

Still waiting for ANY science debate from you............... dickhead.

 

[OddTrader]

Q

Climate Myth...

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)
UQ

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-basic.htm

What the science says...

Basic

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.



Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

What the science says...

Intermediate

The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.




Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)

Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook

 

[OddTrader]

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

Climate Myth vs What the Science Says

1 "Climate's changed before"
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

2 "It's the sun"

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

3 "It's not bad"
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

4 "There is no consensus"

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

5 "It's cooling"
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.

6 "Models are unreliable"

Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

7 "Temp record is unreliable"
The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.

8 "Animals and plants can adapt"
Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.

9 "It hasn't warmed since 1998"

Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records.

10 "Antarctica is gaining ice"
Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.

...

...

195 "Underground temperatures control climate"

The amount of heat energy coming out of the Earth is too small to even be worth considering.

196 "Humans survived past climate changes"

Humans have been through climate changes before- but mostly cold ones and mostly in our far distant past.

197 "Heatwaves have happened before"

Global warming is increasing the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves.




Many thanks to Dr. Jan Dash, Director of the UU-UNO's Climate Portal for writing many of the one line responses in 'What the Science Says', with some edits by John Cook.