This slideshow<\/strong><\/a> breaks down the science:<\/p>\n \ud83c\udf0d Human CO\u2082 emissions and rising atmospheric concentrations.<\/p>\n \ud83d\udd25 Greenhouse forcing and Earth\u2019s growing energy imbalance.<\/p>\n \ud83c\udf0a Ocean warming, melting ice, and changing circulation.<\/p>\n \ud83c\udf00 Interconnected climate feedbacks that can amplify change.<\/p>\n \ud83d\udd2c Atmospheric carbon-14 and the physics of CO\u2082 radiative forcing.<\/p>\n \ud83e\udd8b The butterfly effect: how changes in interconnected systems can propagate far beyond their origin.<\/p>\n Natural variability is real. Climate has changed throughout Earth\u2019s history. Neither fact explains away the measurable human contribution to today\u2019s global warming.<\/p>\n The challenge to climate deniers is simple: If you dispute the science, engage with the evidence. Explain the physical mechanisms. Quantify your alternative explanation. Show your work.<\/p>\n Laughing emojis aren\u2019t scientific evidence. Neither are unsupported claims about research funding.<\/p>\n CLAIMS AREN\u2019T EVIDENCE. FOLLOW THE DATA.<\/strong><\/p>\n MILLIONS \u2192 BILLIONS \u2192 TRILLIONS OF POSSIBLE FEEDBACK INTERACTIONS.<\/p>\n Feedback coupling is emerging. Understanding how these connections develop, interact, and amplify change is one of the major challenges in climate science.<\/p>\n Watch the Climate Physics Simplified Slideshow<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n [Intro] Got a claim? [Verse 1] Too much rain? What’s the question? Calls it religion [Refrain] I spend my days Watch me shout! [Verse 2] Where’s your attribution? Grant money conspiracy But here’s a question \u00b9\u2074C! Now here’s the formula Delta F equals [Refrain] I spend my days Watch me shout! Millions to billions No single starting point! But the denier says… Show your work! Natural variability? Evidence! [Final Refrain] I spend my days Watch me shout! The climate denier said: The climate denier said: [Outro] Laughing emojis Human attribution? Show your work!<\/p>\n Climate denier said… About the Song I replied: Of course, feedback coupling is not this simple. There is no single starting point, no final destination, and no clearly defined end to the network.<\/p>\n MILLIONS \u2192 BILLIONS \u2192 TRILLIONS We cannot yet predict precisely how all these interactions will propagate, combine, and amplify as they unfold.<\/p>\n THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT Climate denier replied: I responded: Let’s have a pop quiz to test your scientific literacy\u2014and whether your laughing emojis can substitute for scientific evidence.<\/p>\n 1. Explain atmospheric \u00b9\u2074C concentrations. What do they reveal about the sources of rising atmospheric CO\u2082?<\/p>\n 2. Apply your answer using the CO\u2082 radiative forcing formula: If natural variability is your preferred explanation, demonstrate it with evidence and quantitative analysis. Assertions, conspiracy theories about research funding, and laughing emojis are not scientific arguments. <\/p>\n *Show your work.* (If you are totally ignorant, reply with your foolish emojis.)<\/p>\n
\nClimate denier said…
\n(What’d he say?)
\nClimate denier said…
\n(Another day!)<\/p>\n
\n(Bring the proof!)
\nGot a theory?
\n(Show the truth!)<\/p>\n
\nWeather too hot?
\n(It’s global warming!)
\nWeather too cold?
\n(Still global warming!)<\/p>\n
\n(It’s global warming!)
\nDrought again?
\n(It’s global warming!)<\/p>\n
\n(Doesn’t matter!)
\nSame old answer
\n(Noise and chatter!)<\/p>\n
\n(Calls science a creed)
\nBut dodges the evidence
\n(He doesn’t want to read!)<\/p>\n
\nThe climate denier said:
\n(Doi! I’m braindead)
\nNo, no scientific literacy
\n(Out of touch… with reality)<\/p>\n
\n(Finding lame ways)
\nFighting the facts
\n(Coached by the quacks)<\/p>\n
\n(And rant about)
\nNo! No know!<\/p>\n
\nAll happened before
\n(That’s his refrain!)
\nNatural variability
\n(Blamed once again!)<\/p>\n
\n(Show me the proof!)
\nHe asks for evidence
\n(Then hides from the truth!)<\/p>\n
\n(That’s his big story!)
\nLaughing emojis
\n(His claim to glory!)<\/p>\n
\n(Answer it straight!)
\nWhat does carbon-14
\n(Reveal about our fate?)<\/p>\n
\n(Where’d it go?)
\nFossil carbon!
\n(What do you know?)<\/p>\n
\n(Do the math!)
\nFive-point-three-five
\n(… the radiative forcing path!)<\/p>\n
\n(5.35 times the log!)
\nC over C-zero
\n(That’s the CO\u2082 job!)<\/p>\n
\nThe climate denier said:
\n(Doi! I’m braindead)
\nNo, no scientific literacy
\n(Out of touch… with reality)<\/p>\n
\n(Finding lame ways)
\nFighting the facts
\n(Coached by the quacks)<\/p>\n
\n(And rant about)
\nNo! No know!<\/p>\n
\n(Trillions in play!)
\nThe butterfly effect
\n(Can carry change far away!)<\/p>\n
\n(No single end!)
\nNo simple prediction
\n(Of how all systems blend!)
\nThe network’s complex
\n(The science is clear!)
\nWe study the pathways
\n(As the risks appear!)<\/p>\n
\n(It’s all a scam!)
\nWith no quantitative evidence
\n(And no testable plan!)<\/p>\n
\n(Show your work!)
\nState your hypothesis!
\n(Test what you assert!)<\/p>\n
\n(Quantify!)
\nHuman attribution?
\n(Don’t deny!)<\/p>\n
\n(Not conspiracy!)
\nMeasurements!
\n(Not mockery!)<\/p>\n
\nThe climate denier said:
\n(Doi! I’m braindead)
\nNo, no scientific literacy
\n(Out of touch… with reality)<\/p>\n
\n(Finding lame ways)
\nFighting the facts
\n(Coached by the quacks)<\/p>\n
\n(And rant about)
\nNo! No know!<\/p>\n
\n(Just look away!)
\nThe evidence said:
\n(It’s measured every day!)<\/p>\n
\n(It’s all been before!)
\nThe science said:
\n(Explain what’s happening now!)<\/p>\n
\nYou want proof?
\n(Show your work!)
\nYou want science?
\n(Test your claim!)<\/p>\n
\n(Are really lame!)
\nNatural variability?
\n(Math. Let’s see…)<\/p>\n
\n(Your contribution)
\nNo more slogans…
\n(No more smoke…)<\/p>\n
\n(Then science led.)<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Climate](\"\/global_warming\/climate-graphics\/Climate-Physics-Explained-in-Ten-Panels.png\"\n)
\n <\/a>
\n <\/figure>\n
\n ![\"Climate](\"\/global_warming\/climate-graphics\/Climate-Science-Denial.jpg\"\n)
\n <\/a>
\n <\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\nClimate denier said:
\n\u201cWeather too hot? Global warming. Weather too cold? Global warming. Too much rain? Global warming. Drought? Global warming. What’s the question? Doesn’t matter. The answer’s the same. Global warming. To true believers in the global warming religion, everything is a sign.\u201d IBD<\/p>\n
\nWhat? You need to stop following your pseudoscience gods and listen to scientists. This is what we actually say: Polar amplification \u2192 weakened equator-to-pole temperature gradients \u2192 reduced thermal contrast that helps drive and stabilize large-scale atmospheric circulation \u2192 accelerated Greenland and Arctic ice melt \u2192 freshwater input into the North Atlantic and reduced salinity\/density of surface waters \u2192 disruption and potential weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) \u2192 reorganization of North Atlantic pressure fields and storm tracks \u2192 greater jet-stream waviness, slower progression, and amplified Rossby-wave behavior \u2192 more persistent blocking patterns, omega blocks, and meridional flow \u2192 stalled atmospheric rivers, prolonged heat domes, drought-flood swings, and other forms of hydroclimatic whiplash \u2192 destabilization of agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and public health systems \u2192 accelerated land-ice loss and groundwater redistribution that shift mass across the planet \u2192 climate-driven mass redistribution sufficient to measurably alter Earth\u2019s moment of inertia and contribute to changes in rotational dynamics, including a slight slowing of Earth\u2019s rotation and changes in the length of day.<\/p>\n
\nPOSSIBLE FEEDBACK INTERACTIONS
\nFEEDBACK COUPLING IS EMERGING<\/p>\n
\nA small perturbation can propagate through a complex network, producing consequences far beyond its point of origin.<\/p>\n
\nyour cut and paste of the typical claims is still with zero proof of human attribution.
\nAll that has happened before. And all the grant money goes to AGW witnesses none for natural variability which is much more likely attribution. But keep worshipping at the church of global warming. That\u2019s where the grant money goes. \ud83e\udd23<\/p>\n
\nNo. Wrong answer. I’ve spent several decades researching climate science, and I’m the author of the work you’re dismissing without apparently reading it.<\/p>\n
\n\u0394F = 5.35 \u00d7 ln(C\/C\u2080) [W\/m\u00b2]
\nExplain what this equation tells us about the radiative forcing caused by rising atmospheric CO\u2082 concentrations.<\/p>\n