Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

I never said that, your right, your straw-man is way off, I said, should we let them try it, cause the right says man can't effect the climit, so what could it hurt?

 

I never said that I did.

 

And WRT the question of AGW, they're all worthless.

Which causes what, exactly?

Do take care not to limit your answer to proximate effects.

By that logic, heliocentrists were cultists when geocentrism was the scientific consensus.

 

It isn't just the consensus of the individuals, moreso the actual data and studies.

There are very very very few counter studies that directly state agw/gw are false, and that are recent.

 

You are lying as usual, as you do in each and every post of yours.

How many times did I ask your ilk to show one, just one, - not 2, not 3, not 20, not countless - but just one experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more energy on the sunny part of the earth than it emits on the dark side of the earth facing the the absolutely dark and cold and infinite universe ?

And how many times you replied that you did show, lying as usual?

You have no experiment.

You have no science.

Just a lie and a perversion.

 

Data and studies are not made by greedy and lusting for meals, drinks, fame, more meals, money, more money, more power and money individuals.

Scientists are saints.

Carpenters are not.*

You are clear to continue.

* Carpenters have to follow strict codes and rules under the threat that their licenses may be revoked.

 

2.3.2 Anthropogenic Drivers
PRINCIPAL WELL-MIXED GREENHOUSE GASES (WMGHGs)

The principal WMGHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). With atmospheric lifetimes of a decade to a century or more, these gases have modest-to-small regional variabilities and are circulated and mixed around the globe to yield small interhemispheric gradients. The atmospheric abundances and associated radiative forcings of WMGHGs have increased substantially over the industrial era (Figures 2.4–2.6). Contributions from natural sources of these constituents are accounted for in the industrial-era RF calculations shown in Figure 2.6.


Figure 2.4



Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (top), CH4 (middle), and N2O (bottom) over the last 800,000 years (left panels) and for 1750–2015 (right panels). Measurements are shown from ice cores (symbols with different colors for different studies) and for direct atmospheric measurements (red lines). (Adapted from IPCC 2007,IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 996 pp. URL https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicat...s-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases).




Figure 2.5



(a) Radiative forcing (RF) from the major WMGHGs and groups of halocarbons (Others) from 1850 to 2011; (b) the data in (a) with a logarithmic scale; (c) RFs from the minor WMGHGs from 1850 to 2011 (logarithmic scale); (d) the annual rate of change ([W/m2]/year) in forcing from the major WMGHGs and halocarbons from 1850 to 2011. (Figure source: Myhre et al. 2013,G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL
Figure 2.6



Time evolution in effective radiative forcings (ERFs) across the industrial era for anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms. The terms contributing to cumulative totals of positive and negative ERF are shown with colored regions. The terms are labeled in order on the right-hand side with positive ERFs above the zero line and negative ERFs below the zero line. The forcings from black-carbon-on-snow and contrail terms are grouped together into a single term in the plot. Also shown are the cumulative sum of all forcings (Total; black dashed line) and of anthropogenic-only forcings (Total Anthropogenic; red dashed line). Uncertainties in 2011 ERF values are shown in the original figure (Myhre et al. 2013,G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL Figure 2.7). CO2 emission sources have grown in the industrial era primarily from fossil fuel combustion (that is, coal, gas, and oil), cement manufacturing, and land-use change from activities such as deforestation.Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Xi, F., S. J. Davis, P. Ciais, D. Crawford-Brown, D. Guan, C. Pade, T. Shi, M. Syddall, J. Lv, L. Ji, L. Bing, J. Wang, W. Wei, K.-H. Yang, B. Lagerblad, I. Galan, C. Andrade, Y. Zhang, and Z. Liu, 2016: Substantial global carbon uptake by cement carbonation. Nature Geoscience, 9, 880–883, doi:10.1038/ngeo2840. Figure 2.4), with the increase in atmospheric CO2 approximately twice that absorbed by the oceans. Over at least the last 50 years, CO2 has shown the largest annual RF increases among all GHGs (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). The global average CO2 concentration has increased by 40% over the industrial era, increasing from 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 390 ppm in 2011;Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). CO2 has been chosen as the reference in defining the global warming potential (GWP) of other GHGs and climate agents. The GWP of a GHG is the integrated RF over a specified time period (for example, 100 years) from the emission of a given mass of the GHG divided by the integrated RF from the same mass emission of CO2.


Figure 2.7
VIEW
The global mean methane concentration and RF have also grown substantially in the industrial era (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). Methane is a stronger GHG than CO2 for the same emission mass and has a shorter atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. Methane also has indirect climate effects through induced changes in CO2, stratospheric water vapor, and ozone.Lelieveld, J., and P. J. Crutzen, 1992: Indirect chemical effects of methane on climate warming. Nature, 355, 339–342, doi:10.1038/355339a0. G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Figure 2.4) reflect the complexity of the methane budget.Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Saunois, M., R. B. Jackson, P. Bousquet, B. Poulter, and J. G. Canadell, 2016: The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 120207, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207. Nisbet, E. G. et al., 2016: Rising atmospheric methane: 2007–2014 growth and isotopic shift. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 30, 1356–1370, doi:10.1002/2016GB005406. Figure 2.4).Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL Skiba, U. M., and R. M. Rees, 2014: Nitrous oxide, climate change and agriculture. CAB Reviews, 9, 7, doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20149010. Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Fowler, D., M. Coyle, U. Skiba, M. A. Sutton, J. N. Cape, S. Reis, L. J. Sheppard, A. Jenkins, B. Grizzetti, J. N. Galloway, P. Vitousek, A. Leach, A. F. Bouwman, K. Butterbach-Bahl, F. Dentener, D. Stevenson, M. Amann, and M. Voss, 2013: The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, 20130164, doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0164. ↩

" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(45, 86, 119); border-bottom: 0px !important;"> Furthermore, changes in climate parameters such as temperature, moisture, and CO2 concentrations are expected to affect the N2O budget in the future, and perhaps atmospheric concentrations.

 

Thank you for letting me know what does experiment mean, like I didn't know that you have no clue.

I mean absolutely no clue.

(I am not sure whether I should report your spamming of the bandwidth.)

 

k.

 

Thank you for understanding that I mean nothing personal.

 

I've directed you to multiple experiments. I even gave you names and years they occurred. You ignored all of it. VanCleef has a post chalked full of peer reviewed citations and you just blew that off too. Your debate strategy is the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la...la...la...la".

 

Do you have an alternate explanation that explains:

1. why Venus is warmer than Mercury despite it being further away from the Sun
2. why Venus' upper atmosphere is cooler than that on Earth despite it being closer to the Sun

If it wasn't because of a runaway greenhouse effect then what was it?

 

As the old saying goes, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance...baffle 'em with BS.

 

Ok.

 

That would be fine.

 

I think most would be worried if scientist started trying to tweak our climate artificially, it's one thing for the population to do a uncontrolled test because we did not know better, it's another for scientist to intentionally do it

 

I'm with you on that. However, deniers say humans can't influence or control the climate no matter how hard we try so if they're right then it doesn't really matter what scientists do.

 

Good point.

 

Yeah, it pretty much is.

No doubt you've personally scrutinized every bit of it with a keenly competent eye.

To anyone who has a mustard seed's worth of understanding of science, it wouldn't matter a lick if there were none at all.

Why should I?

Such challenges are better issued to those who reject the GHE in principle.

What the hell difference does it make, seeing no hypothesis along those lines is verifiable?

 

It's also over 90% of the studies, not just 90% of the scientists opinions...

Feel free to refute the inaccurate analysis, with counter peer-reviewed studies for each paragraph:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

So you're saying an entire field of science is wrong, but you can't back it up with peer reviewed studies that directly state as much? Odd.

 

Experts and I have given you a viable explanation. If you're going to reject it then you have to provide an alternative otherwise we'll stick with what we've got.

Some of us want explanations for the world around us and the universe we live in.

If that offends you then you can live your life in ignorant bliss while the rest of us strive to further our knowledge and understanding.

You think are so much smarter than the experts. It's hard to believe there are so many people who are this arrogant on this forum.

 

That's what you've been told, not what you know.

QED

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

Who have demonstrated no competence relevant to the issue.

Actually, to paraphrase Morgan Freeman from Lean on Me, I don't have to do a damn thing but stay lily white and die.

Of itself, what y'all believe is innocuous enough; but when it becomes a pretext for government by star chamber, guess what happens to the burden of proof.

More to the point, some of you imagine an explanation with no demonstrable connection to reality is somehow superior to no explanation at all.

What that has to do with you is a mystery.

Hey, at least I have sense enough to understand that climatology has about a jillion cell divisions to go before it achieves the status of a science in its infancy.

 

Your citation leaves much to be desired. You're just giving me your opinions and thoughts. Not enough for a GW thread.

If you think AGW is false, you're going to have to directly refute the 13 Federal Agency report with peer reviewed studies. You're going to have to refute NASA's evidence page with the same method.

The data is nearly all contained on one side of this "debate". Which is why you guys are called deniers instead of skeptics. You don't have much to go on.

 

I'll throw in my two bits: 1. whether global warming is true or not is the wrong question. The mechanism of global warming is undisputed. The real question is: to what degree will global warming advance, if any; what causes it to advance, and how much of a problem will it cause, if any. This has uncertainty up the ying-yang despite the confidence it has.
2. Venus might be very hot because of the tremendous atmospheric pressure (which nobody has successfully explained). The simple P vs T equations of gases comes pretty close to determining the surface temperature. Also the heavy dense -- near opaque -- CO2 atmosphere will block a big portion of the suns insolation.
3. There has been other sciences that were iron clad golden that no scientist disputed that later proved to be incorrect: plate tectonics and Newtons mechanics of space-time, for example.

 

But evidently, as far as you're concerned, weaselly dissembling is plenty good enough for a GW thread.

If you think I'm under any obligation to refute a damn thing, you're gonna have to come up with a better justification than the affirmations of authority figures whose credibility has no connection to any demonstrated competence in their field.

Actually we're called deniers for the same reason heliocentrists were once called heretics.