Anthropogenic Global Warming is real or not?

[Hillhater]

It's being absorbed into the oceans.

Whilst the oceans ( and other carbon sinks) will certainly maintain a ballance with the atmosphere, why would they adsorb most (75+%) of the anthropogenic CO2, ….but not a similar % of other forms ?
Basic maths dictates if you keep adding ~~5% of FF CO2 year on year , its percentage must increase significantly over time…
…but it has not !

 

[classicalgas]

That is just the point,…the “science” is not at all certain or proven .
….what you are subscribing to is belief in a “theory” that FF CO2 is causing climate change.

It's obvious ( to all the willfully ignorant) that if you take a dynamically stable atmospheric co2 level, and then release millions of years worth of stored co2 back into the atmosphere in a couple centuries, you're going to see atmospheric co2 rise.

Since humans need a world climate similar to what we've had (since we invented agriculture ) in order to survive , and naturally concurring ways to sequester co2 are too slow, we must both minimize our continued release of c02, and find ways to speed up the process of removing the excess we've already added.

It's that, or watch our civilization turn into a hellscape in the lifetimes of our children.

The fools that think that the two choices are "business as usual" or "shiver barefoot in the dark" are detestable, lacking in imagination, and a waste of oxygen.

 

[Hillhater]

It's obvious ( to all the willfully ignorant) that if you take a dynamically stable atmospheric co2 level, and then release millions of years worth of stored co2 back into the atmosphere in a couple centuries, you're going to see atmospheric co2 rise.

..? So its the “willfully ignorant” who believe in ffuel being the cause of CO2 increasing ..?.
You are makeing an assumption that the increase in CO2 Is solely due to Fossil fuel use..ignoring any other possibilities.
Also, you are assuming that CO2 is the primary cause of “climate change”…ignoring any other possible causes
Neither of those has any proven basis in science.
There are many other possible causes for both atmospheric CO2 increase, and explanations for “climate change”, but some would prefer to simply believe in a “simple” theory that has become popular.

 

[neptronix]

I'm posting this thread because a certain number of people here want to talk about AGW being real or not.
These people like to duke it out all over ES, flooding threads where people would rather discuss the topic of the thread instead.

We don't like it because it ruins the discussion quality of this site.

Moderators now have the right to move all co2 debate posts to this thread.
Members who want to debate this topic are asked to contain these posts to this thread. If they don't, their posts may be moved here, or deleted at moderator's discretion.

So in short, here's where the debate goes on from now on.

Without further ado..

 

[jonescg]

 

[Hillhater]

.marvin78

..co2 exists in the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years, so wanting to see an immediate effect after 1 year of reduction is really... 'shortsighted'.…The buildup of CO2 from the previous decades since the industrial revolution will continue to cause atmospheric increases in co2 levels.

Let me understand some of this….
1) How do you explain the annual fluctuations in the measured CO2 data (Mona Loa) ?
2) if you increase CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, it can be measured within weeks/months ( as the Mona loa data shows)
But you suggest any reduction would not be noticed for years ??
3) And what is the mechanism where the CO2 emmissions from “previous decades” continues to cause atmospheric CO2 levels to increase ?

 

[slaphappygamer]

Wow. My dislexia kicked in and I thought this was about AWG.

 

[amberwolf]

EDIT: Oops, sorry, wrong thread.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

Moderators

Moderators moderate.

 

[slaphappygamer]

Moderators moderate.

Moderately

 

[JackFlorey]

It's official - 2024 was the warmest year in the instrumental record by a huge margin.

Warmest years on record so far, along with deltas from the 1850-1900 average temperature: (degrees C and F)

1	2024	1.29	2.34
2	2023	1.17	2.11
3	2016	1.00	1.80
4	2020	0.98	1.76
5	2019	0.95	1.71
6	2015	0.93	1.67
7	2017	0.91	1.64
8	2022	0.86	1.55
9	2021	0.84	1.51
10	2018	0.82	1.48
11	2014	0.74	1.33

2024 was the world’s warmest year on record

Antarctic sea ice coverage second lowest on record, behind 2023

www.noaa.gov

Global surface temperature - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[marvin78]

Let me understand some of this….
1) How do you explain the annual fluctuations in the measured CO2 data (Mona Loa) ?

Seasonal fluctuations can occur due to seasonal growth cycles, or changes in temperature affecting how much co2 the oceans can absorb/hold, among other reasons.

2) if you increase CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, it can be measured within
weeks/months ( as the Mona loa data shows)
But you suggest any reduction would not be noticed for years ??

3) And what is the mechanism where the CO2 emmissions from “previous decades” continues to cause atmospheric CO2 levels to increase ?

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/1.GAW_GHG_SAGResponseCOVID19.pdf

Unlike you, I have no fear of sharing my sources. Please read it, or at least the census of it, find why it's 'not applicable' and come back to me I'm sure you will find plenty.

View attachment 363967

This is 100% awesome, made out of pure win.

It's official - 2024 was the warmest year in the instrumental record by a huge margin.

Warmest years on record so far, along with deltas from the 1850-1900 average temperature: (degrees C and F)

1	2024	1.29	2.34
2	2023	1.17	2.11
3	2016	1.00	1.80
4	2020	0.98	1.76
5	2019	0.95	1.71
6	2015	0.93	1.67
7	2017	0.91	1.64
8	2022	0.86	1.55
9	2021	0.84	1.51
10	2018	0.82	1.48
11	2014	0.74	1.33

2024 was the world’s warmest year on record

Antarctic sea ice coverage second lowest on record, behind 2023

www.noaa.gov

Global surface temperature - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The main issue I have with 'warmest year' is that most people don't even understand the implications. More warmth is not just being able to out without a coat, but it's more energy in systems we don't even fully understand yet, or at least don't fully understand how they interact with each other.

Like, it's getting warmer, nice.. but we had the darkest December in a long time, not seen the sun in weeks. Was this related to climate change, or just one of those 'one off' things? Not sure.

 

[hillslayer@]

I don't see a reason to post a bunch of links how frocked we are , if you want to find out it's not very hard. Or just "Don't Look Up"

 

[marty]

AGW

Nep, I know you are paid per each word ya type. But how about typing the whole word so I know what's in your brain?

According to AI or Artificial Intelligence
AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is real.

34° here in Buffalo NY. Snow is melting.

 

[neptronix]

Changed the title!

 

[marvin78]

I wonder how many people will have to look up 'anthropogenic', wouldn't 'human caused' be the better suggestion if going for readability?

 

[amberwolf]

Because it's the term commonly already used for this?

 

[docw009]

I prefer the term Human Global Warming, but now that I know what AGW means,yeah. we humans forked it up.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

Human

Searching on this will get more poorly informed opinions?

Anthropogenic might get more peer-reviewed papers with references traceable to actual measurements?

 

[fill]

You can still visit the remnants of glaciers if you require proof of global warming first hand. Hotels in the area have lots of not that very historical photos for comparison too.

 

[neptronix]

Anthropogenic might get more peer-reviewed papers with references traceable to actual measurements?

I would love it if it worked that way

 

[JackFlorey]

Like, it's getting warmer, nice.. but we had the darkest December in a long time, not seen the sun in weeks. Was this related to climate change, or just one of those 'one off' things? Not sure.

Yep. We had the opposite. Sun since May. No rain.

Agreed that we have no way of knowing what second and third order effects we will see. We know some of the simple first order ones - temperatures will increase, rainfall intensity will increase, the strongest storms will get stronger, sea levels will rise, coral will die, winds will increase. What effects will THOSE things have? We can guess but we won't know for sure unless they happen - although we can get more confidence in what they will be by studying how the climate is changing now. A worthwhile endeavor IMO.

 

[JackFlorey]

Let me understand some of this….
How do you explain the annual fluctuations in the measured CO2 data (Mona Loa) ?

In the Northern Hemisphere, in the Spring, plants grow. They take in CO2 and convert it to plant matter. CO2 drops.

In the Fall, plants die. Weeds just plain die. Deciduous plants lose their leaves. They decay, releasing methane and CO2. CO2 rises.

Something similar (but opposite) happens in the Southern Hemisphere. But since there is much less forested land in the Southern Hemisphere, it has less of an effect.

 

[jonescg]

One for our slower chemistry and physics students at the back - a very good explanation as to why, despite representing such a small proportion of the atmosphere, greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane heat the atmosphere:

 

[Hillhater]

Seasonal fluctuations can occur due to seasonal growth cycles, or changes in temperature affecting how much co2 the oceans can absorb/hold, among other reasons

So you agree that “seasonal fluctuations” of CO2 can be detected, measured, and are shown on the Mona Loa data charts .……..and yet you suggest..?….

co2 exists in the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years, so wanting to see an immediate effect after 1 year of reduction is really... 'shortsighted'.…

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/1.GAW_GHG_SAGResponseCOVID19.pdf

can you clarify exactly which part of that paper supports your statement that…..”the CO2 emmissions from “previous decades” continues to cause atmospheric CO2 levels to increase ”