Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Use wiki with caution!I used the radiative forcing equation in wiki and converted it to temperature using the 0.75 C per W/m^2 conversion factor to prepare my plot.There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?
View attachment 99694
View attachment 99697
I'm not sure of your attribution..
But here is one done by Boulder Co Atmospherics lab. It has also been used in many publications.
View attachment 99980
In any event you are correct about 95% of what CO2 can do is already done. It currently appears that temp rise of below 1 deg C/doubling is where we reside (0.78 Deg C) by empirical observation.
I know. I am ashamed to have admitted it, but I figured the religious fanatics needed for someone to explain radiative forcing to them.Use wiki with caution!I used the radiative forcing equation in wiki and converted it to temperature using the 0.75 C per W/m^2 conversion factor to prepare my plot.There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?
View attachment 99694
View attachment 99697
I'm not sure of your attribution..
But here is one done by Boulder Co Atmospherics lab. It has also been used in many publications.
View attachment 99980
In any event you are correct about 95% of what CO2 can do is already done. It currently appears that temp rise of below 1 deg C/doubling is where we reside (0.78 Deg C) by empirical observation.
It is highly adjusted to support the AGW premise and unreliable.
I know. I am ashamed to have admitted it, but I figured the religious fanatics needed for someone to explain radiative forcing to them.Use wiki with caution!I used the radiative forcing equation in wiki and converted it to temperature using the 0.75 C per W/m^2 conversion factor to prepare my plot.There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?
View attachment 99694
View attachment 99697
I'm not sure of your attribution..
But here is one done by Boulder Co Atmospherics lab. It has also been used in many publications.
View attachment 99980
In any event you are correct about 95% of what CO2 can do is already done. It currently appears that temp rise of below 1 deg C/doubling is where we reside (0.78 Deg C) by empirical observation.
It is highly adjusted to support the AGW premise and unreliable.
God, are you really that stupid?The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.
Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming.
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past
The world has been through many cycles of climate change. Leave it to some dopey libs to cry about it being something we can change. smh
While they say "much remains to be learned about climate change", you seem to think you know everything about it. lolGod, are you really that stupid?The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.
Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming.
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past
The world has been through many cycles of climate change. Leave it to some dopey libs to cry about it being something we can change. smh
"The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic".
Scientist greatly underestimated the power of heat trapping gasses to warm the Arctic. The difference between continental glaciers at 180 ppm CO2, and as low as 50 ppb CH4, to the interglacial 280 ppm CO2 and 700 ppb CH4 is the difference between continental glaciers and the present interglacial period. At present, CO2 is 400+ ppm, and CH4 1800 ppb. Were it not for the thermal inertia of the oceans, it would already be much hotter. And what we are seeing right now is a forerunner of what will come.
We put that additional 120 ppm of CO2 there, and the additional 1100 ppb of CH4. Not only that, we are continuing to put more of both gases into the atmosphere, as well as other GHGs for which there is no natural analog. We have changed the climate. Right there in the article you quoted. And you seem to be too blind to see it.
While they say "much remains to be learned about climate change", you seem to think you know everything about it. lolGod, are you really that stupid?The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.
Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming.
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past
The world has been through many cycles of climate change. Leave it to some dopey libs to cry about it being something we can change. smh
"The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic".
Scientist greatly underestimated the power of heat trapping gasses to warm the Arctic. The difference between continental glaciers at 180 ppm CO2, and as low as 50 ppb CH4, to the interglacial 280 ppm CO2 and 700 ppb CH4 is the difference between continental glaciers and the present interglacial period. At present, CO2 is 400+ ppm, and CH4 1800 ppb. Were it not for the thermal inertia of the oceans, it would already be much hotter. And what we are seeing right now is a forerunner of what will come.
We put that additional 120 ppm of CO2 there, and the additional 1100 ppb of CH4. Not only that, we are continuing to put more of both gases into the atmosphere, as well as other GHGs for which there is no natural analog. We have changed the climate. Right there in the article you quoted. And you seem to be too blind to see it.
Have you always had problems understanding the obvious?
Global avg temperatures were a good 7c warmer then pre-industrial age. Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum - WikipediaDon't worry. The herd will be thinned out long before then.55 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum the co2 levels were in the thousands of parts ppm...
Sea levels would be at least 220 feet higher then now! So we don't want it to happen.
Not likely. Climate models predict that we will still have extensive continental glaciation at the south pole at 600 ppm.Really? The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling. It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150. By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.
Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciationAre you unfamiliar with the destabilization of the WAIS? It seems so. Why don't you read up on it and get back to us. The process is presently unstoppable, no matter what the climate does.
Cause it's water?And why is the ice melting? Perhaps because the temperatures you're displaying here are right at the melting point of water when by this time of the year, normal temps would be near zero Fahrenheit.
The water might be warm? It ain't cause air temperature isn't causing any meltingAnd why is the ice melting? Perhaps because the temperatures you're displaying here are right at the melting point of water when by this time of the year, normal temps would be near zero Fahrenheit.
Really? The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling. It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150. By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.
Well, you knownothing asshole, we are going to learn much about climate change in the coming decade. And a whole lot more after that.While they say "much remains to be learned about climate change", you seem to think you know everything about it. lolGod, are you really that stupid?The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.
Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming.
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past
The world has been through many cycles of climate change. Leave it to some dopey libs to cry about it being something we can change. smh
"The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic".
Scientist greatly underestimated the power of heat trapping gasses to warm the Arctic. The difference between continental glaciers at 180 ppm CO2, and as low as 50 ppb CH4, to the interglacial 280 ppm CO2 and 700 ppb CH4 is the difference between continental glaciers and the present interglacial period. At present, CO2 is 400+ ppm, and CH4 1800 ppb. Were it not for the thermal inertia of the oceans, it would already be much hotter. And what we are seeing right now is a forerunner of what will come.
We put that additional 120 ppm of CO2 there, and the additional 1100 ppb of CH4. Not only that, we are continuing to put more of both gases into the atmosphere, as well as other GHGs for which there is no natural analog. We have changed the climate. Right there in the article you quoted. And you seem to be too blind to see it.
Have you always had problems understanding the obvious?
Honestly, Crick, I think that is an optimistic estimate.Really? The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling. It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150. By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.
