Global warming is speeding up.

[Captain Caveman]

The storm in 1862 dwarfs EVERYTHING that has come after. Your claim that the frequency, and severity of storms are increasing is a LIE!

There was one storm of biblical proportions where it rained for forty days and forty nights, but I forget where and when is was documented

 

[Crick]

The storm in 1862 dwarfs EVERYTHING that has come after. Your claim that the frequency, and severity of storms are increasing is a LIE!

Please explain what bearing the 1862 storm has on the frequency of storms.

Please explain what bearing the 1862 storm has on severity of storms (PLURAL).

I don't think I would have to point out these logical flaws to a sixth grader.

 

[Crick]

Can you give me a date when man made started please

When man made what started?

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you believe that all the IR coming off the Earth's surface is NOT absorbed by the first few tens of meter of the atmosphere?

I fully accept QM and have given you no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

We have these things called "absorption spectra" ... all known materials have one ... these show which wavelengths of light can, or cannot, be absorbed by the material in question ... for example, plants absorb both red and blue light, reflecting the green light away, thus we perceive plants as being green ...

Among the atmospheric gases, none absorb IR at ≈ 8.5 µm or 10 µm ... the atmosphere is transparent at these wavelengths and ALL radiation passes from the Earth to outer space unimpeded ... every erg ... I believe this chart is included in the 2013 IPCC report, this one has the two IR windows clearly labeled ... shocking you advocate AGW Theory without understanding the fundamental basis of the CO2 component ... note the bandwidths where water vapor is inert, these are critically important channels for energy to escape Earth and not boil the oceans off ... see also how CO2 is extremely reactive in a few of these windows, clogging up the energy outflow? ... that's what is boiling off the oceans ...

I shouldn't have to explain to you what you're defending ... you may accept QM, but you sure as hell don't understand it ... get an old chemistry textbook at GoodWill, read the chapter on electron orbitals, maybe then we can talk again ... sheesh ...

 

[Crick]

The argument that the process of IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated is not affected by the absorption spectra of CO2. The argument is that all the energy the atmospheric CO2 will absorb gets absorbed in the first few tens of meters and thus adding MORE CO2 to the atmosphere will have no effect. This argument is seriously flawed, of course, but not because CO2's absorption spectra has gaps. Your point here is completely irrelevant.

Your claim to be some sort of expert on QM is made a bit shaky by the fact that you have not yet made ANY point relying on quantum mechanical behavior in this discussion yet you have mentioned it half a dozen times in an attempt to denigrate my understanding of the process and nothing else.

The empirical data assessed in AR6 clearly show an acceleration to the warming process. Attempting to deny this acceleration is just as unsupportable as an attempt to claim the planet has not been warming.

 

[Captain Caveman]

When man made what started?

Sorry, man made climate change.

A few posts up, the great flood of 1862, did this happen before or after man made climate change had started?

 

[Crick]

Sorry, man made climate change.

A few posts up, the great flood of 1862, did this happen before or after man made climate change had started?

The emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity began in earnest with the Industrial Revolution. That is considered to have run, in Europe and the US, between 1760 to 1840 or so. For the purposes of this discussion, the important developments were the coal powered steam engine and cement. There was also a concurrent increase in population growth and thus demand. The initial level of emissions was low and has grown exponentially over time. So we have seen a great deal more CO2 added to the atmosphere and resultant warming in the last 50 years than you would have seen in 1826. The amount of AGW in 1826 would have been essentially indiscernible.

 

[ReinyDays]

The argument that the process of IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated is not affected by the absorption spectra of CO2. The argument is that all the energy the atmospheric CO2 will absorb gets absorbed in the first few tens of meters and thus adding MORE CO2 to the atmosphere will have no effect. This argument is seriously flawed, of course, but not because CO2's absorption spectra has gaps. Your point here is completely irrelevant.

Your claim to be some sort of expert on QM is made a bit shaky by the fact that you have not yet made ANY point relying on quantum mechanical behavior in this discussion yet you have mentioned it half a dozen times in an attempt to denigrate my understanding of the process and nothing else.

The empirical data assessed in AR6 clearly show an acceleration to the warming process. Attempting to deny this acceleration is just as unsupportable as an attempt to claim the planet has not been warming.

You're confusing mean free path with saturation ... the mean free path of photons reactive with CO2 is 27 meters ... that's the average ... some photons will only manage 1 mm until it is absorbed, some photons escape completely ... but only at wavelengths CO2 reacts with ... at wavelengths where CO2 is inert, all the photons escape ... take some time and look at the GOES satellite products, they state the wavelength of the bandwidth and what this bandwidth demonstrates ... for example, they use 7.3 µm to show water vapor because nothing else in the atmosphere interacts with that wavelength ...

If the atmosphere absorbed all wavelengths of IR as you claim, then these 14 bandwidths from GOES would be nothing but fog ... like zooming in on the Sun, not a very useful picture ... obviously, you're wrong ... and worse, unwilling to learn ...

Quantum saturation is based on the fact that a single carbon dioxide molecule can only absorb one 15 µm photon ... the energy to go from a quantum state of "0" to the quantum state of "1" ... once absorbed, the molecule must emit a 15 µm photon, drop to the "0" state, before it can absorb another 15 µm photon ... quantum saturation is when ALL the carbon dioxide molecules are in their "1" state, and none available to absorb anymore 15 µm photons ...

The empirical data assessed in AR6 clearly show an acceleration to the warming process.

Where? ... book, chapter and verse if you please ... Working Group 1 gives us deceleration to the warming process ... see fig 12-5 in the 2013 report and associated text ... that's a logarithmic curve, the inverse of exponential ... you want a run-away greenhouse effect and that's be largely dismissed by the scientific community ... "hockey sticks" violate the Laws of Thermodynamics unless you can explain in every little detail why it doesn't ... I'm sorry, 1.8 W/m^2 is not enough power to do the things you want them to do ... a few degrees warmer, that's it ... floods will still happen in places where floods happen, just like always ... the wind will blow, the snows will fall, and London will be foggy ...

I'm not an expert at QM ... I took a year of chemistry is all ... it's not that hard to understand ... in fact, all this information is available in the thread pinned to the top of this forum ... avail yourself please ...

 

[ding]

Bam!

 

[Crick]

You're confusing mean free path with saturation ... the mean free path of photons reactive with CO2 is 27 meters ... that's the average ... some photons will only manage 1 mm until it is absorbed, some photons escape completely ... but only at wavelengths CO2 reacts with ... at wavelengths where CO2 is inert, all the photons escape ... take some time and look at the GOES satellite products, they state the wavelength of the bandwidth and what this bandwidth demonstrates ... for example, they use 7.3 µm to show water vapor because nothing else in the atmosphere interacts with that wavelength ...

If the atmosphere absorbed all wavelengths of IR as you claim, then these 14 bandwidths from GOES would be nothing but fog ... like zooming in on the Sun, not a very useful picture ... obviously, you're wrong ... and worse, unwilling to learn ...

Quantum saturation is based on the fact that a single carbon dioxide molecule can only absorb one 15 µm photon ... the energy to go from a quantum state of "0" to the quantum state of "1" ... once absorbed, the molecule must emit a 15 µm photon, drop to the "0" state, before it can absorb another 15 µm photon ... quantum saturation is when ALL the carbon dioxide molecules are in their "1" state, and none available to absorb anymore 15 µm photons ...

The empirical data assessed in AR6 clearly show an acceleration to the warming process.

Where? ... book, chapter and verse if you please ... Working Group 1 gives us deceleration to the warming process ... see fig 12-5 in the 2013 report and associated text ... that's a logarithmic curve, the inverse of exponential ... you want a run-away greenhouse effect and that's be largely dismissed by the scientific community ... "hockey sticks" violate the Laws of Thermodynamics unless you can explain in every little detail why it doesn't ... I'm sorry, 1.8 W/m^2 is not enough power to do the things you want them to do ... a few degrees warmer, that's it ... floods will still happen in places where floods happen, just like always ... the wind will blow, the snows will fall, and London will be foggy ...

I'm not an expert at QM ... I took a year of chemistry is all ... it's not that hard to understand ... in fact, all this information is available in the thread pinned to the top of this forum ... avail yourself please ...

I am getting quite sick of you consistently lying about what I have said or meant or implied. You have done that on almost every single post you aim my way. I have NEVER said or suggested that the atmosphere absorbed the entire IR spectrum. I have posted dozens of graphs of absorption spectra for CO2, methane and water vapor. A search of my posts here would likely find the term "absorption spectra" over a hundred times.

The point is that there is no change in the absorption spectra with altitude, density or CO2 partial pressure so it has no impact on the question of saturation. What you are trying to pass off as the saturation argument is diversional bullshit so you can claim that QM has something to do with it. But. help me out here. Are you suggesting that because the number of electrons that may be contained within any molecules orbitals/shells/quantum energy levels is finite, that this DOES or DOES NOT stop the greenhouse effect from taking place? Because, for this to be an argument against greenhouse warming it would be necessary that every molecule in the atmosphere be maxxed out - something you should know is impossible outside the core of a star. I'm also curious what dependence your version of the saturation argument has on the limits of quantum energy levels. You look like you're just pulling a few very basic bits of QM out and throwing them at the wall to impress... somebody.

I am not an expert on QM either. I have a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering which required, among other things, two semesters of chemistry, a semester of chemical oceanography, a semester of meteorological oceanography, two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermo). But our expertise in QM is completely irrelevant because it has no bearing on this argument. I suggest you avail yourself of the hordes of denier posts on this forum to learn what the saturation argument actually states.

The comment that AR6 concluded that global warming was accelerating came from the comments of journalists who had reviewed the work. From my own early and so far incomplete reading of WG1 "The Physical Science Basis", I find statements about accelerating processes (primarily in sea level rise and the disintegration of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves, to this point) at the following locations:

Technical Summary
TS-44, Box TS.4, first sentence
TS-71, paragraph 3
Chapter 1, Framing, Context and Methods
1-15, paragraph 2
1-51, paragraph 3
1-66, paragraph 4
1-75, paragraph 3
1-119, paragraph 2
1-153, reference 7
1-155, reference 31
Chapter 2, Changing State of the Climate System
2-7 paragraph 3
2-28 paragraph 1
2-69, paragraph 2
2-72, paragraph 6
2-77, paragraph 1
Chapter 3, Human Influence on the Climate System
3-54, paragraph 4
...
..
.

I watch Fox News now and then. You can read this document. And carry on your own search. I provide more solid evidence for my arguments than any denier that has ever posted here. Till that changes, I reject any responsibility to correct your educational shortcomings or play monkey to your fiddle. Since an extensive history indicates you will neither look at these references or believe what I tell you about them, there is little motivation for me to do more than the minimum required: a link. You may download "The Physical Science Basis at Sixth Assessment Report. It is not yet completely finalized and minor editing (spellchecks, page numbering, etc) is still underway.

 

[EMH]

I saw some climate scientist saying this on the news last night. That the earth is not just getting warmer, but the rate at which it is getting warmer is accelerating. Though this isn't news to me. The only question is how bad will things get before people start doing something about it. I am reminded of a lyric by Janis Joplin. "Freedom's (survival) just another word for nothing left to lose." I wouldn't expect our corporate government to do much. I also saw on the news last night that Biden signed some mandate or something saying that by the year 2050, all cars are going to have to be electric. But the way things are looking, it is doubtful there will be any people around to drive them. And they're supposed to have all electric cars in the U.S. But what about the rest of the increasingly overpopulating and "migrating" world.

Got beak and birdbrain?

 

[Crick]

Got beak and birdbrain?

I believe he has the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is based on the results of over 14,000 peer reviewed studies. Besides the puerile insults, what is it you bring to the table?

 

[EMH]

I believe he has the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is based on the results of over 14,000 peer reviewed studies. Besides the puerile insults, what is it you bring to the table?

The truth of the raw data is still as follows....

No warming in the atmosphere
No warming in the oceans
No ongoing net ice melt
No rise in ocean levels
No breakout in cane activity

Just the deliberate misinterpretation of the urban heat sink effect on the surface ground temp series, the only raw data that shows warming because it is from growing urban areas...

 

[ReinyDays]

... Let's try a basic approach. Infrared energy is radiated upward by the Earth's surface after warming from visible solar radiation. The CO2 within the first few tens of meters of atmosphere are sufficient to absorb all of that energy. Right? ...

... I have NEVER said or suggested that the atmosphere absorbed the entire IR spectrum ...

Liar ...

I watch Fox News now and then.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

ETA: The copy of the AR6 1WG report at the IPCC website is preliminary ... each of it's 4,000 pages clearly states it should not be used as a citation yet ... "Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute" ... I'll scan through it this winter by the warm fire ... until then I have firewood to buck up ... I'm relying on AR5 1WG fig 12-5 and associated text ... which shows the logarithmic relationship ... Faux News be damned ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... Faux News ... God that's rich ...

 

[Crick]

So, to refute a comment about the specific contents of AR6, you are going to quote AR5 from eight years ago? Very impressive. So, asshole, YOU asked me for chapter and verse of content in AR6 that indicates global warming is accelerating. I give it to you and you give me the above bullshit? You should be fucking embarrassed. God, what a fucking dick.

 

[ReinyDays]

So, to refute a comment about the specific contents of AR6, you are going to quote AR5 from eight years ago? Very impressive. So, asshole, YOU asked me for chapter and verse of content in AR6 that indicates global warming is accelerating. I give it to you and you give me the above bullshit? You should be fucking embarrassed. God, what a fucking dick.

Very mature ... did you learn that language in Ocean Engineering school? ...

I caught you in a lie ... you wish to maintain your position ... that makes you a liar ... simple ...

I spot checked page 2-69, 2nd paragraph ... this gives a probability that the Greenland Ice Sheet melting is accelerating ... one minus this probability is the probability that the Greenland Ice Sheet melting is decelerating ... you lied to us here, why bother confirming you're lying to us with the rest? ... the funny part is that paragraph is reiterating the information presented in AR5 ... from eight years ago ... you didn't know that because you've never read it ... so, yet another lie that you've read and studied the first 500 pages of this report ... the entire 1WG report is 4,000 pages long, four times longer than the Holy Bible ...

There's not that much information ... this part of the IPCC report is that long to deceive the readers ... to provide material for liars like politicians, Faux News and you ...

It's the fucking dick who calls others "fucking dicks" first ... instead of pretending to read the IPCC report, maybe you should read the Bible first ... learn how to not be a pathological liar ...

 

[Crick]

The truth of the raw data is still as follows....

No warming in the atmosphere
No warming in the oceans
No ongoing net ice melt
No rise in ocean levels
No breakout in cane activity

Just the deliberate misinterpretation of the urban heat sink effect on the surface ground temp series, the only raw data that shows warming because it is from growing urban areas...

I think you should stop and consider for just a second how many tens of thousands of professional scientists would have to all be involved in the same closely coordinated conspiracy to pull off such a thing. And those tens of thousands of people would have to maintain perfect security since this must have been going on for decades and NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has ever even hinted, much less confessed to the existence of such a scheme.

To put it bluntly, your suggestion here fails the sanity test. Badly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think you should stop and consider for just a second how many tens of thousands of professional scientists would have to all be involved in the same closely coordinated conspiracy to pull off such a thing. And those tens of thousands of people would have to maintain perfect security since this must have been going on for decades and NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has ever even hinted, much less confessed to the existence of such a scheme.

To put it bluntly, your suggestion here fails the sanity test. Badly.

Perfect security?

Any scientist who goes against the AGW mafia gets attacked.

Having said that, EMH is nuts.

 

[westwall]

I think you should stop and consider for just a second how many tens of thousands of professional scientists would have to all be involved in the same closely coordinated conspiracy to pull off such a thing. And those tens of thousands of people would have to maintain perfect security since this must have been going on for decades and NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has ever even hinted, much less confessed to the existence of such a scheme.

To put it bluntly, your suggestion here fails the sanity test. Badly.

Nah. Just 74. But you already know that. You lie professionally it seems.

 

[Crick]

You fools (and I REALLY do mean "fools") love to keep bringing up that first survey. It wasn't 74 by the way. And you do this despite the FACT that you have been repeatedly told that multiple other polls, surveys and studies have been conducted since that have involved thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies. It looks like this:

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]