Greenhouse gas levels in atmosphere hit new high: UN

November 22, 2018 by Agnès Pedrero
'The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5 million years ago,' World Meteorological Organization chief Petteri Taalas said

The levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the main driver of climate change, have hit a new record high, the UN said Thursday, warning that the time to act was running out.

Ahead of the COP 24 climate summit in Poland next month, top United Nations officials are again trying to raise the pressure on governments to meet the pledge of limiting warming to the less than two degrees Celsius, enshrined in the 2015 Paris accord.

"Without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, will have increasingly destructive and irreversible impacts on life on Earth," the head of the World Meteorological Organization Petteri Taalas said in a statement.

"The window of opportunity for action is almost closed."

In an open letter to all states ahead of COP24, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet warned of cataclysmic consequences if the world does not reverse course.

"Entire nations, ecosystems, peoples and ways of life could simply cease to exist," she said, citing evidence that nations are not on track to meet the commitments made in Paris.

US President Donald Trump, who pulled his government out of the Paris agreement, again on Thursday appeared to cast doubt on climate science.

"Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" he said in a tweet.

Asked to respond to Trump, deputy WMO chief Elena Manaenkova told reporters that the science underpinning global warming was "unequivocal," without challenging the US leader directly.

5 million years

The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the UN weather agency's annual flagship report, tracks the content of dangerous gases in the since 1750.

This year's report, which covers data for 2017, puts the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 405.5 parts per million (ppm).

Change in levels of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere since 1984

That is up from 403.3 ppm in 2016 and 400.1 ppm in 2015.

"The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5 million years ago, when the temperature was 2-3°C warmer," Taalas said.

Researchers have made reliable estimates of C02 concentrations rates going back 800,000 years using air bubbles preserved in ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

But by studying fossilised material the WMO also has rough CO2 estimates going back up to five million years.

In addition to CO2, the UN agency also highlighted rising levels of methane, nitrous oxide and another powerful ozone depleting gas known as CFC-11.

'No magic wand'

Emissions are the main factor that determines the amount of greenhouse gas levels, but concentration rates are a measure of what remains after a series of complex interactions between atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and the oceans.

Roughly 25 percent of all emissions are currently absorbed by the oceans and biosphere—a term that accounts for all ecosystems on Earth. The lithosphere is the solid, outer part of the Earth, while the cyrosphere covers that part of the world covered by frozen water.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that in order to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, net CO2 emissions must be at net zero, meaning the amount being pumped into the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed, either though natural absorbtion or technological innovation.

WMO's deputy chief, Elena Manaenkova, noted that CO2 remains in the atmosphere and oceans for hundreds of years.

"There is currently no magic wand to remove all the excess CO2 from the atmosphere," she said.

"Every fraction of a degree of matters, and so does every part per million of ," she said.

According to the UN, 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, while the cost of climate-related disasters in 2017 topped $500 billion (439 billion euros).

Explore further: Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere hits record high: UN

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Afromontane forests and climate change

January 17, 2019

In the world of paleoecology, little has been known about the historical record of ecosystems in the West African highlands, especially with regard to glacial cycles amidst a shifting climate and their effects on species ...

80 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

grandpa
2.7 / 5 (13) Nov 22, 2018
Now if we can just get carbon dioxide levels to 500 we may prevent the next ice age for many hundreds of thousands of years.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 22, 2018
Trump: "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" he said in a tweet.


Showing that the f***wit doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather. Who elected this tool? Hands up.
zz5555
4 / 5 (16) Nov 22, 2018
Trump: "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" he said in a tweet.


Showing that the f***wit doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather. Who elected this tool? Hands up.

He also ignores the fact that most of the world, and even the US, is above the baseline temperature - a baseline that is already much the historic averages (https://climatere.../#t2anom ). If he can't even be bothered to pay attention to what's happening in his own country, it seems unlikely that he'd have the attention span to learn how climate change/global warming can cause warmer temperatures in parts of the world even while the world as a whole continues to warm.
Zzzzzzzz
4.2 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2018
Evolution, like life, is competition. Humans do not need to differentiate themselves from the rest of the natural world. The ability of life to exist on this planet does not hang in the balance of what humans do. The world does not require saving, nor does it care. We could not eliminate life from this planet, no matter how determined to do so we might be.

Humans, however, are a much different thing to consider. We are fully capable of extincting ourselves, and the effects of our excretions on other living things are a great gauge to see how our future is being eliminated by our present actions.

Just a preemptive post for the anti-science trolls that are sure to jump on this article in their desperate race to somehow manufacture validation for their psychotic delusions.
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2018
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 22, 2018
Every story says the same thing: greenhouse gases are going up and so is the temperature.

Anyone who's denying it is helping the extinction of the human race.

It's just as simple as that.
zz5555
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2018
http://www.temperature.global/info.php

From that website:
Temperature.Global calculates the current global temperature of the Earth. It uses unadjusted surface temperatures.

It is extremely rare that data can be used without some adjustment. Surface temperatures are not one of those rare cases - you either lie to yourself or, if you understand the data, you lie to others if you use unadjusted data. There is a very large cooling bias in the unadjusted data (e.g., http://berkeleyea...re-data/ ). They also only use surface stations, which means that they don't include many areas where the warming is greatest (e.g., polar regions). They also don't detail their model for calculating the global temperature. It almost looks like they just take a straight average, which would be idiotic. But given that they use unadjusted data, that may be the best they can do.
snoosebaum
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2018
zzz , yes i'd like to know more about that 'temperature global ' site . i don't like 'adjustments 'either , they are trying to be perfect because somebody will attack them if they don't. But trying to chase ''station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years'' is just fooling yourself . On the other hand if one looks at simple raw weather site data , in particular comparing one month averages between any yr and at any location temps are flat 1890's ? - now . which seems at least consistant despite all the imagined ' inhomogenities '
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2018
So suppose a thermometer breaks and you have to replace it. Should you not characterize it and adjust the readings?

What if someone builds a building that shades the weather station half the day? Should you not make an adjustment for that?

How about if a dam is built that makes a lake next to the weather station?

This argument is not merely ridiculous but stupid.
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
Want to know how it is calculated? Look at the source

view-source:http://www.temperature.global/

The most interesting thing on this page is the fact that somebody is being paid for it

"src='//eclkmpbn.com/adServe/banners?"
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2018
Who elected this tool? Hands up.

You will find no shortage of these dolts (even on this site)...they were all concerned over his competitors not keeping her email server secure. That was MUCH more important than the survival of the human species.
dogbert
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
I wish we could have these pronouncements on an hourly basis instead of daily. Some days we don't even get one.

A cult of hysteria is needed and we may not be able to sustain it on daily pronouncements.
V4Vendicar
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
Who elected this tool?


American Republicans did. Currently Trump's support stands at 43 percent nationally and 99% among Republicans.
STR
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2018
I do so enjoy these alarmist articles. And the comments...
mrburns
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
Atmospheric measurements give different results than surface temperatures the majority of which are taken in or near urban settings. There is no distinct difference between climate and weather. Ideologues use whichever is most convenient. "Climate science" is often indistinguishable from "Climate" used for political purposes, since the hallmarks of science, reproducible results, clear definitions and verifiable predictions are not met by any of the constantly changing CO2 theories. The appeals to consensus and resort to censorship and political silencing of any who suggest alternate drivers of climate are rather telling hallmarks of Marxist influence (Marxists and truth dont mix). The next decade should put the matter to rest as we seem to be entering a predicted period of minimal sunspot activity which without question reduces energy radiated by the sun. Thus theory indicates the earth will cool during this period regardless of CO2 atmospheric content. I put my money on the sun
snoosebaum
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2018
''What if someone builds a building that shades the weather station half the day ''

and what if the wind is always blowing at that site and noboby takes note ? down the rabbit hole u go
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
''What if someone builds a building that shades the weather station half the day ''

and what if the wind is always blowing at that site and noboby takes note ? down the rabbit hole u go

Looks like a good reason to identify such anomalies and adjust for them, or you could just trust the un-adjusted data and trust to luck.
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2018
It took all of us to create this catastrophe-in-the-making.

It will take all us. Working in cooperation, to attempt to mitigate the worst to come.

However, most of the World's peoples know that we Americans are greedy, selfish, prigs determined to cheat the rest of Humanity of any share in the Future.

Unwiulling to be honest with ourselves? Why would anybody else ever believe that we would share the burdens of survival?
Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2018
I signed up for 100% wind generated power supply six months ago. I also bought a Tesla two months ago. Now I ride the wind.

Transportation is one of the largest outstanding areas where fast significant progress can be realized in the next decade.

Buy an EV. If you like driving, and want a great car, buy a Tesla EV. Legacy automakers are currently scrambling to catch up in a market that is turning very quickly.

DO YOUR PART. YOU CAN HAVE AN OUTSIZED IMPACT RIGHT NOW> YOU CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Old_C_Code
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2018
Water is 90% of the greenhouse gases. We've had a wet summer, yes.
rrwillsj
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2018
Yeah? Too bad it wasn't a wet summer where it was wanted, even desperately needed.

Instead it was excessively wet where it was an unwanted burden.

Welcome to the expensive reality of Global Climate Change.

Hope you've been keeping up with your flood insurance payments. old coot!
Old_C_Code
2 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2018
rr: Get a real job, you're a good writer kid!
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2018
tanksalot oddcoot. Iis tryin.
Very tryin!
2 wryte gooder nuff to be a trumpchump inturn.
Lass entervu at WH, eye was rold eye wast 2 letterete and need to dumb down 'nuff for riting Prez Proclaims 4 duh tweetyboird.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2018
Greenhouse gas levels in atmosphere hit new high: UN

407.92ppm according to CO2now.

https://www.co2.earth/#
snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2018
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2018
snoozingbum. for all your pretense of indignation at the "Evil Liberal Media"? You sure spend a lot of time between your therapy sessions, reading them. So that you can denounce and demonize the honest facts they print.

I'd guess that's the difference between you and I? I have found it unnecessary to waste time reading the fake news from altright shills and fascist quislings channeling goebbel.

It's always the same old bigotry and misogyny and trample the Civil and Human Rights due every person.

I mean, all the effort you put into reading the NYTimes? Is an indication of how tediously repetitious you find Faux News.
snoosebaum
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2018
rr u have a mental disorder
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2018
We have 12 years, folks. Get your act together, and stop trying to cast suspicions (of conspiracies, politics, and what not) on known facts.

That said:
- "alarmist articles". No, science: "the UN weather agency".
- " no distinct difference between climate and weather." No, there is (climate is large scale trends, weather is localized), as most 5 year olds recognize.
- "Water is 90 %". Read the article, you can read I hope: CO2 increase is 66 % of the current global warming factors.

And we can know continue with our global program, which apparently will be all nations except US accepting global warming as fact and trying to cuts its costs. "Make US poor again."
howhot3
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2018
I don't know what to think of the Climate Denier Suicide Squad. The science is blatantly obvious and so in your face simple to understand it falls out of the man that climate denier goons are idiots or just stupid. When you see CO2 levels increasing 146% and 257% for Methane since 1984, it's not just Doom and Gloom its game over man!

Just to point something out about the climate deniers like old C code, big banana fart, and all the rest of the climate denier Goon Squad. Name one thing posted on this site that is even close to being truthful about a subject. They're all Spin Doctors. They are lying propagandist that will say anything to support they're illogical and suicidal efforts for mankind. They are sick individuals.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2018
@howhot
And just what would you have these so-called "climate deniers DO about this "Anthropegenic Global Warming" hysteria? Do you want them to AGREE with what you and the UN, Algore, Michael Moore and all the rest are saying, while complaining that American citizens have no intention of supporting and paying their hard-earned money to any organisation that claims that they have all the answers and have the methods to combat AGW? IF only the Americans would agree to making regular payments to such an organisation so that Algore and others can keep making a fortune off of all the hysteria.
What exactly do you want the skeptics to say here on this site?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2018
@SEU troll: science. Instead of the endless tired conspiracy theories. But you never will because you don't know any.
STR
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2018
We have 12 years, folks. Get your act together, and stop trying to cast suspicions (of conspiracies, politics, and what not) on known facts.

That said:
- "alarmist articles". No, science: "the UN weather agency".
- " no distinct difference between climate and weather." No, there is (climate is large scale trends, weather is localized), as most 5 year olds recognize.
- "Water is 90 %". Read the article, you can read I hope: CO2 increase is 66 % of the current global warming factors.

And we can know continue with our global program, which apparently will be all nations except US accepting global warming as fact and trying to cuts its costs. "Make US poor again."


We have 12 years? For what? Until the end of the snowflake generation hopefully...

The IPCC admit they don't account for a great deal of forcings, and rely mostly on models. Which have failed time and time again.
STR
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2018
I don't know what to think of the Climate Denier Suicide Squad. The science is blatantly obvious and so in your face simple to understand it falls out of the man that climate denier goons are idiots or just stupid. When you see CO2 levels increasing 146% and 257% for Methane since 1984, it's not just Doom and Gloom its game over man!

Just to point something out about the climate deniers like old C code, big banana fart, and all the rest of the climate denier Goon Squad. Name one thing posted on this site that is even close to being truthful about a subject. They're all Spin Doctors. They are lying propagandist that will say anything to support they're illogical and suicidal efforts for mankind. They are sick individuals.


With your biased view, are you suggesting that us non alarmists are saying the climate isn't changing?
No, we reject the poor science and practices, and biased agendas that are shoved down our throats. And most of all, the alarmists approach.
zz5555
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2018
The IPCC admit they don't account for a great deal of forcings, and rely mostly on models. Which have failed time and time again.

None of what you've claimed here is true. Why is it that the anti-science movement continually make these claims with no evidence? Can you name any forcings that aren't accounted for? (Note - clouds aren't a forcing, they're feedback.) The only ones I can think of are irrelevant because they're very small (cosmic rays, continental movements). Models can be ignored, if you want, because observations of past climate change say the same thing. And models do quite well (https://www.clima...vations/ ). Only by fudging the data have anti-scientists shown the models to fail (Roy Spencer, John Christy).
STR
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2018
The IPCC admit they don't account for a great deal of forcings, and rely mostly on models. Which have failed time and time again.

None of what you've claimed here is true. Why is it that the anti-science movement continually make these claims with no evidence? Can you name any forcings that aren't accounted for? (Note - clouds aren't a forcing, they're feedback.) The only ones I can think of are irrelevant because they're very small (cosmic rays, continental movements). Models can be ignored, if you want, because observations of past climate change say the same thing. And models do quite well (https://www.clima...vations/ ). Only by fudging the data have anti-scientists shown the models to fail (Roy Spencer, John Christy).


And none of what you claim is true either.

Anti science? Coming from an alarmist believer, that's hilarious.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2018
And none of what you claim is true either.

Anti science? Coming from an alarmist believer, that's hilarious.

For you to believe that none of this was true, you'd have to believe that continental movement is a significant contributor to the current climate change/global warming. This would make you either an idiot (if you believed that) or a liar (if you didn't). Which are you?

And I note that you still can't name an important forcing not in the models. That the models do so well suggests that there are no significant models missing.
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2018
"
"And I note that you still can't name an important forcing not in the models."

.0000405% of the atmosphere isn't forcing anything. Why do all of the "math guys" suddenly ignore the most important math ? Ahhh yes, math is only the language of science when it says what you want to believe.
" That the models do so well suggests that there are no significant models missing. "

What are you talking about? Google the words "model fails to predict...." and we will see you in 15 years when you are done reading the number of failures that show up. LMAO...for starters, no model predicted that a continued rise in CO2 would NOT be accompanied by a linear correlation in temperature rise. When the heat was "missing" we were told it went into the ocean, when that paper was debunked we read about how the "science" had "worked" because the lie was retracted. Basically, if you think CO2 regulates atmospheric temperature...you ...are ...stupid.

SteveS
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2018
.0000405% of the atmosphere isn't forcing anything.

If you mean CO2 you should really check your math

https://sciencing...474.html

Epic fail
theredpill
2 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
".0000405% of the atmosphere isn't forcing anything.

If you mean CO2 you should really check your math

https://sciencing...474.html

Epic fail

That was an epic math fail, my apologies. ( moved 2 decimal places too far and threw in an extra "0" by accident)

.0405% of the atmosphere cannot regulate the temperature of the entire body...there fixed!

And still correct.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
@redp
.0405% of the atmosphere cannot regulate the temperature of the entire body
Lacis et al
And still correct
a statement of opinion that only pertains to those who accept that the science must be wrong, therefore it's only "correct" in the sense that you believe it to be so and don't comprehend the science

so 5 stars for the admission of the mistake, but subtracting two because you've still only presented opinion over fact

see: http://www.auburn...ion.html

should you be able to present validated studies that refute the copious amount of observed, validated evidence proving CO2 is the problem then you will "literally" be rich beyond your wildest dreams as Koch et al make you the golden egg-layer of the movement
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
"should you be able to present validated studies that refute the copious amount of observed, validated evidence proving CO2 is the problem then you will "literally" be rich beyond your wildest dreams as Koch et al make you the golden egg-layer of the movement"

Well, if you can present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms at it's disposal to do this that would be definitive proof that it actually does. I have never seen any paper which does this.

What I have seen are endless graphs, models and studies which have been attempting to correlate temperature rise and the CO2 PPM content (I refer to these as statistical gymnastics). As mentioned above, that's how we got a paper, peer reviewed, claiming 60% of the heat was going into the ocean when it was found they didn't correlate. We also know the fate of said paper. My comprehension of the science is the reason for my skepticism.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
That was an epic math fail, my apologies.


and yet you still marked me down.

Classy

.0405% of the atmosphere cannot regulate the temperature of the entire body...there fixed!

And still correct.


and still wrong

https://agupubs.o...GL071930

I hope your math is up to it.

SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
That was an epic math fail, my apologies.


Sorry, I don't want to harp on about this, but one star for being right?

Seriously?
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
That was an epic math fail, my apologies.


Sorry, I don't want to harp on about this, but one star for being right?

Seriously?


Really, what does this say about your commitment to rational discourse?
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
It is a very simple experiment and very easy to prove if CO2 forcing is correct. 2 sealed rooms, in one earths atmosphere CO2 included, room 2 same atmosphere with CO2 removed....stop heating both rooms. Check thermometer in each one daily for a predetermined amount of time or until the CO2 heat retention becomes clear....given it's IR photon release mechanism I am guessing it will be a long wait for door number two. It has to physically contact another molecule of itself to let go of that photon due to the way they vibrate. But then there is the math, how much IR radiation does 405 PPM need to absorb to heat the other 9 999 595 PPM?

I have not been able to find this anywhere either, but it is something that HAS to be known in order to calculate a definitive number of degrees of rise attributed to CO2 warming all of these papers claim to have calculated. Lastly, random vector release of the photons, when released they don't always go "down".
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
It is a very simple experiment and very easy to prove if CO2 forcing is correct. 2 sealed rooms, in one earths atmosphere CO2 included, room 2 same atmosphere with CO2 removed....stop heating both rooms. Check thermometer in each one daily for a predetermined amount of time or until the CO2 heat retention becomes clear....given it's IR photon release mechanism I am guessing it will be a long wait for door number two. It has to physically contact another molecule of itself to let go of that photon due to the way they vibrate. But then there is the math, how much IR radiation does 405 PPM need to absorb to heat the other 9 999 595 PPM?

I have not been able to find this anywhere either, but ....

You've shown yourself incapable of simple math, so why should anybody respect your opinion over the overwhelming evidence provided by published papers of which you have been made abundantly aware of?
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
"You've shown yourself incapable of simple math, so why should anybody respect your opinion over the overwhelming evidence provided by published papers of which you have been made abundantly aware of?"

Because if all of those papers are correct, the experiment I just laid out above would prove it and shut everybody like me up. It would be direct proof that CO2 in the atmosphere at 405PPM can effect the temperature of the whole thing as is claimed by all of the papers which use statistical manipulation to achieve that conclusion....odd that nobody has ever tried isn't it? I mean really....if CO2 has the effect you and the supporters of the science claim, let's do some actual applicable science and shut the naysayers up once and for all.

Instead when the temp rise stops we get a paper claiming it all went into the ocean...
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
I actually felt bad about the one star, saw the words epic fail and rated you prior to realizing it was one....stopped feeling bad after this:

"You've shown yourself incapable of simple math,"

I messed up converting a PPM to a percentage and threw in a typo...the above statement would be akin to me suggesting that you have a depression problem over negative ratings...or was it a one off?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
@redp
I have never seen any paper which does this
blatantly false claim
you've ignored them and dismissed others, including Lacis et al, because they stated things that you don't agree with politically (or whatever)
My comprehension of the science is the reason for my skepticism
sorry, but again, this is blatantly false

every single argument you've presented has been repeatedly debunked, including your "it's not CO2" argument

then there is the support of known pseudoscience like the eu cult ( https://phys.org/...rse.html )

when people link studies to you, that is evidence
when those studies are validated, it's scientific fact
when you ignore it and present contrarian comments, you present pseudoscience
.

Now, if we take all that together then it tends to point to the conclusion that you're not comprehending the science

especially given your lack of scieentific evidence
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
@redp cont'd
Well, if you can present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
how about multiple papers? That way you get validation as well as multiple sources, nations and cultures to ensure the validity of the claims

Lacis et al, Evans 2006, Harries 2001, Puckrin 2004, Myhre 1998, All the FACE studies, IPCC 2007, Hansen 2005, Meehl 2004, Huber and Knutti 2011 (biggie), Meehl et al. (2004), Tripati 2009, Kiehl 1997, Soden 2005 & 2001, Knutti & Hegerl 2008, Santer 2007

important additional info: dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
dT = λ*dF
the Clausius-Clapeyron relation

*if* you're into the science, read this link and check the references. I'm using it because it's a consolidated well-written article with references
https://skeptical...ing.html

likely you will refuse because of the site
regardless, it's good info
snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2018
i looked at this Lacis et al , it looks like a lot of assertions with little thought, ie WV is condensing CO2 is not , but CO 2 'condenses' into plants and limestone.

And ''Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubledCO2 and a 2% increase in solar irradiance''

well thats quite a step, Double CO2 ? since when ,and increase solar irradience ? i thought the solar had no impact ?

https://pubs.giss...300d.pdf

what a joke . lets do redpils experiment , would be more convincing than GISS 2° × 2.5° AR5 version of
ModelE, using the Q-flux ocean
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2018
Why is it that the anti-science movement continually make these claims with no evidence?

Trolls get paid. It's that simple.

There's big money in keeping any kind of changeover at bay. Every day this is delayed is worth millions of dollars to big oil and big auto.

No shortage of people who will sell out their species for 50 cents a post.
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
"what a joke . lets do redpils experiment , would be more convincing than GISS 2° × 2.5° AR5 version of
ModelE, using the Q-flux ocean "

Thanks, CaptainStumpy cannot differentiate between statistical gymnastics and a legitiment study which proves what it claims. These guys appeal to the authority saying what they like and cannot comprehend that is what is happening.

I would rather be proven wrong than keep haggling over this dog and pony show. But to do this, the experiment demonstrating the heat retention of CO2 is the only way you can prove it retains the heat that is claimed...why this is so hard to fathom for the AGW crowd is a mystery.

Why they haven't done the experiment isn't....

antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
@redp cont'd
Well, if you can present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
how about multiple papers? HAWW..HAWW...HAWW...HEEEE

The StumPid jackass brays again.
Tell us StumPid, if CO2 is responsible for gloBULL warming, then why in the hottest places on earth i.e deserts, the temperature plummets at night?

Or, you can just keep braying and soiling the forum with the SHITE between your ears.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
i looked at this Lacis et al , it looks like a lot of assertions with little thought
if you or anyone in the denier camp could prove that there were "a lot of assertions with little thought", ie your examples, then it would be published and it would have debunked the study

Neither have happened, therefore we can reiterate that the evidence in Lacis is valid, and not just because secondary non-related sources have validated the study
i thought the solar had no impact ?
where, in any AGW study, or even a climate study, does it state that "solar" has no impact?

links/references please
lets do redpils experiment , would be more convincing than GISS 2° × 2.5° AR5 version of ModelE
crowdfund it, write it up and publish
here is the Science Mag manuscript submission page
https://cts.sciencemag.org/scc

I can't wait to see your paper published - don't forget to give credit to redp
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
@redp
Thanks, CaptainStumpy cannot differentiate between statistical gymnastics and a legitiment study
so you claim
what I do not accept is your claim of scientific proof of [x] without validation

I don't accept singular studies as valid scientific fact, but a singular study is considerably better than a claim on the internet in a news aggregate from an unknown poster who has demonstrably proven they're not familiar with the evidence

to date, you've provided a claim only
you don't have evidence
you appeal to known debunked arguments from denialist political sites
you can't provide a refutation of the evidence
you can't differentiate between "appeal to authority" and "appeal to the evidence"
you ignored the studies that validate any AGW claim
you ignored the studies that debunk your own claims

suggestion: crowdfund your "experiment" and get it peer-reviewed and published
get the Koch's involved

you'll learn why your argument is silly
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
https://www.foxne...atures''

''He said: "There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth's surface.''

but '' solar has no impact ''
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
"so you claim
what I do not accept is your claim of scientific proof of [x] without validation"

No, basically I said you bought into the bullshit.
"to date, you've provided a claim only"
Even worse, my opinion. Not a claim. As to the rest of your "advice" and observations, you seem to not understand what real evidence is and what you are told is evidence by the authority you appeal to. Fortunately it is as simple as the experiment I suggested if you want every single CO2 skeptic to go away....let's see if the AGW clan ever pony up and put their money where there mouth is. Directly proving CO2's heat retention ability is the only way the science can truly be "settled".

Suggestion, address the problems causing the skepticism instead of the skeptics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
https://www.foxne...atures''

''He said: "There is no relationship between...
1- bad link 404'd from fox

2- an article or someone's opinion isn't representative of the scientific evidence

3- "he said" implies an opinion

is there any evidence in the studies?

.

@redp
No, basically I said you bought into the bullshit
accepting the scientific facts isn't "buying into the bullshit"

you, however, are in denial of the scientific facts because you don't comprehend the science and are assuming a global conspiracy, which *literally is* buying into the bullshit
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

you seem to not understand what real evidence is and what you are told is evidence by the authority you appeal to
this coming from a person who can't actually refute the science with science, but resorts to outright denial, distraction and opinion?

surely you jest?

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2018
@redp cont'd
Fortunately it is as simple as the experiment I suggested if you want every single CO2 skeptic to go away....
not only am I calling bullsh*t on this, but it's demonstrably false as the same claim has been made over and over by other denialists about various different aspects of AGW from the whole "CO2 is plant food" to "it's not warming globally because a couple places in the US have a cold snap"

it doesn't matter *what* evidence is produced, you will simply deny the results and claim conspiracy

that is why I suggested you crowdfund the study, run it and then publish the results
I highly recommend this

also note: had you actually read the FACE studies and their lab vs open air tests you would see that your "experiment" was done "Directly proving CO2's heat retention ability"

moreover, you can start with Mitchell 1989 who links multiple references
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
@redp cont'd
pony up and put their money where there mouth is. Directly proving CO2's heat retention ability
[sic]
And if I thought you would pay up I would challenge you to a wager

since I know you would never actually pay, I will simply put a couple here where you can see for yourself

Arrhenius, S., On the influence of carbonic acid in the air on the temperature of the ground,1896
(Yes, this was being tested way the f*ck back in 1896! - cap)

Augustsson, T., and V. Ramanathan, A radiative-convective model study of the CO 2 climate problem, 1977

are two examples enough? there are plenty more which lead to things like:
Chandrasekhar, S., Radiative Transfer, 1950

Plus, radiative transfer is part of curriculum study here: https://ocw.mit.e...dynamics

feel free to counter the evidence with actual evidence instead of claims
consider yourself served from the "ponied up" evidence
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
Trolls get paid. It's that simple....

No shortage of people who will sell out their species for 50 cents a post.
Honestly, some of them do it for free. Because they believe the BS.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
https://www.foxne...atures''

He said: "There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth's surface. he said ''Martin Mlynczak of NASA's Langley Research Center told Spaceweather.com.'' ,, one of your favorite experts

in reference to your ''where, in any AGW study, or even a climate study, does it state that "solar" has no impact?''
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
FACE studies
https://en.wikipe...richment

nothing about temps , and they could have asked my local welding supply as they sell 50K$ a month to local greenhouses , i wonder why ?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
https://www.foxne...atures''
link still doesn't work, therefore your claim cannot be verified
He said: "There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth's surface. he said ''Martin Mlynczak of NASA's Langley Research Center told Spaceweather.com.''
this doesn't mean what you think it means
one of your favorite experts
the only "favourite expert" that I have is Reese Witherspoon and it has nothing to do with Science
in reference to your
a statement of opinion isn't a statement of fact presented in a study and validated

moreover, you are either misrepresenting the study information being presented out of ignorance or blatantly misrepresenting it for another cause

feel free to explain which

and find what study you're referring to here:
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
it doesn't matter *what* evidence is produced, you will simply deny the results and claim conspiracy

there is real epidemic of projection phyc. these days . Any proof against AGW would not be acceptable to Mr stumpy's criteria by definition .
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
there is real epidemic of projection phyc. these days . Any proof against AGW would not be acceptable to Mr stumpy's criteria by definition
that isn't projection
it's what you and the deniers have *demonstrated*

IOW - it's a fact that can be checked by any reader by simply observing your responses along with the other deniers on any climate change study or article posted to PO

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
Any proof against AGW would not be acceptable to Mr stumpy's criteria by definition

''this doesn't mean what you think it means''

prove it
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
Any proof against AGW would not be acceptable to Mr stumpy's criteria by definition

repeating your lie doesn't make it truer
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
its not a lie its an observation
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
its not a lie its an observation
and yet you have no means to prove it, therefore it's a demonstrable lie, just like your arguments against AGW

I will say it again

Any reader can simply read your own comments on any climate thread ( here: https://sciencex....activity ) and there is conclusive proof that you will completely disregard any evidence proving AGW

it's observed in every climate thread

every one you comment in, regardless of the evidence
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
i do have the means but not the time to deal with vampires who cannot see themselves

suffice to say i might point out that you have denied every piece of counter evidence re AGW

that is the nature of the [non ] discussion here
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
suffice to say i might point out that you have denied every piece of counter evidence re AGW
actually, I have denied every piece of non-scientific "counter evidence re AGW

"counter evidence re AGW" should meet the exacting scientific standards, peer review, publication and validation just like the evidence *for* AGW

given that you and the denier camp cannot meet those requirements, your argument is essentially to produce pseudoscience which isn't relevant nor applicable to the topic

just because watts or some idiot can write up a pretty sounding jargon-laden technobabble blog doesn't mean you have refuted AGW with evidence

it means you have found an opinion that matches your own who likes the same global conspiracy
https://journals....rintable

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2018
''counter evidence re AGW" should meet the exacting scientific standards, peer review, publication and validation just like the evidence *for* AGW

given that you and the denier camp cannot meet those requirements, your argument is essentially to produce pseudoscience which isn't relevant nor applicable to the topic

just because watts or some idiot can write up a pretty sounding jargon-laden technobabble blog doesn't mean you have refuted AGW with evidence

it means you have found an opinion that matches your own who likes the same global consp''

so you can reject any counter info by definition as i say , & thanks for the admission [ we are making progress lol ]
ever hear of judith Curry Roy Spenser ? Others , victims of the global conspiricy .
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 29, 2018
@snooze
so you can reject any counter info by definition as i say , & thanks for the admission [ we are making progress lol ]
you do realise that what I said is, very specifically, that I don't accept evidence that isn't scientific, right?
ever hear of judith Curry Roy Spenser
yup
and?

when you publish a piece of information that is blatantly false, like spencer has done, then you are subject to scrutiny, especially considering his religious ideology
https://web.archi...=080805I

better still, when the evidence and science debunks your claims, then you're original claim that is debunked becomes false

when you cling to false claims from any authority because they're perceived as correct it is delusional, especially when the overwhelming evidence proves it wrong

I don't accept false information as being "legit" like you do, especially when it's falsified

and I don't believe in your conspiracy
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2018
stump ,
you are correct in that my [ others] skepticism comes from the fact that to us the papers you cite look like gobledegook. They mostly all rely on models which i am sure are opaque to nearly everyone. And i' suspect yourself also. If i am wrong please provide us with a full and comprehensable [ since you understand them so well you can explain them to the layman] explanation of the construction and operation of any climate model referenced by the IPCC .

if you cannot, then your assertions are acts of faith.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 01, 2018
@snoose
my [ others] skepticism comes from the fact that to us the papers you cite look like gobledegook
1- just because you don't understand doesn't mean its not real or factual
You likely don't understand the physics behind a BLEVE, but I assure you, they exist and are real
https://en.wikipe...xplosion

2- there is a cure to ignorance: https://ocw.mit.e...physics/

3- how do you expect to understand if the only places you're willing to visit to get your information are denier sites?
That is demonstrative of a particular mindset: one that is committed to confirming their bias

that's why you support curry/spencer despite being debunked by evidence
They mostly all rely on models which i am sure are opaque to nearly everyone
erm - no
they're opaque to those who refuse to learn

moreover, not all climate science is based upon those "models" that you find distasteful
CO2 as a GHG comes to mind here

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 01, 2018
@snoose
And i' suspect yourself also
not really

I will admit some models may have confusing information at first, however, if you take the time to dig into the data, read the methods, and actually explore the science then it becomes clear why [x] is done or why the model states it's outcomes

of course, with time it also becomes refined by more information
If i am wrong please provide us with a full and comprehensable [ since you understand them so well you can explain them to the layman] explanation of the construction and operation of any climate model referenced by the IPCC
start here: https://skeptical...dels.htm

I can't help you understand simply because:
1- you don't want to as it will challenge your worldview
2- you don't want to learn why you're wrong

you have a vested interest in staying ignorant and accepting the authority of your curry/spencer leaders
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 01, 2018
@snooze
if you cannot, then your assertions are acts of faith
please explain why you accept curry, spencer or your wattsupwiththat site?

Given that the bullsh*t they're promoting is directly contradictory to the proven, validated science, then because you can't actually get their arguments proven, nor can the scientific community support a known falsehood, then your assertions are an act of faith

I've provided you with links to evidence
a refutation of bullsh*t anti-AGW
and education sites to help you learn WTF is actually going on, but the choice to learn the basics of science are upon you

you can lead an idiot anti-AGW denier to knowledge but you can't make them think

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.