COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually, it is, in regard to temperature..

View attachment 661317

The temperature affect diminishes with higher concentrations. The actual rise in temp now is just 1.8 deg C per doubling of concentration. At the next doubling it drops to about 0.8 deg C.

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic with regards to concentration, moron.

Look it up.

Learn basic math.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic with regards to concentration, moron.

Look it up.

Learn basic math.

You're having a real hard time with basic theory. Just wow...

I just showed you the graphing of OBSERVED temperature rise in regard to CO2. And you still got the issue wrong..

 

[jc456]

Because a open system allows the transfer of energy to and fro. A closed system doesn't.

AGW CAN'T work with an open system.

They’ve yet to prove it! It’s why they must deceive the globe

 

[Sunsettommy]

Points awarded for such imaginitive insanity there. It takes creativity to make up something that cuckoobananas.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Greenland is still losing mass.

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | Greenland Ice Mass Loss 2002-2023

The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research based on observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites (2002-2017) and GRACE Follow-On (since 2018 - ) indicates that between...

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

The chart in the link is misleading because it is a tiny amount compared to total mass of the ice field.

Here is an honest chart series for Greenland from IMBIE:

The loss is very small compared to total mass, it was built up during the LIA time frame thus not surprising it is melting back down toward a new balance point.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You're having a real hard time with basic theory. Just wow...

Look at the equation: it's logarithmic with respect to concentration.

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185)

Technically speaking this is the change in FORCING due to CO2 but you get the point.

It is logarithmic in relation to CONCENTRATION of the gas (relative concentration). I've highlighted in red the important bit for y ou.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Look at the equation: it's logarithmic with respect to concentration.

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185)

Technically speaking this is the change in FORCING due to CO2 but you get the point.

It is logarithmic in relation to CONCENTRATION of the gas (relative concentration). I've highlighted in red the important bit for y ou.

And if you looked at the graphing, these equations are on it. But you missed that. IT is not a FORCING, it is the effect on energy release. CO2 does not force anything..

 

[Flash]

The Environmental Wacko Libtards have also ignored the fact that Australia had record low temperatures earlier this month.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Environmental Wacko Libtards have also ignored the fact that Australia had record low temperatures earlier this month.

LOL... Yep.. Strangely silent.. The cold records being set are in the hundreds of thousands all over the world. Cold AMO, Cold ENSO, Cold Pacific Decadle Oscillation, etc. And no heat is seen building up in regions that drive these oscillations. They are not being recharged... WHY? This years cold in the Norhtern Hemisphere is going to be brutal.

 

[jc456]

Look at the equation: it's logarithmic with respect to concentration.

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185)

Technically speaking this is the change in FORCING due to CO2 but you get the point.

It is logarithmic in relation to CONCENTRATION of the gas (relative concentration). I've highlighted in red the important bit for y ou.

The more CO2 the less it’s impact. Logarithmic

 

[ding]

As I understand it, technically speaking, the earth is in energy-balance, meaning that all the incoming solar energy gets absorbed and re-radiated back out into space. The key to the greenhouse effect is that the level in the atmosphere at which the IR photons re-radiate back out into space gets higher and higher and less efficient. This winds up trapping more heat at the surface but ultimately those IR photons will make it back out into space.

The 50 million year cooling trend - as evidenced by the oxygen isotope curve - would suggest that overall... the earth wasn't exactly energy balanced because it cooled. Whereas today... some believe the earth absorbs a net 0.6 W/m^2 of solar radiation.

 

[ding]

That isn't what entropy is.

Entropy can be described in a number of different ways.

 

[ding]

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic with regards to concentration, moron.

Look it up.

Learn basic math.

Can you separate out the components for climate sensitivity? How much is the actual GHG effect of CO2 and how much is feedback?

 

[ding]

Look at the equation: it's logarithmic with respect to concentration.

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185)

Technically speaking this is the change in FORCING due to CO2 but you get the point.

It is logarithmic in relation to CONCENTRATION of the gas (relative concentration). I've highlighted in red the important bit for y ou.

So it's the combined phenomenon of GHG effect of CO2 and climate sensitivity or feedback?

Can you separate those components out?

 

[Billy_Bob]

some believe the earth absorbs a net 0.6 W/m^2 of solar radiation.

BINGO..

The reason we do not have wild swing of temperature is due to our oceans. IT is not uncommon for our sun to shift energy within bands. Something we just learned in the last ten or so years. These shifts can have serious implications on how the earth warms or cools.

One of the questions was how does this cooling or warming happen? I think we may have just found out. The solar dimming and change in the Fusion reaction has affected 72% of the earths surface to depths of 700 meters. Its only a region of DWSR in the 0.2-0.6um. A change that is about 1w/m^2 but does not affect TSI.

IF not for the oceanic buffer, we would already be very cold.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic with regards to concentration, moron.

Look it up.

Learn basic math.

OMG -- you heard the words "logarithmic" and STILL screwed up the meaning. The LOG part of CO2 concentration is that it takes TWICE as much CO2 to get the next 1Deg change as it did the last 1Deg increase. It means that over SUCCESSIVE DOUBLINGS, the ability of CO2 to WARM is LOGARITHMICALLY REDUCED.

Hello??? You're looking pretty weak here.

Besides -- CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is ANOTHER completely different thing and it's a CONSTANT (not a log) that takes the CO2 Forcing power and CONVERTS to a surface temp.

Hello?? Still there?

 

[westwall]

OMG -- you heard the words "logarithmic" and STILL screwed up the meaning. The LOG part of CO2 concentration is that it takes TWICE as much CO2 to get the next 1Deg change as it did the last 1Deg increase. It means that over SUCCESSIVE DOUBLINGS, the ability of CO2 to WARM is LOGARITHMICALLY REDUCED.

Hello??? You're looking pretty weak here.

Besides -- CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is ANOTHER completely different thing and it's a CONSTANT (not a log) that takes the CO2 Forcing power and CONVERTS to a surface temp.

Hello?? Still there?

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

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

OMG -- you heard the words "logarithmic" and STILL screwed up the meaning. The LOG part of CO2 concentration is that it takes TWICE as much CO2 to get the next 1Deg change as it did the last 1Deg increase. It means that over SUCCESSIVE DOUBLINGS, the ability of CO2 to WARM is LOGARITHMICALLY REDUCED.

The only error I made was noting that the sensitivity was ln in concentration when it is actually the delta F (change in forcing).

Other than that I made no error.

Besides -- CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is ANOTHER completely different thing and it's a CONSTANT (not a log) that takes the CO2 Forcing power and CONVERTS to a surface temp.

I gave the equation earlier. It contains a ln term. Sorry. Go back and look.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So it's the combined phenomenon of GHG effect of CO2 and climate sensitivity or feedback?

Can you separate those components out?

Read the science some time.

 

[Coyote]

Four different mods have had a go at cleaning this thread. Next off topic flame or troll post will get an automatic thread ejection.

 

[flacaltenn]

The only error I made was noting that the sensitivity was ln in concentration when it is actually the delta F (change in forcing).

Other than that I made no error.




I gave the equation earlier. It contains a ln term. Sorry. Go back and look.

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. The OPPOSITE is the science. In order to get a linearly increasing surface temperature -- you need exponentially increasing CONCENTRATIONS of atmos CO2. Otherwise -- you wouldn't have brought up this fact that turns out INCONVENIENT for your GW panic drama.

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?

5th grade math..