Why is “can you provide empirical measurements of how much warming is caused by carbon dioxide?” a very stupid question – Watt?

question –“Can you provide empirical measurements of how much warming is caused by carbon dioxide?”– On its surface it seems rational, even scientific. Yet, despite its appeal, it not only cannot answer the current approach, but also reflects a misunderstanding of how climate science works. Regardless of people’s position in climate debates, including those who are skeptical about climate shock, it is important to recognize why this issue (as constituted) is fundamentally flawed.

1. It requires impossible: Controlled experiments on planetary scales

The key issue is that it requires Proof of measurement– In other words, it is a direct empirical measure of isolated variables. But the earth is not a laboratory. You can't do one Earth at 300 ppmco₂, another ppm, another ppm, keep the others constant (solar irradiance, ocean currents, volcanic activity, cloud cover, etc.) and then observe the difference in temperature.

In essence, climate is a complex, chaotic, coupled system. We can measure Relevanceproduction inference,run model– But there is no laboratory environment that can isolate Co₂ and “measure” its exact contribution to global average surface temperature in the real world. Requirement of this empirical isolation is similar to requiring direct demonstration that cigarettes can cause cancer – an unreasonable criterion for complex systems with multiple interaction variables.

2. Confusing compulsion with attribution

Co₂ is a Radiation forcing– Input to the climate system, not direct output. Through satellite spectroscopy, what we have is the measurements that show the absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation. We measure the “back radiation” that hits the ground station. This is measurable and undisputed. this Effect size However, this kind of force cannot be measured directly in isolation. It is through modeling and Statistical attribution research.

These studies attempt to assign the observed warming fractions to different causes – greenhouse gases, aerosols, sun variability, land use changes, etc. They rely on climate models and statistical methods rather than isolated laboratory measurements. So, although you can ask how much warming Attributable to Based on the model and assumptions, you can't measure it directly.

For those who are “modeling“By modeling, we convert satellite measurements of brightness to global temperature. That is, 6.1.

3. It takes the hands of the alarm by oversimplifying the debate

Ironically, requiring “measured evidence” as a modification trap is often counterproductive. It enables climate activists to claim that skeptics “do not understand science” because technically, the problem is deformed. It allows them to redirect the conversation to debates about the molecular level “settled science” (CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation), which is not where the real debate lies.

Severe skepticism does not depend on rejecting radiation physics, but on questioning How much warming will it cause,,,,, Model performance,,,,, Feedback behavior,,,,, The reliability of temperature recordsthe most critical –Whether climate policies based on uncertain forecasts make sense. This is what the battle should be, not the argument about the scarecrow about measuring proofs.

4. It masks the real problem: model dependency and feedback assumptions

Even IPCC does not claim to measure directly due to Co₂ warming. Instead, they used “attribution studies” based on model simulations. For example, they simulated the Earth's climate and Artificial co₂ and No It then runs the model to the observed temperature.

The result is a claim like “most of the warming observed since 1950 is very likely due to human activity”, but this is based on model inference rather than measurement. The supposed feedback in these models (especially water vapor and clouds) is little known, and small changes in these hypotheses lead to large fluctuations in warming forecasts.

A reasonable skeptic will focus on: not denying Co₂ is a greenhouse gas, but emphasizes the uncertainty (climate sensitivity) of the huge warming caused by double CO₂ (climate sensitivity), which remains widespread in the literature. That is the smart front, not the need for something no one can offer.

5. It encourages dualistic thinking trap

Skeptics often fall into a trap by arguing that the entire climate narrative is harmful to the molecules of co. But even though Co₂ is warming the earth someThe real debate is a tradeoff between the scale, timing, impact and cost-effectiveness of climate policy.

Require Measurement Co₂Evidence of how much warming causes invites yes/no answers, and in fact, the question is one of the probability distribution, confidence intervals and uncertainty. This is the authoritarian idea dominated by mainstream climate speech.

Ask smarter questions – because the data is not very smart

Require Proof of measurement The question of how much warming Co₂ causes is a rhetorical dead end – not because it is unreasonable to seek evidence, but because it betrays the empirically measurable misunderstandings in the planetary climate system. This problem collapses under its own need for impossible precision, in noisy, chaotic and multifactorial systems.

Productive, scientific rooted – Skepticism is directed at the soft belly of climate consensus: Assumptions, uncertainties and measurement problems Supports the entire narrative.

Start with the temperature record itself. Long-term surface temperature series suffers from major reliability problems. Stations have aged, moved, surrounded by urban development and upgraded with different instruments – all of which can introduce inhomogeneity and artificial trends. Adjustments to the original data are usually opaque and justified, thus raising questions about the problems existing in actual warming and “correction”.

Then, the uncertainty of estimating global variables is much greater Ocean heat content– An indicator of “unprecedented warming”. Prior to the deployment of Argo floats in the early 2000s, ocean temperature was measured through a chaotic mixture of ship intake and bathtub instruments, resulting in sparse, uneven and inconsistent data. Even now, Argo float only requires sampling a small portion of the ocean volume and does not have enough depth to detect long-term thermal trends with high confidence.

In addition to this shaky empirical basis, climate modelers set their hypothesis of radiation forcing, feedback and cloud behavior on decades of future projections, which are forecasts that have consistently overestimated warming in the short term.

So instead of asking for something that cannot be measured (such as an isolated proof of the warming effect of Co₂), the focus should not be on measurable content and poorness. ask:

• How to adjust the temperature data and what impact will these adjustments have?
• How sensitive are climate models to initial conditions and subjective parameter adjustments?
• What is the error gap in ocean heat content estimation over time?
• Why does historical reconstruction rely so heavily on reanalysis of modeling rather than direct observation?
• Are mitigation policies cost-effective?
• Mitigation policies may cause any unintentional harm.
• Why are the benefits of using increased co in calculations for social impact?

This is where honest, disciplinary skepticism belongs, rather than requiring measurements that physical and earth system complexity simply does not allow, but points out Swinging scaffolding Established a thorough, expensive policy, Assumptions,,,,, Uncertaintyand Modeling limitations This is the foundation of the entire climate policy building. This is where skepticism can be scientifically strict, effective and intellectually honest.

Related