copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2024-01-01): If all heat energy emitted from the surface passed through the atmosphere directly into space, Earth’s average surface temperature would be tens of degrees colder than today. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, act to make the surface much warmer than this because they absorb and emit heat energy in all directions (including downwards), keeping Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere warm [Figure B1]. Without this greenhouse effect, life as we know it could not have evolved on our planet. Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere makes it even more effective at preventing heat from escaping into space. When the energy leaving is less than the energy entering, Earth warms until a new balance is established. [...] Based just on the physics of the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs and emits, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels (up to about 560 ppm) would by itself cause a global average temperature increase of about 1 °C (1.8 °F). In the overall climate system, however, things are more complex; warming leads to further effects (feedbacks) that either amplify or diminish the initial warming.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2023-09-25): Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2 - [...] American Geophysical Union "Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5 - [...] The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2024-06-21): Buis, A. The atmosphere: getting a handle on carbon dioxide. sizing up humanity’s impacts on Earth’s changing atmosphere: a five-part series. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (2009); https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/ [...] Sugerman, E. R., Johnson, E. J., Morwitz, V. G., Johar, G. V. and Morris, M. W. Scripts and data for ‘widespread misestimates of greenhouse gas emissions suggest low carbon competence’. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VHD5Y(2024).
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2012-06-10): Centuries of speculation about the causes of human stress on the environment is now being disciplined with empirical evidence, including analyses of differences in greenhouse-gas emissions across contemporary nation states. The cumulative results can provide useful guidance for both climate projections and for policy design. Growing human population and affluence clearly contribute to enhanced environmental stress. Evidence does not support the argument for amelioration of greenhouse-gas emissions at the highest levels of affluence. However, the role of other factors, such as urbanization, trade, culture and institutions remains ambiguous. [...] Jorgenson, A. K. Global warming and the neglected greenhouse gas: A cross-national study of the social causes of methane emissions intensity, 1995. Soc. Forces84, 1779–1798 (2006). [...] Development zone policy and urban carbon emissions: empirical evidence from the construction of national high-tech industrial development zones in China
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2018-04-04): Factually Inaccurate: It is an unequivocal fact that Earth’s climate has warmed over the past century. Also, the conclusion that the human-caused increase of greenhouse gases is causing warming is supported by a wide range of empirical data. [...] Second, the link between increased greenhouse gas concentrations and warming continues to be supported by research in the last two decades. One study from 20011 used satellites to measure the type of energy entering and exiting Earth’s atmosphere and concluded that increases in greenhouse gases were responsible for extra heat measured between 1970 and 1997. The authors state that their results "provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate." (Here, the term "radiative forcing" refers to the extra energy trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, cause warming.) A more recent study2 arrived at similar conclusions, confirming predictions of the greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere and providing "empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels … are affecting the surface energy balance." In other words, rising CO2 was linked directly to warming, even when things like plant uptake of CO2 were considered.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2017-08-08): Eli’s already covered this but I thought I would present a slightly different argument. The topic is a recent paper by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller called new insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model, an earlier version of which was retracted because they had published under pseudonyms (reversing the letters in their names). [...] Okay, so what about the actual Earth. Well, the surface of the Earth radiates almost 400 Wm-2. This is considerably more than the energy that we receive from the Sun. In the absence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, the surface would be cooling rapidly, but it obviously does not. [...] So, we can be very confident that Nikolov and Zeller’s argument that planetary surface temperature is set by pressure alone is wrong. Not only does pressure alone not define temperature, in the absence of a planetary greenhouse effect the surface should radiate as much energy as it receives from the Sun, which is clearly not the case for the Earth. The only way to explain why the surface radiates more energy than it gets from the Sun is because of the atmospheric greenhouse effect (to be clear, the surface radiates more than it gets from the Sun, but the planet radiates – into space – the same, on average, as it gets from the Sun). Also, if we add additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere – as we are currently doing – then we’ll cause the surface to warm even more, as is currently happening.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2021-01-30): Judith Curry: Well, there is almost certainly a signal of manmade emissions the earth climate. All other things being equal, it’s warmer than it would otherwise be. The real issue is the magnitude of man-made warming relative to the whole host of other things that go on in the natural climate system. And then the bigger issue is really whether this warming is dangerous. You know, a certain amount of warming is generally regarded by people as a good thing. But a whole lot of warming, isn’t especially a good thing, especially if it’s melting ice sheets and causing sea level rise.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2008-07-15): In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. A recent study finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic hurricane rapid intensification metric over 1982-2009 is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing. Studies of extreme precipitation events in Texas and tropical cyclone precipitation in Puerto Rico are suggestive of emerging anthropogenic influence on hurricane precipitation. The above climate change detection/attribution studies are not yet definitive for hurricane activity metrics, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions. A slowing of tropical cyclone propagation speeds over the continental U.S. has been found since 1900, but its cause remains uncertain. [...] Despite the difficulty in identifying a detectable influence of human-caused greenhouse gas increases on global tropical cyclone activity, greenhouse gas-induced climate change may have already caused changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to their small magnitude compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2016-10-04): Scientists first noted the possibility that the burning of greenhouse gases, such as fossil fuels, could increase temperatures back in the 1800s. A report from National Academy of Sciences in 1977 warned that the burning of fossil fuels could result in average temperatures increases of 6 degrees Celsius by the year 2150.2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects scientific opinion on the topic, stated in the forward to its 2013 report, "the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century."3 And, several analyses of scholarly publications suggest widespread consensus among climate scientists on this point.4 [...] As with previous Pew Research Center surveys, there are wide differences among political party and ideology groups on whether or not human activity is responsible for warming temperatures. A large majority of liberal Democrats (79%) believe the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. In contrast, only about one-in-six conservative Republicans (15%) say this, a difference of 64 percentage points. A much larger share of conservative Republicans say there is no solid evidence the Earth is warming (36%) or that warming stems from natural causes (48%).
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2021-07-11): Its warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme. [...] Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states. Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value. Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2023-09-29): I also consider several potential counterarguments to my claim. Some argue that there is enough evidence of the serious effects of climate change to challenge EA’s position regarding the relative importance of the area. Others claim that humanity has less than a decade left due to climate change. I will show how this is a misunderstanding of a popular report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and use the report to refute the previous claim. Still others have demonstrated that climate change can cause socioeconomic collapse, which in turn can lead to extinction. This is a particularly interesting claim and one that I agree with. However, it only warrants an increased focus on solving socioeconomic weaknesses, not prioritizing climate change.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2024-03-18): If we continue emitting high volumes of greenhouse gases we will cause severe climate change and eventually have to pay a high price from the damages. Several studies find that if we don’t achieve a reduction in emissions now, economic growth would be much lower in the decades ahead (and that surely wouldn’t be our main concern in such a future).11 [...] Lelieveld, J., Klingmüller, K., Pozzer, A., Burnett, R. T., Haines, A., & Ramanathan, V. (2019). Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(15), 7192-7197 [...] "Ironically, the proponents of this claim come from two antagonistic camps. On the one hand, there are those who believe that addressing climate change must take priority and that this requires an organised diminution of economic output (termed "degrowth"). On the other hand, there are those who believe that economic growth and the social stability that comes with it should be prioritised: concerning oneself with climate policy should not be a priority if it impacts competitiveness."
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2022-01-31): - If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols. [...] The extra warming from greenhouse gases is being offset by sulphur dioxide and other products of fossil fuel combustion that form atmospheric aerosols. Aerosols in the atmosphere both reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and increase the formation of high, reflective clouds, cooling the Earth. [...] As the vast majority of energy trapped by greenhouse gases is absorbed by the oceans rather than the atmosphere, changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake can potentially have large impacts on the surface temperature. Some researchers have argued that multidecadal cycles, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), can play a role in warming at a decadal scale.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2009-06-01): Lindzen accepts the main principle of the greenhouse effect, that increasing greenhouse gases (like CO2) will cause a radiative forcing that, all other things being equal, will cause the surface to warm. He uses an odd measure of its effectiveness though, claiming that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a ‘2%’ increase in the greenhouse effect. How has he defined the greenhouse effect here? Well, a doubling of CO2 is about a 4 W/m2 forcing at the tropopause, which is roughly 2% of the total upward longwave (LW) (~240 W/m2). But does that even make sense as a definition of the greenhouse effect? Not really. On a planet with no greenhouse effect (but similar albedo) the upward LW would also be 240 W/m2, but the absorbed LW in the atmosphere would be zero, so it would make much more sense to define the greenhouse effect as the amount of LW absorbed (~150 W/m2). In which case, doubling of CO2 is initially slightly more*, but as soon as any feedbacks (particularly water vapour or ice albedo changes) kick in, that would increase.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2021-04-16): There is no factual data to back up global warming; real scientists don’t know whether CO2, solar sunspots or natural activity cause global warming [...] CLAIM "It’s a good thing that we are putting some more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm." [...] There is overwhelming evidence that current climate change is significantly caused by human carbon emissions contrary to claim in Townhall
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2017-04-04): Despite the many climate "skeptics" in key positions of power today, 97 percent of working climate scientists agree that the warming of Earth’s climate over the last 100 years is mainly due to human activity that has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why are they so sure? [...] Scientists can track these earlier natural changes in climate by examining ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica, which provide evidence about conditions as far back as 800,000 years ago. The ice cores have shown that rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures are closely linked. [...] "We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see," said Schmidt. "If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated." In other words, only when the emissions from human activity are included, are the models and data sets able to accurately reproduce the warming in the ocean and the atmosphere that is occurring.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2019-09-11): There is overwhelming evidence that current climate change is significantly caused by human carbon emissions contrary to claim in Townhall [...] There is clear evidence for the existence of climate change contrary to claims by John Coleman [...] Global surface temperatures are increasing according to climate projections, contrary to Wall Street Journal claim
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2020-01-01): Some scientists propose that greenhouse gases act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping Earth approximately 33 oC warmer than expected for a planet at Earth’s distance from Sun. Blankets are well-known to slow the loss of thermal energy from a body of matter, but a blanket has no way to increase the amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation. A blanket cannot be the source of new thermal energy required to increase the temperature of the body under the blanket, unless it is an electric blanket that adds thermal energy from somewhere else. [...] What is most surprising, given the importance of greenhouse gases in today’s politics, is that greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation have never been shown by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method, to cause any significant increase in air temperature as explained at JustProveCO2.com. Greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation have never been shown by experiment to cause any significant increase in air temperature.
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2023-07-09): The well-established theory that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is supported as well as any chain of evidence in a rock-solid court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. It has done so for most of geological time. Humans are adding substantial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. Empirical evidence abounds to support the contention that the rising temperatures are being caused by that increasing CO2. [...] Greenhouse gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated from Earth's warmed surface, back out into space. If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer? [...] The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increase in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
Claim: There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. (Rush Limbaugh, 2018-04-02)
Evidence (2018-04-16): Michael Shermer sure has ‘flipped’! He quotes Flannery as saying that "even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2050." Could it be that global warming is caused, in the main, by forces beyond our control? [...] I too, am a skeptic. I am particularly skeptical of conventional wisdom that reeks of left wing politics and uses none other than Al Gore as a reference. Look up Malthusian economic theory so that you understand what it means when I accuse you of having a Malthusian mind. Several months ago there was an excellent greenhouse gas article printed in your publication using thousands of years of ice core data as its basis. This data showed quite convincingly that the glacial cycles, most probably brought on by the precession of the earth in its orbit around the sun, are accompanied by increases and decreases in greenhouse gases. It also showed that the most recent interglacial warm period should have begun to cool off and green house gases should have begun declining about 6000 years ago. They have not. They have, instead, increased. The scientist who did this study pointed out that about the only possible variable to explain this change in these cycles would be the rapid expansion of human population accompanied by farming, irrigation and raising of domestic live stock. Greenhouse gases have been going up when they should have been going down for 6000 years.