It’s funny how it always comes down to forcing you peasants to comply, while 70,000 Warmists, including lots and lots of Elites flying via private jet, take long fossil fueled trips to a climate conference in a country who’s GDP is mostly petroleum
Why Tackling Climate Change Through Consumption May Be Harder Than It Seems
There are many ways to frame the root causes of the climate crisis. Fossil fuels, big emitters like the U.S. and China, and high-carbon industries like air travel and shipping often tend to get blamed.
But there remains a significant elephant in the room in the climate blame game: runaway consumption. Household consumption is responsible for more than 60% of global emissions. And, yet, framing the climate challenge around consumption can upset a range of stakeholders. Businesses worry that talking about a crisis of consumption could harm the prospects of growth. Activists and civil society worry that talking about consumption in the wrong ways risks putting the onus of addressing climate change on consumers.
To help break through this communication log jam and address the elephant in the room, I moderated a Dec. 3 TIME100 Talks discussion on the sidelines of the U.N. climate talks taking place in Dubai. “Humans need food, shelter, clothing, but we have to consume to survive, but it is about consuming differently,” said Ellen Jackowski, chief sustainability officer at Mastercard. Consuming differently requires a mindset shift—for both consumers and businesses.
Yeah, so, they all took fossil fueled trips to Dubai, and one of the people they talked with is rich and certainly gets paid a boatload by Mastercard for this silliness. To tell you that your life must be limited to stop global boiling.
On the consumer side, research has shown that a significant share of consumers—the exact percentage depends on who you ask—are interested in buying sustainable products. But, today, there is limited information publicly available to help inform them. That’s changing rapidly as companies explore ways to make sustainability data easily accessible—think of QR codes next to the product in a store, or next to various options on online shopping sites. Research has shown that incorporating this information into the market place and creating a so-called “green nudge” shapes consumer behavior. Still, most people won’t make the sustainability of a purchase their top priority. To make sustainable products better, a growing group of businesses say they emphasize that sustainable products can have better value for the purchaser—think of a longer lifespan for a piece of clothing.
The Elites certainly do not take it into account, as they buy McMansions, travel in private planes and mega-yachts, and stay in cushy hotels, while buying lots of clothes and shoes and such
But mass consumption is not an issue that can be solved solely—or even primarily by consumers. Most consumer facing companies have built their entire business model on selling more things, and to truly address mass consumption would require them to search for profits elsewhere. Eva Kruse, chief global engagement officer at sustainable fashion company Pangaia, described it to me as a “difficult” but critical question: “How do you make new services or models where you can grow in value, not volume?”
How do you do it? Government force, of course. Which will only hurt you peasants. Interestingly, as the Warmists and eco-loons have pushed their agenda things do not last like they used to. You could buy a washer and dryer 20 years ago and it would be fine. Nowadays they do not last long. And the people make the rules usually fail to follow them.
It’s been understood for some time that the only way the transition to (less reliable, lower output) green energy can work is by reducing demand–perhaps by 50% or so. This is especially true given there is no viable means of storing electricity from intermittent sources. Thus we peons must learn to do without so our masters can continue to live like the royalty they imagine themselves to be.
“God save the queen, man.” FJB
Human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm with a high probability of continuing. It’s real.
What’s a scam is that we will do anything about global warming except adjust to it as best we can.
No global agreement will make any difference.
Even with all the sturm, drang, angst, commissions, deals and agreements CO2, 350 ppm in 1990, has risen steadily to 420 ppm today. Coincidentally, the Earth has warmed 0.6°C in that time. It’s unlikely that any of the changes made so far have made a difference. If we stop all CO2 emissions today, the Earth will continue to warm another 0.6°C until the incoming radiation and outgoing radiation are in balance (ignoring that CO2 will very slowly drop as plants sequester it temporarily, and soil and rocks absorb (CO2 mineralization).
Our great-grandkids will have to deal with it.
Deal with what? “Human caused CO2 is theorized to be causing the warming”.
There, fixed it
Chicken Little
Now we find that all the models are wrong. (Who didn’t know that?)
There’s little good news to report in the field of research surrounding climate change and its far-reaching impacts on the planet, yet an international team of scientists may have found a small victory to celebrate.
Using realistic ecological modeling, scientists led by Western Sydney University’s Jürgen Knauer found that the globe’s vegetation could actually be taking on about 20% more of the CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere and will continue to do so through to the end of the century.
OurLilChickenShit,
Look up non sequitur…
Your cut&paste does not support your conclusion that “Now we find all the models are wrong”, i.e., your conclusion does not follow your “evidence”.
But Rimjob that’s exactly what you do here every day.
Chicken Little
we find all the models are wrong”, i.e., your conclusion does not follow your “evidence”.
GIIGO
Garage in Garbage out
Dramatic video shows Hamas terrorists surrender to the IDF as fierce fighting resumes in Gaza
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2023/12/dramatic-video-shows-hamas-terrorists.html
Jl: “Human caused CO2 is theorized to be causing the warming”.
There is a wealth of evidence to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Jl: Now we find that all the models are wrong.
All models are wrong. Some are useful. — George E. P. Box
Interesting how you disregard models that contradict your preconceptions, but regard those that comport with your preconceptions.
In this case, the hypothesized difference is far from sufficient to prevent deleterious effects from anthropogenic global warming. We know this because the concentration of atmospheric CO2 continues to rapidly increase. If confirmed, it would mean a slightly slower warming trend over the rest of this century.
Should be:
James Lewis: Now we find that all the models are wrong.
Z,
There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 is causing any issue with the planet. Refer to multiple discussions with your high school buds who have already been here. By the way, you and your friends have never, ever provided any study that truly addresses the issue, nor have you demonstrated how taxes will reduce CO2 or what will happen with reduction of CO2. You also have not demonstrated a plan for controlling emissions from Idia and China, who are the real polluters. In short, you are a snotty little child trying to act like an adult.
david7134: There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 is causing any issue with the planet.
The evidence of global warming has accumulated for over a century. Let’s start with the basics: Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a chilly -18°C instead of the balmy +15°C that it is. The former is calculated directly from the heat equations for a gray body. The latter is the observed mean temperature of the Earth’s surface.
In addition, the greenhouse effect means the stratosphere is much cooler than it would otherwise be. Furthermore, as the surface has warmed, the stratosphere has cooled, consistent with the greenhouse effect, but not consistent with other proposed causes.
Furthermore, the relationship of the changing composition of the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases to the surface temperature was discovered over a century ago. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
If you disagree with any of these steps in the logical chain, please explain your objections. If you accept these steps, then we will be happy to discuss the next steps and the evidence in support.
The kiddieZ have posted this comment verbatim countless times before and their “logical arguments” were destroyed.
Now they’re just trolling.
LMAO!
And again Arrhenius admitted later that his computations were wrong.
Lolgfy!
Go away, kiddieZ, y’all don’t really have an argument.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-surface-temperature-comparison/
Correct-no verifiable evidence, just correlations and attributions. And, there are other theories-
https://phzoe.com/2022/06/24/7-decades-of-net-solar-radiation/
Jl: Correct-no verifiable evidence
Ignoring our comment is not an argument against it. The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively. Based on that, if the Earth didn’t have a greenhouse effect, what would be its surface temperature? Are you saying the Earth’s surface temperature is not in the range of +15°C?
NASA: Temperature vs Solar Activity
Z,
No, I am not about to assist a child trying to get information for debate class or club. Go to the library and quit bothering your betters.
david7134: Go to the library and quit bothering your betters.
In other words, as our readers can see, you got nothin’. Let us know when you have something to contribute to the discussion.
Z,
I know all the readers. The only ones that agree with you are two total failures who as dumb as can be. Just like you. Now, go play with your toys.
david7134: I know all the readers.
Most blogs have far more readers than commenters. In any case, you keep avoiding the questions raised above.
Aw, the kiddieZ are throwing a hissy cuz David doesn’t want to play.
Soon sad!
Z
Interesting how you disregard models that contradict your preconceptions, but regard those that comport with your preconceptions.
How am I disregarding anything by pointing out that one of the largest assumptions is wrong. As I said to Chicken Little, AKA Elwood….
GIGO
Garbage In Garabage Out
James Lewis: How am I disregarding anything by pointing out that one of the largest assumptions is wrong.
The study you cited is based on a model. If the study you cited is wrong, then it can’t show that “all the models are wrong.” Must be a model devised by the Cretan, Epimenides.
James Lewis: How am I disregarding anything by pointing out that one of the largest assumptions is wrong.
Let’s assume you meant all the other models are wrong, but this model is right. Climate models assume carbon fixation by plants as part of the climate dynamic. The study shows that carbon fixation will be somewhat larger than previously thought. It means that warming will be marginally slower than originally projected. It also means that planting trees may be marginally more effective. However, plants and other natural processes are not sufficient to absorb all the excess CO2 emissions. We know this because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to rapidly increase.
Z
You’re playing word games and you know what my point is.
However, plants and other natural processes are not sufficient to absorb all the excess CO2 emissions. We know this because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to rapidly increase.
We do not know. And the “studies” are off.
Name me the predictions that were accurate.
You’re just like Chicken Little screaming doom and destruction with no idea as to what will happen.
OurLilChickenShit,
You are not stupid, but ignorant.
“We do not know” that CO2 is increasing? Untrue. It’s a fact that CO2 is increasing.
What “studies are off”?
The AGW theory predicts that the Earth will warm as atmospheric CO2 increases. That is what is happening.
James Lewis: We do not know.
We don’t know that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing? Huh? You can do the observation yourself.
Your claim was that a study that indicated that plants will absorb more CO2 than expected over the next few decades means the climate models are “wrong”. However, the additional absorption is not sufficient to stop the rapid increase in CO2 expected over the same period. Please, try to resolve this claim before trying to divert to another.
In USA peak gasoline has already happened.
The rate of temp increase during the last Ice Age was about 1C degree every 1000 years . It now is 1C degree every 100 years and that rate is increasing.
H
Explain the Medieval Warming.
JL,
Nice distraction, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Look it up!
Snow is not and indication of extreme snow. Remember the interior of Antarctica is considered a dessert because it is too cold to have much percipitation The record snow fall in Germany is NOT a record low temp, just record snowfall.
Is jl suggestion that this increased carbon sequestration is going to stop temps from increasing?
“Are you saying the earth’s temp is not in the range of +15C?”. Where did I say that? I said there’s no verifiable cause-effect evidence of agw, because there isn’t. https://phzoe.com/2022/06/10/20-years-of-climate-change/
Jl: “Are you saying the earth’s temp is not in the range of +15C?”. Where did I say that?
Good. We’re trying to provide you the evidence requested. Now, do you accept the basic physics of heat? If so, given the only way the Earth can gain or lose heat is radiatively, what is the blackbody (effective) temperature of the Earth?
Already responded to your link.
“Already responded..”. Funny-which proves..what? Your chart shows decreasing solar, as do her government figures, so there’s agreement. That’s why she said “despite less solar power, there is more sun actually reaching the surface and less sun reflected back to space.
As far as blackbody temp-
https://phzoe.com/2022/06/11/shrinking-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-closer-to-reality/
Jl: Zoe Phin says, “Surface Upwelling Longwave Radiation”
If the Earth’s surface warms, what do we expect in terms of Upwelling Longwave Radiation? We expect it to increase. Duh.
Yes, an increase in shortwave solar as said, not CO2
Chicken Little:
The AGW theory predicts that the Earth will warm as atmospheric CO2 increases. That is what is happening.
A theory is not a prediction. The AGW “theory” is what is called an “observational theory,” not a “scientific theory.” Now. Show us a prediction that worked.
Nice distraction, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Since there were no cars… what caused it?
James Lewis: A theory is not a prediction.
In science, a theory is a well-supported explanation for a body of facts. The Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity, for instance, explains why masses fall on Earth and why planets orbit the sun.
James Lewis: Show us a prediction that worked.
Forecast evaluation for models run in 2004
James Lewis: Since there were no cars… what caused it?
That’s a common misunderstanding. Greenhouse gases are essential for understanding Earth’s climate history, but they are not sufficient. Other drivers for historical climate include changes in solar irradiance, albedo, orbital variations, volcanism, movement of the continental plates, even extraterrestrial objects slamming into the Earth.
Keep on trolling, kiddieZ.
Jl: which proves..what?
The chart shows that the Earth’s warming is not due to increased insolation.
Jl: As far as blackbody temp- “Most of the albedo comes from the atmosphere itself! And also this albedo value is only useful in observing Earth from space.”
That’s the whole point of a calculating the blackbody temperature. The Earth can only gain and lose heat radiatively. The greenhouse effect only changes the distribution of heat within the system, making the surface warmer, but the upper atmosphere cooler. If you increase the greenhouse effect, the surface will become even warmer, while the upper atmosphere will become even cooler, which is what we observe. This process will continue until the system reaches a new equilibrium.
Good-none of which verifies CO2 as the cause, as said earlier. New paper-Koutsoyiannis and Vournas et al, 2023. “We conclude the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has not altered in a discernible manner the greenhouse effect….
https://notrickszone.com/2023/11/27/new-study-finds-the-post-1900-co2-rise-has-not-discernibly-altered-the-greenhouse-effect/
Jl: none of which verifies CO2 as the cause, as said earlier.
Step by step. So far, you’ve haven’t followed the steps. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be frozen. We know this from several lines of evidence, including that the Earth’s surface is warmer and the upper atmosphere cooler than it otherwise would be, given the Sun’s radiation and that the only way the Earth can gain or lose heat is radiatively. Your own citation accepts this.
As for research Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023, we haven’t seen the paper, but their claim is contradicted by direct observation. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2, Nature 2015.
And your “steps” still don’t verify that it’s CO2 doing the warming. No one doubts that without ghg, the earth would be much colder-but again, that in no way means it’s CO2. “Contradicted by direct observation..” You mean the observations that temp has gone up as CO2 has gone up? That’s just a correlation, not proof of causation.
As far as Feldman, please reread it. Notice no temperatures are recorded. We’re told it’s all about temps, correct? But for some reason none were recored-wonder why? So they claim they measured radiative forcing but they forgot to measure the effects of that radiative forcing? In addition, the CO2 was only 10% of the downwelling radiation, and it was recorded in clear sky conditions.
Also, the Feldman paper was a signal interpretation and models were used to attribute a part of the interpreted signal to CO2.
From the paper “to interpret these measurements and attribute specific signals to rising CO2 requires an accurate radiative-transfer model that reproduces these spectra on the basis of an independent assessment of the state of the atmosphere”. So in actuality it was more modeled than measured
Jl: No one doubts that without ghg, the earth would be much colder
It shouldn’t have taken that long, but thank you.
Jl: You mean the observations that temp has gone up as CO2 has gone up?
It’s direct observation of the spectra by the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer. It shows 0.2 Wm² per decade consistent with calculations based on fundamental physics.
The rest of your comment is incoherent.
Jl: Notice no temperatures are recorded.
Sigh. It’s heat energy.
“It shouldn’t have taken that long”. Taken that long for what? Nowhere have I ever said that ghg don’t keep the planet warmer than it would be other-wise. But if you have evidence of that, by all means show us.
“It’s a measure of heat energy”. No, it’s alleged to produce heat. But guess what? They forgot to measure that “heat”. And again, it’s modeled, not measured. “It’s a direct observation of the spectra..” Too bad, it still doesn’t verify that CO2 is the cause. Correlations and attributions aren’t evidence.
“The rest of your comment is incoherent”. Another good observation- “the rest of my comment” was taken verbatim from the Feldman paper, so maybe you’re right….
So, still no verifiable cause-effect evidence that mans emissions are warming the planet. Another alternative theory- albedo
https://phzoe.com/2021/06/01/on-albedo/
jl typed: Nowhere have I ever said that ghg don’t keep the planet warmer than it would be other-wise. But if you have evidence of that, by all means show us.
So you “believe” that greenhouse gases keep the planet warm, but not based on any evidence? The fact that the Earth is warmer than expected has no scientific evidence to support it? Do you think it’s a mechanism separate from the warming we see now?
Also, where are Dr Professor Phen’s papers published? Thanks.
Can you summarize the significance of Dr Professor Phen’s observations? Thanks.
[b]Jl[/b]: [i]Nowhere have I ever said that ghg don’t keep the planet warmer than it would be other-wise. [/i]
But you didn’t say it did either. When working with a step-by-step argument, we have to address each step before proceeding to the next step. But at least we agree Earth’s atmosphere has a significant greenhouse effect that results in a warmer surface and a cooler stratosphere.
[b]Jl[/b]: [i]No, it’s alleged to produce heat. [/i]
They directly measured the downwelling CO2 spectra.
[b]Jl[/b]: [i]Too bad, it still doesn’t verify that CO2 is the cause. [/i]
Spectra acts as fingerprints for molecules.
[b]Jl[/b]: [i]So, still no verifiable cause-effect evidence that mans emissions are warming the planet. Another alternative theory- albedo [/i]
Albedo is a positive feedback, as is atmospheric water vapor.
KiddieZ: But you didn’t say it did either.
LMFAO. Keep trolling, kidZ.
Sorry J and Zach-nowhere did I say ghg don’t keep the planet warmer. When asked where I ever said that-no answer. Zach-“but you didn’t say it did, either”. That’s a nice diversion. For those with reading comprehension problems, I said no evidence man’s extra CO2 is the cause of the warming.
“They directly measured the downwelling CO2 spectra”. . No, they derived what they think it is based on a model. And that allegedly shows CO2 as only 10% the downwelling radiation based on clear sky conditions, and they didn’t measure any temp rise. And as said, it was based on clear sky conditions. In other words, it’s another make-believe study of an imaginary world where there are no clouds affecting the energy imbalance. “Albedo is a positive feedback”. No, less albedo would mean more solar radiation reaching the earth, causing warming.
“Where are her papers published?” In her blog, where they can, and are, reviewed by her peers. Her data is fully referenced and computer code given so anyone can access the same data. If you could refute her data, where it is or isn’t published would be irrelevant. So, still no verifiable cause-effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet.
Jl: shows CO2 as only 10% the downwelling radiation based on clear sky conditions
Now, you got it. So, we have agreed on the existence of the greenhouse effect, and that the downwelling of heat radiation has increased consistent with increases in CO2. This has always been known for a century, but this result is based on direct observation.
Jl: less albedo would mean more solar radiation reaching the earth, causing warming.
That’s right. So, if the Earth warms, for whatever reason, leading to ice melt, this will amplify the warming. If the Earth cools, for whatever reason, leading to ice formation, this will amplify the cooling. In this case, the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 leads to warming of the surface. This leads to an increase in ice melt (as well as more immediately atmospheric moistening), amplifying the warming.
“CO2 as 10% of the downwelling…Now, you’ve got it..”. Nope-again, that’s what the paper said. It was derived from a model, as stated verbatim from Feldman. Funny-“so we have agreed on the existence of the gh effect”. Who ever disagreed on that? You guys read what you want to read. I said no verifiable cause- effect evidence that this extra CO2 from man’s emissions are the cause of the warming, not that ghg don’t keep the earth warmer than it would be. “Based on direct observation”. No, based on what was derived from a model. As in any paper, alarmist or skeptical, how accurate are the parameters put into the model? In this case the increase in CO2 leads to warming…”. No, in this case it’s hypothesized that the extra CO2 is causing the warming. You’re looking at a correlation, not evidence of causation.
Albedo-from NASA: “a drop of as little as 0.01 in earth’s albedo would have a major warming influence on climate-roughly equal to the effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would cause earth to retain an additional 3.4 watts of energy for every square meter of surface area.” So as stated in the article, the change in albedo from 2000 to 2021 is 77% of the theoretical CO2 forcing.
Jill typed: “Where are her papers published?” In her blog, where they can, and are, reviewed by her peers.
Phin hasn’t posted to her blog in over a year. Are you one of her “peers” reviewing her “work”? The internet is replete with people typing their beliefs. Phin also pushes the belief that viruses do not exist and are just another part of the leftist plot to control you. And she believes ivermectin works in Covid (although is viruses are fake…).
“Phin hasn’t posted in over a year.” So? How does that prove she’s wrong or right? It’s irrelevant. “Are you one of her peers reviewing her work?” I said her peers can review her work on her blog, which if you look, they do. Don’t see your point. “Internet is replete with people tying their beliefs”. Her “beliefs” come from the fully referenced data, which most times come from government data, in which she supplies the compute code so anyone can access the same thing. There’s no paywall, no wait, and in most cases is viewed by many more people than otherwise would view it. I’m failing to see any problem…
Jl: It was derived from a model, as stated verbatim from Feldman.
Virtually everything in science is based on models. Just waving your hands and saying “model” is not an argument that the study is flawed. We might project the Earth’s orbit using classical mechanics, or Brownian Motion using a particulate model of matter. In this case, the study used the LBLRTM (Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model), which is a standard model for calculating spectral radiances.
Jl: Who ever disagreed on that?
Good. So, we are in agreement that the greenhouse effect causes the Earth’s surface to be warmer than it otherwise would be, and the stratosphere to be cooler than it otherwise would be.
Jl: No, in this case it’s hypothesized that the extra CO2 is causing the warming.
It’s confirmed because the downwelling of heat radiation from *specifically* the spectra of CO2 is observed. Of course, this isn’t actually necessary, because if we increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, then, ceteris paribus, the greenhouse effect will increase. But the observational study is nice.
Jl: So as stated in the article, the change in albedo from 2000 to 2021 is 77% of the theoretical CO2 forcing.
That’s right. If the Earth warms, then the warming will be amplified by ice melt due to lower albedo. Conversely, if the Earth cools, then the cooling will be amplified by ice formation due to higher albedo. Similarly, if the Earth warms, the atmosphere will moisten, and as water is a greenhouse gas, the warming will be amplified. Conversely, if the Earth cools, then the cooling will be amplified as the atmosphere dries. These are called positive feedbacks, and they have been known for over a century.
These effects occur regardless of the cause of the warming or cooling. If the warming is due to increased insolation, for instance, the stratosphere will also warm. And—this is an important—if the warming is due to an increased greenhouse effect, the stratosphere will cool. And that is what we observe. See Santer et al., Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature, PNAS 2023.
Again-“Good-so we’re in agreement that the ghg effect causes the earth’s surface to be warmer than it otherwise would.”
Maybe when you feel up to it you can point out where ever I said otherwise. Good luck! You keep bringing up stuff that never happened.
Models-You said In Feldman the effect was measured. I said it was derived from models, which is correct. And you ignore the fact that Feldman used an imaginary world with no clouds, and no effects of the downwelling radiation were ever measured. Did it raise the temperature? We don’t know. How convenient
“It’s confirmed”. No, it’s not. Not one peer-reviewed paper showing verifiable cause effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet. And there of course are other theories. Several papers out on the subject.
Khmelinskii 2023 “ghg hypothesis based on conjectures regarding molecular spectroscopic properties of the CO2 molecule that have never been validated….CO2 effect not even measurable.”
Wang 2002
Song 2016- with a reference to Feldman. “Increasing trend in ghg forcing is only realized in an imaginary world with no clouds”.
Loeb 2021
Dubal 2021
Swift 2018
Stephens2022
And your paragraph at the end does nothing to refute the fact that the albedo decrease by itself can account for most of the warming. “Warming amplified by ice melt due to lower albedo. That’s surface albedo, which the IPCC uses. Her figures are from atmospheric albedo.
Jl: In Feldman the effect was measured. I said it was derived from models
Ignoring our comment is not an argument. Waving your hands a saying “model” is not an argument. A radiative transfer model is just a way to integrate multiple layers of atmosphere with each line of the spectrum. Radiative models are constantly being tested against observation. And this is what we mean by observation: Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer, which is a stronger argument than “Is not.” or even “IS NOT!”
Jl: And you ignore the fact that Feldman used an imaginary world with no clouds, and no effects of the downwelling radiation were ever measured. Did it raise the temperature? We don’t know. How convenient
It’s not an imaginary world. It’s a measurement of clear sky downwelling of radiation. Nor did it measure temperature. It measured heat energy. The measured increase in CO2 spectral energy is consistent with predictions. Changes in albedo do not explain this observation.
Jl: And your paragraph at the end does nothing to refute the fact that the albedo decrease by itself can account for most of the warming.
Zoe’s albedo is from CERES, the same source as used by the IPCC. It’s interesting how actual scientists build and launch satellites to make these observations, but apparently can’t figure out what they mean. But Zoe can!
Greenhouse warming explains why albedo changes, not just in the current context, but in historical climate. Why do you think albedo is changing? Why is the stratosphere cooling?
Z,
The discussion is over. You lost. Go elsewhere to get your homework done.
Observation is always a stronger argument than “IS NOT!”
Mr 7134 declares victory! This is common ploy of overwhelmed losers.
Mr 7134,
Review comment 14. This outlines the basic evidence of AGW.
Hey jl: What experimental results would you find convincing of fossil-fuel CO2-caused warming?
Why hasn’t a skeptical scientist conducted such experiments falsifying the theory of AGW??
“Why hasn’t a skeptical scientist conducted experiments falsifying the agw theory?” Obviously to falsify something it would have to be verified first. “What experiments would you find convincing…?” Experiments, or data collection, that didnt show evidence of alternative hypotheses. But there’s a multitude that do. In addition, there’s long periods in earth’s history where CO2 and temp went in opposite directions.
Oh my. How embarrassing for you. Scientific theories can never be proven but only disproven (falsified).
Your skeptical scientists could quiet all those “warmists”, “warmunists”, “scammers” etc with one experiment that shows that AGW is impossible!!! Alternatively, they could describe an alternative explanation and support it with tons of evidence.
jl: there’s long periods in earth’s history where CO2 and temp went in opposite directions
Not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you saying high CO2 but low temps and/or low CO2 but high temps?
Please understand that CO2 is only one potential input for affecting global temperature. You know all the others – volcanism, asteroids, orbital shifts, albedo, changes in insolation, etc
It’s hypothesized that some 635 million years ago the Earth was completely or nearly completely covered in ice. Evidence indicates this caused the CO2 levels to skyrocket! High CO2 and frozen Earth – how can that be?
Can you read? I never said proven, I said verified. “Alternatively , they could describe an alternate explanation and support it with tons of evidence”. I answered my own question-you can’t read. The alternative explanations and data are, in part, in the 15 or so peer-reviewed papers I listed. Please keep up. “0ne experiment that shows it impossible..”
Who ever said it was impossible? Not me, ever. I said cause-effect evidence hasn’t been shown. That’s not the same as saying it’s impossible. There’s no evidence at this time to implicate suspect “A” in the homicide, but does that mean it’s impossible that’s he’s the one? No. J-better look in the mirror for that embarrassing part..
“Ignoring our comment is not an argument”. You mean like you just did with mine? “Saying model is not an argument”. Correct, it’s a fact. Nothing you’ve said refutes that Feldman used models, which is what I said. But if Feldman didn’t use models, by all means show us. “It’s not an imaginary world”. Sure it is, because it discounts the effects of clouds on the radiation budget. But the best is “it’s a measurement of heat energy”. What’s missing is the effect of that alleged heat energy, which would be the issue. Did it raise the temperature? That paper didn’t say.
“Changes in albedo don’t explain this observation.” The change in albedo explains the change in temperature, which Feldman didn’t do. “Green House warming explains albedo changes.” Less cloud cover can explain albedo changes. Many papers on that subject.
But back to “ignoring our comment”. Funny, because apparently Zach doesn’t realize that he “ignored” the 6 peer-reviewed papers I listed that that discount the common agw theory. There are more: Zhang 2023, Herman 2013, Sfica 2021, Su 2021, Kato 2018, Delgado 2020, Ollila 2021. There’s still not one peer-reviewed paper showing verifiable cause-effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet. Obviously, correlation doesn’t prove causation . Instead, correlation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative “null” hypotheses. As the above papers show, that’s not even close to being done.
Frankly gentlemen peer reviewed and published papers at this point are moot. It doesn’t matter if it’s medical science climate science or any other kind of science they’re all paid for by the people who pay for the salaries of the people who write them. So they’re not objective and they’re not scientific what they are is bought and paid for propaganda.
There was probably a time when peer reviewed articles like these were valuable because the people did it for intellectual inquiry not-for-profit. But that ship has sailed. And they’re especially prolific in the leftist areas of academia. Just because some cloud has a PhD behind his name doesn’t mean he knows anything it just means he got a degree. It used to mean something but fauci’s got a PhD so that proves what a PhD is worth today. The Democrat party is loaded with PHD’s all of which are flicking morons.
We were just giving a live show in front of Congress about the foolishness of a bunch of college presidents or PHD’s I believe and you’re gonna tell me that these people mean anything? They mean nothing! Para bunch of losers parading around like their poop don’t stink.
Genocide Joe the commie: It doesn’t matter if it’s medical science climate science or any other kind of science they’re all paid for by the people who pay for the salaries of the people who write them.
So, the findings of quantum mechanics, the discoveries of distant galaxies, the development of antibiotics, none of it can be trusted because money was involved.
Genocide Joe: fauci’s got a PhD so that proves what a PhD is worth today
Anthony Fauci, M.D., does not have a Ph.D.
Dr. Fauci disagreed with Mr Trump on many issues related to the Covid pandemic which generated hatred for him from the far-right (i.e., trumpists).
Genocide Joe: There was probably a time when peer reviewed articles like these were valuable because the people did it for intellectual inquiry not-for-profit
Few scientists are independently wealthy with rich parents to support them, so work for universities or institutes for a salary.
Is Genocide Joe recommending more government regulation of scientific inquiry??
Jl: Obviously to falsify something it would have to be verified first.
That’s just weird.
In any case, the typical way to provide positive verification of a hypothesis is by testing its entailments. In this case, even though it has long been established that CO2 causes downwelling heat, the Feldman study directly observed the predicted increase in clear sky downwelling due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
That doesn’t “prove” anthropogenic global warming. It’s just one small verification of a vast sum of scientific observations.
Jl: You mean like you just did with mine?
We directly addressed your argument. You suggested that the study uses models, so the findings can’t be trusted. However, virtually all science uses models. Short of dispensing with all scientific findings, you have to point to a problem with the specific model being utilized, the LBLRTM (Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model), which is a standard model for calculating spectral radiances, one which has been extensively tested against observations.
Jl: Nothing you’ve said refutes that Feldman used models
Huh? It’s almost as if you didn’t read any of our comments. We even pointed out which model they used, a radiative transfer model. You might try to find the problem with the model. Are you asserting that electromagnetic radiation is not composed of spectral lines? Or that the atmospheric radiances can’t be integrated vertically?
Jl: it discounts the effects of clouds on the radiation budget.
It didn’t discount them. It simply didn’t study the effects of clouds.
We’d be happy to discuss confounding factors, such as clouds, but not if you refuse to even grant the simplest of facts—greenhouse gases cause a downwelling of heat energy. That’s why the Earth’s surface is warmer and the stratosphere cooler than it otherwise would be. And if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the downwelling will increase. And, ceteris paribus, the Earth’s mean surface temperature will increase. Again, we can discuss confounding factors, but not if you don’t grant the basic physics.
Checking your references from above again, you provided a so-called quote from Song, but it appears to be a quote from a blogger. Song points to internal climate variability as the primary cause of the temporary hiatus, particularly the negatively phased La Niña-dominated state. The greenhouse effect slowed because when the warming slows from whatever cause, the positive feedback from water vapor also slows. Meanwhile, the warming has returned to the projected trend.
Jl: Less cloud cover can explain albedo changes.
We asked you directly. Why did albedo change? Or is it a deus ex machina?
“Feldman study directly observed the increase.” No, it didn’t directly observe, or even indirectly observe downwelling radiation. It was derived from a model with human assumed inputs. It appears to be still over your head, but that’s why I said it in the first place.
“You suggested it used models, so it can’t be trusted”. You can’t read, either. I never said it can’t be trusted, I simply said it was modeled, not a “direct observation”, as you stated. If you look back, you can see where I mentioned both skeptic and alarmist models. More reading what you want to read.
“It didn’t discount them, it simply didn’t study the effect of clouds”. Funny- if it didn’t study them, then they were discounted in that study. Numerous papers showing the effect of clouds is allegedly several factors larger than any CO2 effect.
Here we go again- “if you refuse to grant….that ghg cause a downwelling of heat energy”.
Never said that, now did I? Buy I’ll ask you again, if you have evidence otherwise, by all means show it. You’ve said it about 3 or 4 times now, all without evidence. Sound familiar?
“You might try to find the problem with the model”. Still can’t read, I see. Never said there was a problem, I just said a model was used, not a direct observation. That was, and still is, a true statement. Remember how you missed me mentioning both skeptic and alarmist models? So another, and more accurate way to say it would be how do you know there’s
not a problem with any model, especially climate models?
“Are you asserting that electromagnetic radiation is not composed of spectral lines?” That’s only in your head, Zach. Where did I say that?
“We asked you directly-why did albedo change?” Who’s “we”? A decrease in cloud cover according to several papers. By the way, I asked you directly several times on where I ever said ghg don’t make the planet warmer than otherwise. No answer.
But back to the Feldman paper-it said CO2 was 10% of the downwelling increase. What caused the other 90%? It “knows” CO2 is 10% but they don’t know the other 90%? And they never observed, modeled or measured what effect the alleged increase in downwelling radiation did as far as temperature. We’re told it’s all about the temperature, right?
Which brings us back to what I originally said-there’s no verifiable cause-effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet, especially with the numerous un-falsified papers with alternate theories that you seem to ignore
On SEMANTICS
Jl: No, it didn’t directly observe, or even indirectly observe downwelling radiation.
Well, by that reckoning, reading a glass thermometer isn’t a direct observation of temperature. It’s laden with assumptions supported by experiment and theory. Or using a modern infrared telescope. Or most any observation in modern science. Let’s just call it observational evidence. The physics of heat energy predicts that an increasing concentration of a gas in the atmosphere that interacts with infrared (called a greenhouse gas) will cause an increase in the downwelling of heat energy. The observational evidence in Feldman confirms the prediction in direction and degree.
Jl: if it didn’t study them, then they were discounted in that study.
The usual sense of “discount” is “to minimize the importance of”, as in “6 peer-reviewed papers I listed that that discount the common agw theory”. Leaving aside your semantic quibbles . . .
On GLOBAL WARMING
Jl: What caused the other 90%?
Moistening of the atmosphere is the primary amplifier. Changes in albedo are slower but also have a large effect. We’re are presenting a step-by-step argument, so we can discuss this once we are on firm footing.
Jl: A decrease in cloud cover according to several papers.
You misquoted Song which grossly misrepresented the results. Khmelinskii is directly contradicted by the observational evidence of Feldman. Your other references are not properly cited.
Jl: Which brings us back to what I originally said-there’s no verifiable cause-effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet
You’ve apparently agreed (it’s hard to tell for sure) that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in heat at the surface. (This could have been resolved way up above in the discussion.)
Another look for your references:
Jl: Wang 2002
There are more than a hundred million Wangs in the world, so we couldn’t find the study you might be referencing.
Jl: Loeb 2021
Loeb et al., Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate, Geophysical Research Letters 2021: “We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.” In other words, exactly what is expected from greenhouse warming.
Jl: Swift 2018
Swift 2018
jl,
We’ve covered this ground more than once. You primarily select your citations on the advice of Pierre (NoTricks) Gosselin, often attributing to authors the opinions of Mr Gosselin. If you are serious about a discussion please do better on your citations.
On occasion, I’ve followed your link to NoTricks and found (and have shown) that the conclusions of the author did not support Mr Gosselin’s claim. No, I did not check every citation.
The evidence to date (and it’s extensive) supports that the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100+ years is resulting in global warming. Dr Charles Keeling started his careful and consistent measurements of atmospheric CO2 in 1958 and his team continues to this day. CO2 was 317 ppm in 1960 and has risen steadily to 421.69 ppm at the latest reading. Frighteningly, the Keeling Curve is exponential with a 256 ppm baseline offset.