COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

[flacaltenn]

Claims to be a geologist, and a geochemist, and doesn't understand the very basics.

Chemistry AND Geology. We finally got a qualified hair on fire GW partner to SERIOUSLY discuss this stuff. I'm thrilled.

 

[mamooth]

The temperature affect diminishes with higher concentrations. The actual rise in temp now is just 1.8 deg C per doubling of concentration.

That's contradicted by directly observed reality.

A 40% rise in CO2 -- half a doubling, logarithm-wise, has resulted in a 1.0C increase.

That means observed TCS (transient climate senstivity) is 2.0C/doubling.

But TCS is lower than ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity). That means ECS > 2.0C/doubling. Anyone claiming an ECS of < 2.0C is denying reality outright, and can't be taken seriously.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's contradicted by directly observed reality.

A 40% rise in CO2 -- half a doubling, logarithm-wise, has resulted in a 1.0C increase.

That means observed TCS (transient climate senstivity) is 2.0C/doubling.

But TCS is lower than ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity). That means ECS > 2.0C/doubling. Anyone claiming an ECS of < 2.0C is denying reality outright, and can't be taken seriously.

You need a math class.

Given the -0.6 deg C loss in global temp, in the last 10 years, the cumulative rise is just 0.3-0.4 deg C. When you look at the log of CO2 and the rate of warming given for the area of concentration, we should be seeing about 1.8 deg C warming from CO2 ALONE and no other GHG. This means the atmospheric gases ability to warm is being diminished by the atmospheric gasses and is not multiplying. CO2's ability to warm is only about 30% of its climate sensitivity ratio or 0.3/1. Anything below a 1/1 ratio means CO2 cannot drive anything. It is not ENHANCING energy retention in the atmosphere. Our mid-level atmospheric temperatures are dropping despite the rise in CO2 concentration.

The Correlation is broken, and the hypothesis is falsified.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

surely you did imply that the power of the Forcing function to warm the atmos at the surface was logarithmically INCREASING with a linear increase in concentration.

-sigh- I wish you knew more about a ln function. If y=ln(x) as you increase x you will also increase y...but with each increment of X the increase in y gets smaller.

As such it DOES increase logarithmically.

The OPPOSITE is the science.

Nope. Graph a simple log function and you'll see:

5th grade math..

Why did you stop at 4th grade?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The more CO2 the less it’s impact. Logarithmic

yes, but that doesn't really matter much. The impact is still increasing and it's still not good.

 

[ding]

It's a mystery to you!

Really if you want to have anyone care one whit about your "opinion" on science you neither understand nor actually even care about you should at least read a bit once in a while. Just to fill in the gaps when you are trying to fake like you are a scientist or engineer.

From what I have read the climate sensitivity is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2. Is that your understanding too? Or is it still a mystery to you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You didn't even understand what it meant.

Show me my error in the mathematics.

Go ahead, "engineer". You've had more math classes than most on here.

Show us how the math works.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You didn't even understand what it meant.

Is this increasing? from Left to Right?

 

[ding]

We've discussed this numerous times, you and I. I wish you remembered.

I hate the stupid "leading questions" game. It is so boring and when you come back around to a topic you already played it on it just gets weird.

Just admit that you don't know the breakdown for the GHG effect of CO2 and it's supposed feedback.

 

[Billy_Bob]

climate sensitivity is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2

That is what the hypothesis states. Empirical evidence shows there is no positive sensitivity to CO2 and the atmosphere dampens CO2's ability to affect its surrounding gases. IF you look at the GHG properties of the other gases, they are not enhanced by CO2. Empirical evidence shows no positive causal link. The atmosphere is reducing the ability of CO2 to warm.

 

[ding]

Believes in AGW but doesn't know how much is due to the GHG effect of CO2 and how much is due to feedback from CO2's GHG effect. Brilliant.

 

[ding]

We've discussed this numerous times

No. I have discussed it numerous times. You don't have a clue what the breakdown of the components are. In part because they don't want you to know.

 

[ding]

So -- let's do an example. What's considered "stable" CO2 is the risque proxy measurements of 280ppm CO2 coming OUT at the warming peaks after the last ice ages. In order to get a simplistic (no feedback, no horseshit "accelerated warming) estimate - we would expect about 1.1DegC INCREASE in surface temperature at 560ppm. We are at about 410ppm. MIGHT reach 560ppm by say 2080 (unless energy tech develops).

So -- that 1DegC required 280ppm ADDITIONAL CO2 conc. HOW much CO2 conc increase to get ANOTHER 1DegC after 2080 and what would the CO2 conc level BE at that point?

Notice how she skipped right over this in her response?

 

[ding]

So you can't? Even a simple ln function???

Wow. Some "Engineer" there.

You do know that engineers actually know how to work ln(x) functions.

I'm not the one who can't state what the different components are. That's you.

 

[ding]

Funny but you don't seem capable of explaining even a simple mathematical equation.

Huh.

That's super "strange".

LOL.

Says the girl who can't say how much is the GHG effect and how much is feedback from the GHG effect. It's the theory you believe. Apparently without actually even understanding it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me help CC a little...

Below is the spectral emission and absorption bands of most of the atmospheric components. The CAGW hypothesis requires each of these components to interact. The problem comes when the emissions of one GHG cannot interact with any other.

Water vapor was supposed to be the crossover point to warm the other components. It has no positive interaction with CO2 by empirical experiment and observation in the atmosphere. Water vapor in fact, absorbs the molecule lowering its temperature. The IR that CO2 emits cannot warm the water. The only way it warms is by collision. Given the ratio of CO2 to water, this warming is very small.

Please explain how CO2 is going to warm the atmosphere at 2-3 times the amount that CO2 was supposed to do alone without positive coupling...

 

[ding]

I'm not sure it's possible for the planet to get to a super greenhouse state with the earth's current landmass configuration thermally isolating the poles from warm marine currents. I believe 1 to 2C above our present temperature is the upper limit. The lower limit is -8C.

 

[ding]

Hey, notice how the "engineer" can't talk about equations! Even simple ln functions!!!

You want me to talk about the equation you are relying on? Do you even know the difference between the GHG effect of CO2 and the supposed feedback from the GHG effect of CO2? You are the one who is supposed to be believing these things and you can't even answer a simple question concerning the components of your beliefs.

 

[ding]

yet note you haven't posted any equations.

Do you know how to do math, Fraud?

It's not my belief to argue, dummy. It's yours. You have not demonstrated that you are capable of separating the GHG effect of CO2 from its supposed feedbacks. You can't explain anything you believe.

 

[ding]

Please explain how CO2 is going to warm the atmosphere at 2-3 times the amount that CO2 was supposed to do alone without positive coupling...

She can't. She can't even state what the associated temperature from CO2 is without the supposed feedbacks.