Water, weather and climate.

[Ebionite]

And we have an Ebionite who can't read their bull****.

Of course. After all, anything that comes from the religious elites must be true, right?

doesn't refute the fact that an elevated temperature increases the chance for droughts or the fact that elevated levels of CO2 increases temperature?

You're confusing a fact with an article of climate dogma. The dominant driver of temperature on this planet is the sun, and the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour. Unless the variations in those can be accounted for you're just acting as a repeater for the cult of warm.

 

[exchemist]

Of course. After all, anything that comes from the religious elites must be true, right?


You're confusing a fact with an article of climate dogma. The dominant driver of temperature on this planet is the sun, and the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour. Unless the variations in those can be accounted for you're just acting as a repeater for the cult of warm.

This is why I suggested you need to read the thread.

To repeat: water vapour is of course the chief greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but the point is its level is self-regulating, given a stable temperature, by the balance between evaporation and condensation (rainfall). However when the concentration of other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) is increased, that temperature goes UP. This causes the balance point between evaporation and rainfall to shift, yielding a higher equilibrium amount of water vapour in the atmosphere and thereby magnifying the effect. So the role of water vapour is to greatly amplify the changes induced by these other gases.

As for your graph, the choice of scale and range make it fairly useless to illustrate what we see happening. We are actually concerned with a CO2 range from 280ppm (the level at the end of the c.19th) to about 400-450 for the levels we are at today and will reach soon. When you zoom in to that part of the graph, the increase in absorption from 400-450ppm is indeed less than from 350-400 ppm, but it still at least 50% of it, so still very significant indeed. There is no room for supposing that the impact of further CO2 increases will level off in some way.

Here is a bit more on this issue from the Royal Society: 8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? | Royal Society

Our understanding of the physics by which CO2 affects Earth’s energy balance is confirmed by laboratory measurements, as well as by detailed satellite and surface observations of the emission and absorption of infrared energy by the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the infrared energy that Earth emits in so-called bands of stronger absorption that occur at certain wavelengths. Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further.

 

[Ebionite]

To repeat: water vapour is of course the chief greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but the point is its level is self-regulating, given a stable temperature, by the balance between evaporation and condensation (rainfall).

It's not just about temperature. Solar radiation affects cloud formation as well.

New study shows cosmic rays affect cloud formation

Cosmic rays have a greater effect on our atmosphere than first thought, according to new research that studied the effect of solar activity on clouds.

www.yourweather.co.uk

 

[Heyo]

It's not just about temperature. Solar radiation affects cloud formation as well.

New study shows cosmic rays affect cloud formation

Cosmic rays have a greater effect on our atmosphere than first thought, according to new research that studied the effect of solar activity on clouds.

www.yourweather.co.uk

"The solar effects in this study are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the researchers say" - from your source.

It's the cosmic rays that have an effect, but since they are more or less random, the maxima and minima over decades level out. Anthropogenic CO2 remains the most relevant forcing agent.

 

[icehorse]

I feel compelled to throw in the bigger context...

Climate change, and any changes to water are both just symptoms of the larger problem, that being ecological overshoot.

There are numerous ways in which we're abusing the planet and our ecosystem in unsustainable ways.

 

[exchemist]

It's not just about temperature. Solar radiation affects cloud formation as well.

New study shows cosmic rays affect cloud formation

Cosmic rays have a greater effect on our atmosphere than first thought, according to new research that studied the effect of solar activity on clouds.

www.yourweather.co.uk

This issue is rapid warming of the surface of the Earth, which is changing the climate. There is no serious suggestion that what we are observing is accounted for by changes in solar output.

Obviously all these things like solar output and cloud cover, water vapour etc are in the climate models already. The people that build these models are professionals and the models are highly complex. The factors we hear discussed are, naturally, the ones for which human activity is responsible. You should not imagine that these other parts of the equation have not been taken into account. They have been.

 

[Ebionite]

"The solar effects in this study are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the researchers say" - from your source.

Cherry picking like a cult repeater.

The solar effects in this study are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the researchers say, but illustrate the cosmic ray-cloud mechanism that works on longer time scales. They hope that their new study will encourage a rethink of the long-term effect of solar activity and cosmic rays on climate.

 

[Ebionite]

This issue is rapid warming of the surface of the Earth, which is changing the climate.

No, the issue is that the cult avoids talking about facts that are contrary to its doctrine.

 

[Heyo]

No, the issue is that the cult avoids talking about facts that are contrary to its doctrine.

Wait ... Climate scientists are a cult? And they have a doctrine?

Now that is claim that needs extraordinary evidence. And that evidence needs also to provide an explanation why the rest of the scientific community hasn't called them out, yet. And why almost exclusively papers get published that confirm anthropogenic climate change.
You are in the same position as YEC are and we know that they are conspiracy theorists. Are you?

 

[Ebionite]

Wait ... Climate scientists are a cult? And they have a doctrine?

No, science and religion are quite distinct things. Climate scientists don't set the agenda and pay for their research, the cult does.

Noting that 2023 was the hottest year on record, the king told the Cop28 UN climate summit on Friday: “Records are now being broken so often that we are perhaps becoming immune to what they are really telling us. We need to pause to process what this actually means: we are taking the natural world outside balanced norms and limits, and into dangerous, uncharted territory.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/15/4-more-new-reconstructions-affirm-the-medieval-warm-period-was-warmer-than-today/

 

[Heyo]

No, science and religion are quite distinct things. Climate scientists don't set the agenda and pay for their research, the cult does.

That still sounds like a conspiracy theory. Climate scientists doing "paid for" research (which gets published by "paid for" journals?). And who is that mysterious "the cult"? Are they the same as the notorious "they"?

Noting that 2023 was the hottest year on record, the king told the Cop28 UN climate summit on Friday: “Records are now being broken so often that we are perhaps becoming immune to what they are really telling us. We need to pause to process what this actually means: we are taking the natural world outside balanced norms and limits, and into dangerous, uncharted territory.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/15/4-more-new-reconstructions-affirm-the-medieval-warm-period-was-warmer-than-today/

And another red herring from another known climate change denier website.

Wonder why they do it. Maybe they get paid? "The cult" pays for research and "the fossil fuel conspiracy" pays for misinformation. How much do you get paid?

 

[Ebionite]

That still sounds like a conspiracy theory.

That's not my problem.

And who is that mysterious "the cult"?

It's not anyone. It's the union of the church and state.

And another red herring from another known climate change denier website.

It's not a red herring, and your characterisation is irrelevant, although not unexpected.

Wonder why they do it.

Apparently they think they're saving the planet.