How fast can we stop earth from warming?

[KW]

What are the causes, then? When has the planet ever seen such a rapid 'trend'?
Aren't the sum of natural systems trending toward a cooling cycle?

I think the causes are pretty well known. Greenhouse gasses are increasing, and not from natural phenomena like volcanic activity. The physics of greenhouse warming is pretty basic.

Historically when have we ever seen such a rapid increase in global warming? Even the greenhouse warming of the end-Triassic mass extinction took ~18 million years. We've managed to significantly increase greenhouse gas levels in just a century or so.

Mars is also warming.

Why?

 

[Truthseeker]

The Heat Island effect is used to skew the data. We are in a warming trend that has nothing to do with human activity.

Looking it up Heat Island effect has to do with cities that because the re-emit more heat they are more hot there than in rural areas. From Wikipedia: Although not a significant cause of global warming, urbanization has made the effects of climate change worse in cities. Take it or leave it.

Here is a file by the IPCC on this:

 

[Twilight Hue]

Video is unavailable to me, due to copyright in my country.

Blocked here as well. Courtesy by greedy ******* at Netflix.

 

[metis]

We can't stop it or change it because our impact is insignificant.

Facts don’t support the claim that human activity has any significant impact.

The Heat Island effect is used to skew the data. We are in a warming trend that has nothing to do with human activity.

I have repeatedly posted peer-reviewed scientific data dealing with this, including at least one thread that you've been on, and the above simply is not even close to being true.

The major driver of climate change are higher levels of CO2 and methane gas, both mostly caused by human action, and also accompanied with fewer trees that absorb CO2. Here's one of the links I posted for example: Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

For you to call this "leftist" propaganda is nothing more than childish stereotyping based on both ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[Secret Chief]

we are at 32 degrees tonite in Memphis. so much for global warming usually 60 at nite in April

One temperature in one place at one time. Gosh, I bet you're a scientist.

 

[KW]

Looking it up Heat Island effect has to do with cities that because the re-emit more heat they are more hot there than in rural areas. From Wikipedia: Although not a significant cause of global warming, urbanization has made the effects of climate change worse in cities. Take it or leave it.

Here is a file by the IPCC on this:

It is not a cause of warming, but it causes average temperature readings to be artificially inflated. It distorts the data.

 

[Truthseeker]

It is not a cause of warming, but it causes average temperature readings to be artificially inflated. It distorts the data.

The IPCC is a group of climate scientists. You think such experts don't know what they are doing? i expect there are temperature readings outside of cities, too. They wouldn't be so dumb.

 

[Valjean]

Mars is also warming.
Why?

I didn't know it was. Link? You might ask an astrophysicist.

You dodged my question. Do you have any alternate explanation?

There are natural cycles. Solar intensity varies, planetary orbits are eccentric, and they wobble.
There are lots of heating/cooling cycles. Short night/day and Summer/Winter cycle, and longer cycles involving insolation and wobbles. Don't you think climate scientists plug these into their models?

The near-instant ( on a geological scale) increase in atmospheric energy we've seen recently has no other explanation anyone's aware of.
Instead of poo-pooing the scientific consensus, what do you imagine might be causing it?

 

[KW]

The IPCC is a group of climate scientists. You think such experts don't know what they are doing? i expect there are temperature readings outside of cities, too. They wouldn't be so dumb.

Climate scientists only get paid if there is a crisis. Those scientists who point out contrary data are fired or attacked. It is politics, not science.

Example:

Seeking to include CO2 as a cause of warming, the IPCC report started with the Little Ice Age to show a long slow period of increasing temperatures.

Chapter 8 of the scientific report stated: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to anthropogenic causes.”

Politics prevailed. This statement was removed from the final report. The non-scientific “Summary for Policymakers” read: “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

By 2001 the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” had what it wanted: Mann’s “hockey stick” claiming that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, spiked upward in the 20th century, and the 1990s was the warmest decade in at least one thousand years.

The problems with Mann’s study were many. First, the hockey stick focused only on temperature trends in the Northern Hemisphere. Second, the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were completely dismissed.

Third, the hockey stick was formed by crudely grafting the surface temperature record of the 20th century onto a pre-1900 tree-ring record which grafting was innately scientifically flawed.

As mentioned, McIntyre and McKitrick’s assiduous studies concluded Mann’s argument for CO2-caused MMGW was “a carefully worked artificial creation”.

 

[Valjean]

It is not a cause of warming, but it causes average temperature readings to be artificially inflated. It distorts the data.

How does it distort data? Everyone knows albedo varies with different surfaces. Everyone knows cities both absorb and generate more heat than surrounding terrain. Everyone knows cities are warmer than the suburbs, even at night, as they slowly radiate the day's absorbed heat.

Why do you think climatologists are unaware of such common knowledge, and how it would impact their data?

 

[KW]

How does it distort data? Everyone knows albedo varies with different surfaces. Everyone knows cities both absorb and generate more heat than surrounding terrain. Everyone knows cities are warmer than the suburbs, even at night, as they slowly radiate the day's absorbed heat.

Why do you think climatologists are unaware of such common knowledge, and how it would impact their data?

It distorts the data because it leads to higher local temperature readings that have nothing to do with the climate. When hundreds of these former rural stations become urban average temperatures increase.

 

[Valjean]

Looking it up Heat Island effect has to do with cities that because the re-emit more heat they are more hot there than in rural areas. From Wikipedia: Although not a significant cause of global warming, urbanization has made the effects of climate change worse in cities. Take it or leave it.

Here is a file by the IPCC on this:

It alters the weather in and downwind of cities. In my city it's always warmer than outside the city, for example.

 

[Valjean]

Climate scientists only get paid if there is a crisis. Those scientists who point out contrary data are fired or attacked. It is politics, not science.

What?!
Climate scientists as a SWAT team; as emergency, political shock troops!

What do they do to pay the rent, if research, analysis or teaching isn't their regular job? Are engineers, chemists, oceanographers and physicists deployed when needed politically, as well?
Is this some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory?

Chapter 8 of the scientific report stated: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to anthropogenic causes.”

The IPCC believes in greenhouse gas warming, and attributes most of the recent, concomitant rise in greenhouse gasses and temperature to us.

Politics prevailed.

Most politics and industry has been attempting to suppress evidence of climate change and climate research for decades.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Video is unavailable to me, due to copyright in my country.

Yes most likely have to source it from a provider.

Well worth watching and also providing an American link. Regards Tony

 

[KW]

As some of you know, climate warming is a big issue for me. I am very concerned about it.

This article is written by a professor of climate science.

How fast can we stop Earth from warming?

Quoting from the article:

Global warming doesn’t stop on a dime. If people everywhere stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, stored heat would still continue to warm the atmosphere.

Picture how a radiator heats a home. Water is heated by a boiler, and the hot water circulates through pipes and radiators in the house. The radiators warm up and heat the air in the room. Even after the boiler is turned off, the already heated water is still circulating through the system, heating the house. The radiators are, in fact, cooling down, but their stored heat is still warming the air in the room.

This is known as committed warming. Earth similarly has ways of storing and releasing heat.

Emerging research is refining scientists’ understanding of how Earth’s committed warming will affect the climate. Where we once thought it would take 40 years or longer for global surface air temperature to peak once humans stopped heating up the planet, research now suggests temperature could peak in closer to 10 years.

But that doesn’t mean the planet returns to its preindustrial climate or that we avoid disruptive effects such as sea level rise...

It is important to note that this is only the peak, when the temperature starts to stabilize – not the onset of rapid cooling or a reversal of climate change...

Even if the air temperature were to peak and stabilize, “committed ice melting,” “committed sea level rise” and numerous other land and biological trends would continue to evolve from the accumulated heat. Some of these could, in fact, cause a release of carbon dioxide and methane, especially from the Arctic and other high-latitude reservoirs that are currently frozen...

The possibility that a policy intervention might have measurable impacts in 10 years rather than several decades could motivate more aggressive efforts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It would be very satisfying to see policy interventions having present rather than notional future benefits.

However, today, countries aren’t anywhere close to ending their fossil fuel use. Instead, all of the evidence points to humanity experiencing rapid global warming in the coming decades.

Our most robust finding is that the less carbon dioxide humans release, the better off humanity will be. Committed warming and human behavior point to a need to accelerate efforts both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to this warming planet now, rather than simply talking about how much needs to happen in the future.

Climate change fraud:

MITCHELL: Man-made global warming: The biggest scientific fraud in history

 

[Truthseeker]

I try to point out reality, not pander to would be defeatists.

If people and institutions respond as they should it is not too late. However, it is likely they won't respond as they should. But when you say it's too late, it encourages inaction, and the situation worsens if done over a large scale. I do recognize that this is not on a large scale, you are only talking to a few people. So, never mind.

 

[Truthseeker]

Climate scientists only get paid if there is a crisis. Those scientists who point out contrary data are fired or attacked. It is politics, not science.

The IPCC provides objective and comprehensive scientific information on anthropogenic climate change, including the natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options. It does not conduct original research nor monitor climate change, but rather undertakes a periodic, systematic review of all relevant published literature.[8][9] Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer to review the data and compile key findings into "Assessment Reports" for policymakers and the general public;[10] this has been described as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia

Notice the words "Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer to review the data". Also the words ""this has been described as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community". Peer review i checking other people' work to see if it is valid.

Chapter 8 of the scientific report stated: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to anthropogenic causes.”

Politics prevailed. This statement was removed from the final report. The non-scientific “Summary for Policymakers” read: “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

How do you know it was removed? Was the source that said that reliable?

The problems with Mann’s study were many. First, the hockey stick focused only on temperature trends in the Northern Hemisphere. Second, the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were completely dismissed.

Third, the hockey stick was formed by crudely grafting the surface temperature record of the 20th century onto a pre-1900 tree-ring record which grafting was innately scientifically flawed.

As mentioned, McIntyre and McKitrick’s assiduous studies concluded Mann’s argument for CO2-caused MMGW was “a carefully worked artificial creation”.

Are these people you mention people that everybody could trust? I know about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The argument that Co2 levels are getting dramatically higher over the last 50 years. and the 10 hottest years are all since 1998 since temperatures were recorded is enough for me. if this is not enough for you, it is a waste of my time to convince one person.

 

[KW]

The IPCC provides objective and comprehensive scientific information on anthropogenic climate change, including the natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options. It does not conduct original research nor monitor climate change, but rather undertakes a periodic, systematic review of all relevant published literature.[8][9] Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer to review the data and compile key findings into "Assessment Reports" for policymakers and the general public;[10] this has been described as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia

Notice the words "Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer to review the data". Also the words ""this has been described as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community". Peer review i checking other people' work to see if it is valid.

How do you know it was removed? Was the source that said that reliable?

Are these people you mention people that everybody could trust? I know about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The argument that Co2 levels are getting dramatically higher over the last 50 years. and the 10 hottest years are all since 1998 since temperatures were recorded is enough for me. if this is not enough for you, it is a waste of my time to convince one person.View attachment 62026

CO2 emissions dropped 7% in 2020 due to Covid. Temperatures still went up.

Temperatures also decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s while CO2 levels increased. Why?

Do your own research.

 

[KW]

As some of you know, climate warming is a big issue for me. I am very concerned about it.

This article is written by a professor of climate science.

How fast can we stop Earth from warming?

Quoting from the article:

Global warming doesn’t stop on a dime. If people everywhere stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, stored heat would still continue to warm the atmosphere.

Picture how a radiator heats a home. Water is heated by a boiler, and the hot water circulates through pipes and radiators in the house. The radiators warm up and heat the air in the room. Even after the boiler is turned off, the already heated water is still circulating through the system, heating the house. The radiators are, in fact, cooling down, but their stored heat is still warming the air in the room.

This is known as committed warming. Earth similarly has ways of storing and releasing heat.

Emerging research is refining scientists’ understanding of how Earth’s committed warming will affect the climate. Where we once thought it would take 40 years or longer for global surface air temperature to peak once humans stopped heating up the planet, research now suggests temperature could peak in closer to 10 years.

But that doesn’t mean the planet returns to its preindustrial climate or that we avoid disruptive effects such as sea level rise...

It is important to note that this is only the peak, when the temperature starts to stabilize – not the onset of rapid cooling or a reversal of climate change...

Even if the air temperature were to peak and stabilize, “committed ice melting,” “committed sea level rise” and numerous other land and biological trends would continue to evolve from the accumulated heat. Some of these could, in fact, cause a release of carbon dioxide and methane, especially from the Arctic and other high-latitude reservoirs that are currently frozen...

The possibility that a policy intervention might have measurable impacts in 10 years rather than several decades could motivate more aggressive efforts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It would be very satisfying to see policy interventions having present rather than notional future benefits.

However, today, countries aren’t anywhere close to ending their fossil fuel use. Instead, all of the evidence points to humanity experiencing rapid global warming in the coming decades.

Our most robust finding is that the less carbon dioxide humans release, the better off humanity will be. Committed warming and human behavior point to a need to accelerate efforts both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to this warming planet now, rather than simply talking about how much needs to happen in the future.

CO2 emissions were down 7% in 2020 due to covid. No impact.

 

[Valjean]

CO2 emissions dropped 7% in 2020 due to Covid. Temperatures still went up.

Temperatures also decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s while CO2 levels increased. Why?

Do your own research.

What was happening with the other factors during those times?

CO2 emissions were down 7% in 2020 due to covid. No impact.

There are multiple determinants to take into consideration. They'll change independent of one another, but they also interact to effect an outcome, so focusing on just one is not going to reflect observed outcomes from the entire dataset.