Originally posted by Wichita: Canada caused carbon pollution. I wonder if they surpassed their Paris Accords quota. Can the USA sue Canada for their climate pollution?
People will die because of their pollution. #canadakills
Originally posted by Wichita: Canada caused carbon pollution. I wonder if they surpassed their Paris Accords quota. Can the USA sue Canada for their climate pollution?
People will die because of their pollution. #canadakills
There's nothing in that remark, or in the entire history of remarks on this forum from Wichita, that would make me imagine that Wichita has even an inkling of what was agreed upon and recorded as the Paris Agreement.
Maybe it was offered as a joke, or as a kind of wry or ironic observation, but even trying to look at it through that kind of lens... for me, it just flatlines... like a bottle of seltzer water or club soda that's been left open and lost all of it's carbonation.
There's nothing in that remark, or in the entire history of remarks on this forum from Wichita, that would make me imagine that Wichita has even an inkling of what was agreed upon and recorded as the Paris Agreement.
Ah yeah. The Par eee Agreement. Do you mean the country controlled by the Nazis ?
Why does the word Paris validate a Global Warming agreement ? Did we sign a treaty ?
Why not ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-08-2023).]
There's nothing in that remark, or in the entire history of remarks on this forum from Wichita, that would make me imagine that Wichita has even an inkling of what was agreed upon and recorded as the Paris Agreement.
Maybe it was offered as a joke, or as a kind of wry or ironic observation, but even trying to look at it through that kind of lens... for me, it just flatlines... like a bottle of seltzer water or club soda that's been left open and lost all of it's carbonation.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I'm not at all familiar with the specifics and the details of the Paris Agreement.
I don't need to be versed in the Paris Agreement to have confidence in my previous remark in this thread.
Originally posted by Wichita: Leftist Anti-science Karen Simps: "We need to do something on Climate Change as it will destroy all life on earth within 20-years.
Does Wichita fancy himself as being well informed about what is being published and also spoken by credentialed, practicing scientists and climate researchers?
He keeps going on about "Leftist Anti-science Karen Simps" and such, but I think he imagines that "We need to do something on Climate Change as it will destroy all life on earth within 20 years," equates with what is being published and spoken by credentialed, practicing scientists and climate researchers.
That's ludicrous.
Odds are, I'll have more to say about this before the sun sets again on the West Coast.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-09-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I'm not at all familiar with the specifics and the details of the Paris Agreement.
I don't need to be versed in the Paris Agreement to have confidence in my previous remark in this thread.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rinselberg: There's nothing in that remark, or in the entire history of remarks on this forum from Wichita, that would make me imagine that Wichita has even an inkling of what was agreed upon and recorded as the Paris Agreement. QUOTE]
He has as much of an inkling as you do. He knew the words "Paris Agreement". Anyone who does know that it has to do with the Global Warming Farce
He doesn't need to be versed in the Paris Agreement specifics and details.
That post from Wichita only tells part of the story. There are scientific expectations—on top of what has already been observed—of increasing negative impacts on humans from continued global warming that are outside of the category of "more" or "more violent" tornadoes and hurricanes.
This (all of what follows) is Copy and Paste from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration or NOAA.
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR6 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that it is unequivocal that humans have caused the earth’s climate to warm, with a likely human contribution of 0.8 to 1.3 degrees Celsius to global mean temperature since the late 1800s. But what does this anthropogenic global warming mean for Atlantic hurricane activity, or global tropical cyclone activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text of this web page gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:
Sea level rise – which human activity has very likely been the main driver of since at least 1971 according to IPCC AR6 – should be causing higher coastal inundation levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
Tropical cyclone rainfall rates are projected to increase in the future (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
Tropical cyclone intensities globally are projected to increase (medium to high confidence) on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels is projected to increase (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
For the above tropical cyclone projections, the IPCC AR6 generally concluded there was high confidence as compared to medium-to-high confidence in the WMO assessment. Additional research was published between the reports, which can affect confidence levels. Also, confidence levels for assessment statements can vary between authors within a given report.
In terms of detection and attribution, much less is known about human contributions to hurricane/tropical cyclone activity changes to date, compared to the case for global mean temperature. Recent findings include:
In the northwest Pacific basin, observations show a poleward shift in the latitude of maximum intensity of tropical cyclones. This change is assessed to be detectable (i.e., not explainable by internal variability alone) with medium confidence (IPCC AR6) or low-to-medium confidence (WMO Task Team report).
One study finds an increase in the fraction of tropical cyclone intensity estimates of at least Category 3 intensity both globally and in the Atlantic basin, over the past four decades. These observed changes have not been confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing. The global increase was assessed to be detectable (i.e., not explainable by internal variability alone) with medium confidence by IPCC AR6.
Analyses of rapid intensification of tropical cyclones indicate an observed increase in the probability of rapid intensification (1982-2017) which is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and thus is a possibly emerging detectable anthropogenic change. The increase is consistent in sign with the model’s simulated long-term response to anthropogenic forcing.
There is increasing evidence from modeling studies at GFDL/NOAA and the UK Met Office/Hadley Centre (UKMO) that the increase in tropical storm frequency in the Atlantic basin since the 1970s has been at least partly driven by decreases in aerosols from human activity and volcanic forcing. Natural variability or changes in Saharan dust emissions may also have contributed to recent changes. The recent GFDL and UKMO studies do not imply that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm frequency since the 1970s will continue into the future: these same models project future decreases in Atlantic tropical storm frequency in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
There is evidence for a slowing of tropical cyclone propagation speeds over the continental U.S. over the past century, but these observed changes have not yet been confidently linked to anthropogenic climate change.
There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, although by some measures, U.S. landfalling tropical cyclone activity for 2004-2010 was the strongest in the records since the late 1800s. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.
In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability, although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming. Some possible emerging human influences on past tropical cyclone activity were summarized above. These include, for the Atlantic, recent increases in rapid intensification probability, aerosol-driven changes in hurricane activity, and increases in extreme precipitation in some regions. At the global scale, increased intensities and fraction of tropical cyclone observations at high intensity are examples, along with a poleward shift of the latitude of maximum tropical cyclone intensity in the Northwest Pacific basin. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet clearly apparent due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations.
"Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results" National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); last updated on May 26, 2023. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/g...ming-and-hurricanes/
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-09-2023).]
OK Chicken Little. I'll go get my Wille.E.Coyote Acme umbrella and wait for the rock sky to fall....
Sheesh, you climitards should listen to yourselves sometimes. Short of the sun going supernova, this planet isnt going anywhere. Your comfort zone might, but thats your problem and yours alone.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
"This chart from the City of London [Ontario] shows how severe weather events are becoming more common as the planet changes climate. (Colin Butler/CBC News)"
"Hotter summers, more 'tropical nights:' a look at London's 'future weather'"
quote
Without reducing our carbon footprint, the number of days above 30C [86 degrees Fahrenheit] could triple by 2050
It's a planet. Climate change happens. Pole-shifts happen. Volcanoes erupt and cause volcanic winters. Asteroids hit and wipe out life. Things flood, glaciers grow and retract, seas and lakes rise and fall....It's been happening for billions of years.
Billions. Since this rock 1st happened.
And you think some guy on TV stomping his feet, or some retard screaming about cattle farts...is going to change all those billions of years ???? in 50 years ?????
Ohhhhhhh....kkkkkkk......Were ya born "special", or just develop that way ????
A heard of cattle...my steak...is going to end idiot society ????....really ?
I'll take 2 heard.
Stop your feet all you want. Planets going to change, and doesnt give a flying frack about your opinion of that.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-09-2023).]
Yeh...whatever.. It's a planet. Climate change happens. Pole-shifts happen. Volcanoes erupt and cause volcanic winters. Asteroids hit and wipe out life. Things flood, glaciers grow and retract, seas and lakes rise and fall....It's been happening for billions of years. Billions. Since this rock 1st happened.
And you think some guy on TV stomping his feet, or some retard screaming about cattle farts...is going to change all those billions of years ???? in 50 years ?????
Ohhhhhhh....kkkkkkk......Were ya born "special", or just develop that way ????
A heard of cattle...my steak...is going to end idiot society ????....really ?
I'll take 2 heard.
Stop your feet all you want. Planets going to change, and doesnt give a flying frack about your opinion of that.
If Greta Thunberg and like-minded people had their way, they likely would try to take beef off the menu. Maybe beef and dairy.
But what about the threat that's posed to the beef and dairy industries if there aren't any significant rollbacks in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and any of the other significant planet-warming factors that are attributable to humans? Such as road building and maintenance, the construction industry... some other ones I could look up online.
Obviously, you can't save the beef and diary industries from global warming by abolishing the beef and dairy industries as part of the effort to reign in global warming. Yet—so far—I am not aware of any laws or regulatory schemes actually under consideration that have the express purpose of taking beef or dairy off the menu.
Without rollbacks of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from all of the other human-attributable processes, what's going to happen to the beef and dairy industries as extreme weather events became ever more the norm than the exception? Longer, hotter and drier dry spells... more frequent widespread flooding from heavy rain events... how could that not be disruptive to beef ranchers and dairy farmers?
I perceive MidEngineManiac and like-minded people thinking in ways that pose an even greater threat to the beef they want to have on their plates... an even greater threat to the beef they hope to see on their plates than the likes of Greta Thunberg.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-10-2023).]
What's this? Canadian wildfires (caused by Canadian gov shadow people) caused solar fields and rooftop solar customers to lose over 50% power generation? Thank goodness we/they still had a non-green reliable grid to depend on. Green Policy Burns Canada's Forests
It's no secret: The beef and dairy industries are a sizable contributor to global warming. The culprit is the planet-warming greenhouse gas, methane, and it's a "one-two" punch.
Cattle are ruminants, and their digestive systems generate lots of methane as a by-product. Contrary to the popular misconception, most of this methane is released by cattle from their mouths, by belching. A smaller amount comes out the other end, and that provides endless entertainment for the "memes of ignorance" crowd, as we see here.
That's the "one" of the "one-two" punch. The "two" is caused by the copious amounts of excrement from cattle. As it dries and decomposes, it releases more methane into the atmosphere.
Currently, there's a bill under consideration by the California State Senate that is looking ahead to the introduction of feed additives for beef and dairy ranchers. The feed additives are not yet "ready for prime time", but are currently being formulated and tested. It's anticipated that these feed additives will reduce the methane emissions from the cattle's digestive process without harming the cattle or the people who will consume the beef and dairy.
The draft bill has been critiqued on the Breakthrough Institute's blog:
quote
To ensure reductions in both dairy and beef methane emissions, CARB [California Air Resources Board] should not limit government efforts to feed additives. Breeding, novel cattle vaccines, changes in what cattle graze, and other methods can also reduce enteric methane emissions. Approaches like selective breeding can have longer lasting impacts, and these other approaches may be more cost effective—leading to more feasible adoption by producers. In fact, such approaches are likely necessary to reduce enteric emissions from beef cattle—given the majority of emissions from beef cattle are emitted while grazing.
Windfall Bio, a startup that's backed by investment money from Bill Gates—yeah, that Bill Gates—is developing ways to use naturally occurring microbes to convert livestock excrement into fertilizer, without releasing copious amounts of the unwanted greenhouse gas methane.
quote
If you have tens of thousands of cows eating grass and relieving themselves—which almost all macro-farms do—there is a ton of waste that turns into methane under the hot sun. Windfall Bio has developed a process using methanotrophs, naturally occurring microbes found in soil that eat methane. Better still, the methanotrophs convert methane into fertilizer.
Farmers put Windfall Bio’s methane-eating microbes into their soil, and it converts the animal waste from chicken, pig or cattle farms into organic fertilizer. Windfall has proprietary management software that allows farmers to track their fertilizer production. The technology is important because it’s more feasible to lower the methane output of commercial farms worldwide than it is to get the entire world to change its eating habits overnight.
It may be a laughing matter to the "memes of ignorance" crowd, but methane as an unwanted byproduct of farming and ranching is no laughing matter to climate scientists.
quote
By some estimates, methane gas is nearly 90% more potent [molecule for molecule] than carbon dioxide as a driver of global warming, and nearly 25% of global methane emissions come from growing food. This will account for nearly [0.5°C or 0.9°F] of global warming by 2050.
"Bill Gates Takes Aim At Large Cattle Farms With Latest Investment As The Billionaire Looks To Take On Global Warming Through Reducing Methane Output" Eric McConnell for Yahoo! News; May 16, 2023. https://finance.yahoo.com/n...large-185330061.html
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-11-2023).]
Originally posted by rinsebergrg: If Greta Thunberg and like-minded people had their way, they likely would try to take beef off the menu. Maybe beef and dairy.
What do you really know about the 8888888 Global Warming farce ?
You have already admitted you had no knowledge of the details of the specifics or details of the Paris "agreement".
Do I know more than you ? I did not google.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: But what about the threat that's posed to the beef and dairy industries if there aren't any significant rollbacks in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and any of the other significant planet-warming factors that are attributable to humans? Such as road building and maintenance, the construction industry... some other ones I could look up online.
Critical thinking is a skill. Some were born with it, some have to practice at it every day. Did you even think about what you just posted ? I don't like to do other peoples thinking for them, but I like you. I have gotten into fights, quit jobs, and other not so smart acts because I didn't think before I acted.
Threat ? What threat ? Them dying off ? The damn cows can survive if it is one degree warmer. They have survived 50 degrees less. If they all die off, you wish will become true. People like you preach evolution.
What about the threat that's posed to the beef and dairy industries if we quit eating beef and drinking milk ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Without rollbacks of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from all of the other human-attributable processes, what's going to happen to the beef and dairy industries as extreme weather events became ever more the norm than the exception? Longer, hotter and drier dry spells... more frequent widespread flooding from heavy rain events... how could that not be disruptive to beef ranchers and dairy farmers?
So asks the man who believes there is a great pumpkin and that it is orange. I see what happened. First, your kind suggested a concern. Then started throwing scare scenarios at us. Then you started speaking like it was scientific fact.
Originally posted by cliffw: You have already admitted you had no knowledge of the details of the specifics or details of the Paris "agreement".
I don't know whether Canada is expected, under the Paris Agreement, to provide any metrics to any of the other countries in the Paris Agreement, about the carbon emissions from these recent and still ongoing wildfires in Eastern Canada.
I am confident that "Wichita" doesn't know that, either.
That's the only point I was trying to make, when I brought up the Paris Agreement. I was responding to the very first reference from Wichita to these wildfires in Eastern Canada. Anyone can scroll back a short ways to see exactly what I said, about the Paris Agreement. It's all on this same (current) page of this thread.
If I want to post additional remarks that speak more directly to the Paris Agreement, I will use the same Internet capabilities that we all have to "bone up" on the Paris Agreement.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-12-2023).]
I don't understand your "data". Why are they calculating mean surface tempurature without the polar ice caps? what does that even mean? Could you post a link to where you got this so that I can understand what it means.
It's a planet. Climate change happens. Pole-shifts happen. Volcanoes erupt and cause volcanic winters. Asteroids hit and wipe out life. Things flood, glaciers grow and retract, seas and lakes rise and fall....It's been happening for billions of years.
Stop your feet all you want. Planets going to change, and doesnt give a flying frack about your opinion of that.
Brilliant logic.
"It is a car. Cars wear out. Been happening ever since cars were invented. So no need to ever change the oil. It is just going to break down someday anyway."
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 06-12-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Bla bla bla... ... In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability.
Sounds to me like they really don't have a clue, and they're making this zhit up, as they go.
One thing is certain, they do know which side of their bread is buttered, and would like to continue the butter allotments.
Originally posted by Raydar: Sounds to me like they [climate researchers] really don't have a clue, and [that[ they're making this zhit up, as they go. Bla bla bla...
This previous remark (from "Wichita") is another smokescreen, meant to distract attention from what climate researchers are actually reporting.
Here is a slimmed-down version of how I responded: That post from Wichita only tells part of the story. There are scientific expectations—on top of what has already been observed—of increasing negative impacts on humans from continued global warming that are outside of the category of "more" or "more violent" tornadoes and Atlantic basin hurricanes.
Sea level rise – which human activity has very likely been the main driver of since at least 1971 according to IPCC AR6 – should be causing higher coastal inundation levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
Tropical cyclone rainfall rates are projected to increase in the future (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
Tropical cyclone intensities globally are projected to increase (medium to high confidence) on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels is projected to increase (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-13-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg:There are scientific expectations—on top of what has already been observed—of increasing negative impacts on humans from continued global warming that are outside of the category of "more" or "more violent" tornadoes and hurricanes.
You can't win from losing. Observed ? Every single damn scientific expectation has been proven to be WRONG !
I asked you months ago in this thread what was the difference between the different categories of a hurricane. You did not answer. Now, today, right now, I want to ask you what causes them. You fancy yourself as a weather man, oops, your preferred pronoun is climatologist.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-13-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: You can't win from losing. Observed? Every single damn scientific expectation has been proven to be WRONG !
That's ridiculous. Ever-warmer oceans. Higher sea levels, fed by water from glaciers that are melting and flowing into oceans at accelerating rates because of increasing air and ocean temperatures—and by the thermal expansion of seawater as its temperature goes up. My summaries and links to these reports are sprinkled throughout the pages of this "Carbon dioxide hysteria" forum thread, like chocolate sprinkles on an ice cream.
There's been long been a question about whether another prediction of the climate researchers and their numerical climate models was tracking with reality. That's the cooling of the upper atmosphere. Now it's being confirmed by data from satellites.
quote
There is a paradox at the heart of our changing climate. While the blanket of air close to the Earth’s surface is warming, most of the atmosphere above is becoming dramatically colder. The same gases that are warming the bottom few miles of air are cooling the much greater expanses above that stretch to the edge of space.
This paradox has long been predicted by climate modelers, but only recently quantified in detail by satellite sensors. The new findings are providing a definitive confirmation on one important issue, but at the same time raising other questions.
The good news for climate scientists is that the data on cooling aloft do more than confirm the accuracy of the models that identify surface warming as human-made. A new study published this month in the journal PNAS by veteran climate modeler Ben Santer of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that it increased the strength of the “signal” of the human fingerprint of climate change fivefold, by reducing the interference “noise” from background natural variability. Sander says the finding is “incontrovertible.”
But the new discoveries about the scale of cooling aloft are leaving atmospheric physicists with new worries—about the safety of orbiting satellites, about the fate of the ozone layer, and about the potential of these rapid changes [in the upper atmosphere] to visit sudden and unanticipated turmoil on our weather below.
"The Upper Atmosphere Is Cooling, Prompting New Climate Concerns"
quote
A new study reaffirming that global climate change is human-made also found the upper atmosphere is cooling dramatically because of rising CO2 levels. Scientists are worried about the effect this cooling could have on orbiting satellites, the ozone layer, and Earth’s weather.
Originally posted by rinselberg: "The Upper Atmosphere Is Cooling, Prompting New Climate Concerns"
Great. I have a new fear to fear. I have no concerns.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Ever-warmer oceans. Higher sea levels, fed by water from glaciers that are melting and flowing into oceans at increasing rates because of increasing air and ocean temperatures. My summaries and links to these reports are sprinkled throughout the pages of this "Carbon dioxide hysteria" forum thread, like chocolate sprinkles on an ice cream.
Your links to reports are laughable. Next thing I know, you will be telling me the FBI has credibility. As does the CDC, The World Health Organization, and that there is a great pumpkin colored orange.
These reports about the cooling of the upper atmosphere are not something that should make us fearful.
It's another affirmation that the climate scientists have their "ducks in a row."
That's why I posted that Copy and Paste (excerpted text) from this recent report, which I took from the Yale University School of the Environment. That wasn't the only reporting on it. It looked like one of the better reports, among the ones that came up for me when I searched with Google.
I had read about this before. I used Google to find what I had read.
Originally posted by rinselberg: These reports about the cooling of the upper atmosphere are not something that should make us fearful.
I have no fear if the temperature goes up one degree in 100 years.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's another affirmation that the climate scientists have their "ducks in a row."
Let them get just one of their fear and doom predictions correct and I might believe they have ducks.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: That's why I posted that Copy and Paste (excerpted text) from this recent report, which I took from the Yale University School of the Environment.
The reason why you posted a copy and paste is because I believe you can't articulate the thoughts.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-14-2023).]
I have not read an explanation from the science boffins about how the same human-attributable carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are turning up the thermostat (so to speak) for us humans at the bottom of the atmosphere are simultaneously having a cooling effect on the upper atmosphere.
I haven't read that, because I haven't specifically looked for it.
I think I know how they are explaining it.
The greenhouse effect is because carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere are intercepting heat energy that's radiated from land and ocean surfaces as IR (infrared light). This is how the land and oceans reflect the energy of sunlight. The greenhouse molecules are trapping this heat energy, which not only prevents it from escaping the atmosphere entirely and radiating away into outer space, but also prevents it (some of it) from warming the upper atmosphere.
It has to pass through the lower atmosphere to warm the upper atmosphere, and because of the greenhouse gas molecules, there's not as much of this IR light energy that's reaching the upper atmosphere. It's being "picked off" in the lower atmosphere, before it can reach the upper atmosphere.
You can't win from losing. Observed ? Every single damn scientific expectation has been proven to be WRONG !
I asked you months ago in this thread what was the difference between the different categories of a hurricane. You did not answer. Now, today, right now, I want to ask you what causes them. You fancy yourself as a weather man, oops, your preferred pronoun is climatologist.
they know something is happening
but they did not know what when how or why
why is eazy 7 billion nuts burning stuff
early on they thought the stuff burned stayed in the air
they poked around and learned a bunch went in to the seas
then they tryed to figure out where the heat was going
found warm air made warm water not just on the surface but mixed deeper also
so all that screwed up the simple idea of warm air would heat at a predicted rate
because there are heat sinks and also CO2 sinks in the oceans BUT BOTH HAVE FEARS ATTACHED
AND ARE TEMPORARY NOT PERMITTED FIXES
OCEANS BECOME ACID THAT KILLS SHELLED ANIMALS
and as it warms the flows change that can kill US
our oil boys just want to drill baby drill that will kill baby kill not right away but later
Hmmm...let's see...
