As simple as it gets

[Halo]

One more time. 1820 to 2020 from 0.028% to 0.040% CO2 concentration. That's it.

And that supposedly increased the avg. global temperature by 1.2 degree Celsius (methane has a half life of 12 years if I remember and water vapor eventually becomes white clouds and reflect sunshine).

Being kind the linear progression (not geometric nor exponential) would be 1.2 degrees per 0.012% change in concentration of CO2. An increase of 10 fold of 0.12% would be a 12 degree increase in temperature and a total concentration of (0.028 +0.12=0.148) 0.148% atmos. CO2.

Now make that a 100 fold increase of 0.012% and that would be an increase of 120 degrees C. So the atmosphere CO2 according to you guys would be (0.028 + 1.2=1.228) 1.228% and the increase in temperature would be 120 degrees C. Water boils at 100 degrees C.

Do that one more time and do a 1,000 fold increase of 0.012% (.028 + 12. = 12.028) and you have a concentration of 12.028% CO2 and a temperature increased to 1,200 degrees Celsius. By far exceeding the temperature of Venus. A rocky planet much closer to the sun with a concentration of 96% CO2 and an average global temperature OF 462 degrees Celsius.

Please, please shut the f. up.

 

[Halo]

The simple math illiterate shouldn't be allowed to vote since they can't comment.

 

[EatTheRich]

What point do you think you have made? If the amount (which is the important thing, not the concentration, although these are essentially proportional since they are a small part of the atmosphere) of this greenhouse gas rises to astronomical levels, temperatures will rise to astronomical levels? That’s what the simple physics says.

 

[Halo]

What point do you think you have made? If the amount (which is the important thing, not the concentration, although these are essentially proportional since they are a small part of the atmosphere) of this greenhouse gas rises to astronomical levels, temperatures will rise to astronomical levels? That’s what the simple physics says.

What do you think the difference is between amount and "concentration"? Say it out loud now Parts Per Million.

If you can't follow the math and then make the comparison to Venus then that isn't my problem. It's yours.

 

[EatTheRich]

What do you think the difference is between amount and "concentration"? Say it out loud now Parts Per Million.

If you can't follow the math and then make the comparison to Venus then that isn't my problem. It's yours.

Concentration is a matter of parts per million. It depends on the weight of other gases in the atmosphere. The amount (number of molecules) ... to which the added warming from that particular greenhouse gas is directly proportional ... doesn't depend on what other gases are or are not present in the atmosphere. As I already said, it doesn't really matter much anyway because the increase is roughly the same ... I am only pointing out the difference because you are ignorant of it. The issue is that--using your numbers which considerably understate the actual growth--the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by over 40%, and the amount of added warming due to that CO2 has likewise increased by over 40%.

Is your "gotcha" showing that the scientists ... all of them ... are wrong, and refuting the bookcases upon bookcases containing their research ... that Venus is not more than 8 times hotter than it is given the concentration of CO2 there? But you would have to be an ignorant, incurious dolt who didn't make the slightest effort to find out whether scientists have already investigated that question to think you had outwitted every scientific organization on Earth. First, the linear approximations of greenhouse gas warming only work well up to the point where greenhouse blankets become so intense that excitation of greenhouse gas molecules isn't preventing greenhouse gas molecules higher in the atmosphere from being excited at the same time because the infrared rays don't reach them ... a logarithmic function better represents the relationship between CO2 and warming on Venus (where CO2 is so high) whereas a linear function is a better approximation on Earth (where CO2 is scarce). Second, because Venus did boil off its oceans, it does not have a heavy blanket of water vapor which is a more potent greenhouse gas and itself accounts for some of the CO2-driven warming (due to positive feedback effects from increased evaporation due to higher temperatures) on Earth. Third, Venus (due to its sulfuric acid clouds) receives much less heat from the Sun than the Earth (all else being equal) would receive in the same orbit. In fact, its equilibrium temperature without a greenhouse effect would be only a few degrees higher than Earth's.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Concentration is a matter of parts per million. It depends on the weight of other gases in the atmosphere. The amount (number of molecules) ... to which the added warming from that particular greenhouse gas is directly proportional ... doesn't depend on what other gases are or are not present in the atmosphere. As I already said, it doesn't really matter much anyway because the increase is roughly the same ... I am only pointing out the difference because you are ignorant of it. The issue is that--using your numbers which considerably understate the actual growth--the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by over 40%, and the amount of added warming due to that CO2 has likewise increased by over 40%.

Is your "gotcha" showing that the scientists ... all of them ... are wrong, and refuting the bookcases upon bookcases containing their research ... that Venus is not more than 8 times hotter than it is given the concentration of CO2 there? But you would have to be an ignorant, incurious dolt who didn't make the slightest effort to find out whether scientists have already investigated that question to think you had outwitted every scientific organization on Earth. First, the linear approximations of greenhouse gas warming only work well up to the point where greenhouse blankets become so intense that excitation of greenhouse gas molecules isn't preventing greenhouse gas molecules higher in the atmosphere from being excited at the same time because the infrared rays don't reach them ... a logarithmic function better represents the relationship between CO2 and warming on Venus (where CO2 is so high) whereas a linear function is a better approximation on Earth (where CO2 is scarce). Second, because Venus did boil off its oceans, it does not have a heavy blanket of water vapor which is a more potent greenhouse gas and itself accounts for some of the CO2-driven warming (due to positive feedback effects from increased evaporation due to higher temperatures) on Earth. Third, Venus (due to its sulfuric acid clouds) receives much less heat from the Sun than the Earth (all else being equal) would receive in the same orbit. In fact, its equilibrium temperature without a greenhouse effect would be only a few degrees higher than Earth's.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Quick, cue the "hocky stick" chart...stat!

 

[Halo]

Concentration is a matter of parts per million. It depends on the weight of other gases in the atmosphere. The amount (number of molecules) ... to which the added warming from that particular greenhouse gas is directly proportional ... doesn't depend on what other gases are or are not present in the atmosphere. As I already said, it doesn't really matter much anyway because the increase is roughly the same ... I am only pointing out the difference because you are ignorant of it. The issue is that--using your numbers which considerably understate the actual growth--the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by over 40%, and the amount of added warming due to that CO2 has likewise increased by over 40%.

Is your "gotcha" showing that the scientists ... all of them ... are wrong, and refuting the bookcases upon bookcases containing their research ... that Venus is not more than 8 times hotter than it is given the concentration of CO2 there? But you would have to be an ignorant, incurious dolt who didn't make the slightest effort to find out whether scientists have already investigated that question to think you had outwitted every scientific organization on Earth. First, the linear approximations of greenhouse gas warming only work well up to the point where greenhouse blankets become so intense that excitation of greenhouse gas molecules isn't preventing greenhouse gas molecules higher in the atmosphere from being excited at the same time because the infrared rays don't reach them ... a logarithmic function better represents the relationship between CO2 and warming on Venus (where CO2 is so high) whereas a linear function is a better approximation on Earth (where CO2 is scarce). Second, because Venus did boil off its oceans, it does not have a heavy blanket of water vapor which is a more potent greenhouse gas and itself accounts for some of the CO2-driven warming (due to positive feedback effects from increased evaporation due to higher temperatures) on Earth. Third, Venus (due to its sulfuric acid clouds) receives much less heat from the Sun than the Earth (all else being equal) would receive in the same orbit. In fact, its equilibrium temperature without a greenhouse effect would be only a few degrees higher than Earth's.

You think you're talking science but you're actually a proponent of politics here.

 

[Halo]

@EatTheRich

You know how you wanted to say we know what atmospheric CO2 was 800,000 years ago? And I cut you off by saying air bubbles trapped in ice? Well, this image shows how CO2 isn't evenly distributed around the planet and so saying that trapped air bubbles is representative is a joke.

 

[Halo]

This is for you @EatTheRich. Note how you and AI appeal to complexity and then reduce it to the simplicity of this.
--------------------------------------




And I had to push to get the formula details.

You
Sent by you:
Where delta T and delta C are what? Is alpha a constant?


Copilot
Sent by Copilot:
Great questions! Let’s break it down:

• 
  ΔTΔT
  : This represents the change in global mean surface temperature, typically measured in degrees Celsius (°C). It quantifies how much the Earth’s average temperature has increased or is projected to increase.
  
  
• 
  ΔCΔC
  : This stands for the cumulative carbon emissions, usually measured in gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e). It represents the total amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere since the pre-industrial era.
  
  
• 
  αα
  : This is the climate sensitivity parameter. It represents the temperature change per unit of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions. While
  αα
  is often treated as a constant in simplified models, its exact value can vary depending on the specific climate model and the feedback mechanisms considered. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations.
  

In more detailed climate models,
αα
can be influenced by various factors, including feedback mechanisms (like water vapor feedback, ice-albedo feedback, and cloud feedback) and natural variability. Therefore, while
αα
is often approximated as a constant for simplicity, its precise value can vary based on the complexity of the model and the specific conditions being simulated.

Would you like to explore how these factors are modeled in more sophisticated climate simulations or any other aspect of climate science?
: IPCC, “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.”

 

[EatTheRich]

You think you're talking science but you're actually a proponent of politics here.

This is a politics forum. I am making a political case for taking the scientists seriously, while you are making a political case for disregarding them. My case cites the strong evidence behind the scientists’ robust conclusion, while your case for disregarding them depends entirely on political considerations.

 

[EatTheRich]

@EatTheRich

You know how you wanted to say we know what atmospheric CO2 was 800,000 years ago? And I cut you off by saying air bubbles trapped in ice? Well, this image shows how CO2 isn't evenly distributed around the planet and so saying that trapped air bubbles is representative is a joke.

View attachment 79614

Good thing there are multiple independent lines of converging evidence behind the robust consensus around past levels.

 

[Halo]

Good thing there are multiple independent lines of converging evidence behind the robust consensus around past levels.

Clearly you didn't read the zerohedge article linked to by @Raoul_Luke. The "consensus" was manufactured and scientists have called the IPCC to have their name removed from that bullshit consensus list.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.

www.fraserinstitute.org

 

[EatTheRich]

Clearly you didn't read the zerohedge article linked to by @Raoul_Luke. The "consensus" was manufactured and scientists have called the IPCC to have their name removed from that bullshit consensus list.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.

www.fraserinstitute.org

There have been several carefully designed studies of scientists’ opinion and the scientific literature on climate change. In fact, the IPCC position just is a distillation of the published, peer-reviewed, current literature. These studies all suggest a more robust consensus than your misleading op-ed based on the opinions of members of the American Meteoroligical Society, which includes TV weather forecasters, undergraduates, middle school teachers, and plenty of other people with no real expertise. I trust what scientists say they say more than what a corporate-funded think tank with an ax to grind says.