But not really.It could be that the Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years and continues on the same course.
Is it fair to say this is due to sloppy scientific work?
Is it fair to say this is due to science being myopic?
I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.Land and sea temperatures have warmed much more than models forecast in the last year, and as of these articles various new factors being considered appear not enough to account for that spike. Relatively speaking it's quite large.
---------------
Nature
9 March 2024
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory
Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.
For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened.
...
So, what might have caused this heat spike? Atmospheric greenhouse-gas levels have continued to rise, but the extra load since 2022 can account for further warming of only about 0.02 °C. Other theories put forward by climate scientists include fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, which had both cooling effects from aerosols and warming ones from stratospheric water vapour, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum. But these factors explain, at most, a few hundredths of a degree in warming (Schoeberl, M. R. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL104634; 2023). Even after taking all plausible explanations into account, the divergence between expected and observed annual mean temperatures in 2023 remains about 0.2 °C — roughly the gap between the previous and current annual record.
There is one more factor that could be playing a part. In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree. ...
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory
Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.www.nature.com
-----------
Also, related is more information about another factor that could turn the wrong way, increasing warming. Normally the Earth absorbs about 1/2 of emitted CO2 each year, but that might change in a bad way:
"That one-half figure is an approximation. It varies from year to year depending on weather conditions and other environmental factors, resulting in the jagged lines you see in the chart above. For example, in a warm and dry year with many wildfires, the land may absorb less carbon dioxide than usual.
As the Earth warms further, climate scientists expect the land and the ocean to absorb a smaller share of carbon dioxide emissions, causing a larger share to end up in the air, said Doug McNeall, who studies these effects at Britain’s Met Office.
Xin Lan, the lead scientist responsible for NOAA’s global carbon dioxide measurements, referred to the natural absorption as a “carbon discount.”
“We pay attention to it because we don't know at which point that this discount is gone,” she said.
In addition to carbon dioxide, the levels of other potent greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are also on the rise, which further contribute to warming."
Carbon Dioxide Levels Have Passed a New Milestone
There’s 50 percent more carbon dioxide in the air than before the Industrial Revolution.www.nytimes.com
The physics of the surface warming caused by CO2 is fairly simple and well established. 400 ppm CO2 is quite sufficient.I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.
Urban heat islands are a thing, but the overall surface temperature increase is not limited to urban places with dark roofs.I read recently that the measurement used in showing warming are situated on top ( flat tar roofs) of building within cities, the bulk of the measurements are are from these temperature recording devices... go figure why....
What carbon taxes? Who has a carbon tax? The US doesn't have one.I noticed also that the trillions of dollars generated from carbon taxes go somewhere but where and in what proportions?...who pockets this money?
This is not true.most of the carbon emissions are from China, Pakistan, India, yet they continue and no one intervenes.
If you don't think CO2 is toxic (a separate question from the greenhouse gas property) then inhale high concentrations of it. Or rather don't. It will first knock you out and then you will suffocate. The atmospheric levels aren't anywhere near that point.CO2 has become a cult and is not based on science, now people think CO2 is toxic. Yet the minimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 for vegetation to grow is only half of the current value or about 200 PPM, we are close to that minimum.
We don't have a deficit of CO2 problem for plant growth. Crops grew fine before the current increase in CO2.since CO2 has increased in the atmosphere also vegetation coverage has increased in proportion, if you visit the greenhouse of some botanical gardens, they inject extra CO2 for a total of 1200 ppm or 3 x the current atmospheric values to promote vegetation growth.... no need to explain that without vegetation we would all die quickly.
Your research has failed and found incorrect information. Most of these "facts" have been wrong for decades.All these facts I have researched and verified many years ago, I encourage people to do the same.
For determining how much a particular greenhouse gas contributes to heat retention, that's only about working out all the math of the physics side of it -- where of course you must use the relative abundance of various greenhouse gasses, such as the far more powerful greenhouse gas Methane -- and then including equations representing that factor into the model. Even if you do that well, of course that doesn't guarantee the model has every major factor -- it might not yet. Correct greenhouse gas factors are only one part of a good model.I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.
Is it fair to say you are just a bot?
Ok. But understand that is a "you" problem and not a fundamental problem with CO2 as a warming gasI never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.
If you "Read it recently" can you find it and post it here? Because that sounds more like a comment from the peanut gallery than a well informed comment about weather instrumentation. There are VERY few thermometers around the globe that fit that description of placement and maybe you shouldn't then presume they are all like that and that they are all like that for nefarious purposes.I read recently that the measurement used in showing warming are situated on top ( flat tar roofs) of building within cities, the bulk of the measurements are are from these temperature recording devices... go figure why....
In Canada, 100% of our money goes into feeding other carbon lowering schemes; window/insulation/furnace replacement; solar power. All those kinda things.I noticed also that the trillions of dollars generated from carbon taxes go somewhere but where and in what proportions?...who pockets this money?
If you talk about per capita, that isn't correct.most of the carbon emissions are from China, Pakistan, India, yet they continue and no one intervenes.
The response to CO2 being a greenhouse gas is characterized by Dunning Kruger.CO2 has become a cult and is not based on science, now people think CO2 is toxic. Yet the minimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 for vegetation to grow is only half of the current value or about 200 PPM, we are close to that minimum.
All of this to say, of course, who cares? Everyone knows co2 helps plans and more co2 helps plants grow. That does not then follow, that CO2 is a good thing to have in our atmosphere.since CO2 has increased in the atmosphere also vegetation coverage has increased in proportion, if you visit the greenhouse of some botanical gardens, they inject extra CO2 for a total of 1200 ppm or 3 x the current atmospheric values to promote vegetation growth.... no need to explain that without vegetation we would all die quickly.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you verified this "many years ago" your information is weak and old and in time for an update. Let me know if I can help point you to stronger sources than what you've been reading.All these facts I have researched and verified many years ago, I encourage people to do the same.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader how many psychological "Dragons of Inaction" mentioned in the The psychology behind climate change denial. thread apply to this post.I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.
I read recently that the measurement used in showing warming are situated on top ( flat tar roofs) of building within cities, the bulk of the measurements are are from these temperature recording devices... go figure why....
I noticed also that the trillions of dollars generated from carbon taxes go somewhere but where and in what proportions?...who pockets this money?
most of the carbon emissions are from China, Pakistan, India, yet they continue and no one intervenes.
CO2 has become a cult and is not based on science, now people think CO2 is toxic. Yet the minimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 for vegetation to grow is only half of the current value or about 200 PPM, we are close to that minimum.
since CO2 has increased in the atmosphere also vegetation coverage has increased in proportion, if you visit the greenhouse of some botanical gardens, they inject extra CO2 for a total of 1200 ppm or 3 x the current atmospheric values to promote vegetation growth.... no need to explain that without vegetation we would all die quickly.
All these facts I have researched and verified many years ago, I encourage people to do the same.
"We are hindered by seven categories of psychological barriers, also known as dragons of inaction: limited cognition about the problem, ideological worldviews that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, comparisons with other key people, sunk costs and behavioral momentum, discordance toward experts and authorities, perceived risk of change, and positive but inadequate behavior change"
I am a scientist all i said is true and verified.The physics of the surface warming caused by CO2 is fairly simple and well established. 400 ppm CO2 is quite sufficient.
Urban heat islands are a thing, but the overall surface temperature increase is not limited to urban places with dark roofs.
What carbon taxes? Who has a carbon tax? The US doesn't have one.
This is not true.
If you don't think CO2 is toxic (a separate question from the greenhouse gas property) then inhale high concentrations of it. Or rather don't. It will first knock you out and then you will suffocate. The atmospheric levels aren't anywhere near that point.
We don't have a deficit of CO2 problem for plant growth. Crops grew fine before the current increase in CO2.
Your research has failed and found incorrect information. Most of these "facts" have been wrong for decades.
atmospheric water vapour also captures heat in the warming potential index it is 300 times more than co2, it represents abut 2.3 to 5% of total atmospheric gas depending on humidity levels.Ok. But understand that is a "you" problem and not a fundamental problem with CO2 as a warming gas
If you "Read it recently" can you find it and post it here? Because that sounds more like a comment from the peanut gallery than a well informed comment about weather instrumentation. There are VERY few thermometers around the globe that fit that description of placement and maybe you shouldn't then presume they are all like that and that they are all like that for nefarious purposes.
In Canada, 100% of our money goes into feeding other carbon lowering schemes; window/insulation/furnace replacement; solar power. All those kinda things.
If you talk about per capita, that isn't correct.
Also, China is embarrassing the US with it's Solar capacity development.
The response to CO2 being a greenhouse gas is characterized by Dunning Kruger.
All of this to say, of course, who cares? Everyone knows co2 helps plans and more co2 helps plants grow. That does not then follow, that CO2 is a good thing to have in our atmosphere.
That guy can show you an experiment that CO2 captures heat.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you verified this "many years ago" your information is weak and old and in time for an update. Let me know if I can help point you to stronger sources than what you've been reading.
I do not deny climate change it has been going on since the earth existed.I leave it as an exercise to the reader how many psychological "Dragons of Inaction" mentioned in the The psychology behind climate change denial. thread apply to this post.
biochemistry post doc, physics (msc), and plant physiology Doc.What is your field of study?
Land and sea temperatures have warmed much more than models forecast in the last year, and as of these articles various new factors being considered appear not enough to account for that spike. Relatively speaking it's quite large.
So not atmospheric science or chemistry. Don't think you have the training for me to accept your claims without more evidence.biochemistry post doc, physics (msc), and plant physiology Doc.
That's like saying "I never understood how a tiny funnel web bite could kill someone. To me it would have to be MUCH more venom...."I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.
the evidence is in the data just look for it, i did not believe it myself until in canada they announced a carbon tax on gasoline, our P.M. Trudeau said he would plant 200 million trees, well, years later only 20 thousads, yes we still cut the trees for wood like decimate forest in french it is called coupe a blanc, I dont know the correct way to say it in English, sorry but it means to raze completely leaving nothing standing.So not atmospheric science or chemistry. Don't think you have the training for me to accept your claims without more evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?