Scientists Simulate "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" That Turns Earth Into Uninhabitable Hell

[jc456]

The grownups are talking. The kiddie table is that way. Here's a juice box.

I knew you had juice boxes. Your daily intake is important

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And Leon’s getting larger

It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.

 

[jc456]

It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.

Don’t call me Shirley

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don’t call me Shirley

I speak jive.

 

[jc456]

I speak jive.

Bubba don’t want no help, bubba don’t need no help, jive turkey

 

[Seymour Flops]

The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is logarithmic and there are both positive and negative feedbacks to the process. When the Earth's temperature rises - from whatever cause - it increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is also a powerful greenhouse gas.

Not just "also," water vapor is a key greenhouse gas.

From Google Bard:

In fact, it's the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, making up about 70% of the natural greenhouse effect. This means that it plays a crucial role in keeping our planet warm enough to be habitable.

Here's how water vapor works as a greenhouse gas:

• Traps heat: When sunlight reaches Earth, some of it is reflected back into space. However, some of the sunlight is absorbed by Earth's surface and re-emitted as infrared radiation. Water vapor in the atmosphere absorbs this infrared radiation and traps it, preventing it from escaping back into space. This trapped heat is what warms our planet.

The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is logarithmic and there are both positive and negative feedbacks to the process. When the Earth's temperature rises - from whatever cause - it increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is also a powerful greenhouse gas. Additionally, gases dissolve in water, in the oceans, but they have the opposite relationship with temperature as do dissolved solids (as sugar in tea). As the temperature of the oceans increase, they can hold less and less dissolved gases and so CO2 comes out of solution. The same effect can release enormous amounts of methane, another greenhouse gas, from the world's tundras.

Anyway, the results of it all, based on a great deal of science, are two measures called Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR).

ECS is defined as the amount of warming expected if CO2 were hypothetically, instantaneously doubled and sustained from preindustrial levels (taken as 280 ppm) and the climate was then left to reach complete equilibrium. The latest best estimate is a value of 3C within a likely range of 2.5C to 4C and a very likely range of 2C to 5C

TCR is defined as the amount of warming that would take place by the time CO2 had doubled from pre-industrial levels, after increasing at a hypothetical steady rate of 1% per year to that point. I don't actually know how many years that would require but the best estimates of that value are 1.8C with a likely range between 1.4C and 2.2 C and a very likely range of 1.2C to 2.4C


View attachment 878100

Could you put that in your own words, please?

Additionally, gases dissolve in water, in the oceans, but they have the opposite relationship with temperature as do dissolved solids (as sugar in tea). As the temperature of the oceans increase, they can hold less and less dissolved gases and so CO2 comes out of solution. The same effect can release enormous amounts of methane, another greenhouse gas, from the world's tundras.

Anyway, the results of it all, based on a great deal of science, are two measures called Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR).

ECS is defined as the amount of warming expected if CO2 were hypothetically, instantaneously doubled and sustained from preindustrial levels (taken as 280 ppm) and the climate was then left to reach complete equilibrium. The latest best estimate is a value of 3C within a likely range of 2.5C to 4C and a very likely range of 2C to 5C

Interesting "hypothetical." A hypothesis is subject to experiments and is disprovable, by proving the null hypothesis. What experiments have been done in an attempt to prove the null hypothesis? Please link to any such experiments, please.

Or do you mean "hypothetical" in the layman's colloquial meaning, which has nothing to do with science?

TCR is defined as the amount of warming that would take place by the time CO2 had doubled from pre-industrial levels, after increasing at a hypothetical steady rate of 1% per year to that point. I don't actually know how many years that would require but the best estimates of that value are 1.8C with a likely range between 1.4C and 2.2 C and a very likely range of 1.2C to 2.4C

Well, of course you don't "know" that. No one does. It's all speculating about a hypothesis (in the layman's sense of he word), with no experimentation possible, or even desired by the "climate scientists."

 

[Crick]

Not just "also," water vapor is a key greenhouse gas.

From Google Bard:

In fact, it's the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, making up about 70% of the natural greenhouse effect. This means that it plays a crucial role in keeping our planet warm enough to be habitable.

Here's how water vapor works as a greenhouse gas:

• Traps heat: When sunlight reaches Earth, some of it is reflected back into space. However, some of the sunlight is absorbed by Earth's surface and re-emitted as infrared radiation. Water vapor in the atmosphere absorbs this infrared radiation and traps it, preventing it from escaping back into space. This trapped heat is what warms our planet.

Water vapor differs from other greenhouse gases because it is a precipitable component. Humans cannot increase it's level in the atmosphere by any method other than increasing the atmosphere's temperature.

Could you put that in your own words, please?

Those were my words.

Interesting "hypothetical." A hypothesis is subject to experiments and is disprovable, by proving the null hypothesis. What experiments have been done in an attempt to prove the null hypothesis? Please link to any such experiments, please.

Are you talking about the appearance of "hypothetical" in the definitions of ECS and TCR. Think of the definitions of mph and mpg. The both involve similar hypotheticals: a car driving at a precise speed for one hour or one gallon.

Or do you mean "hypothetical" in the layman's colloquial meaning, which has nothing to do with science?

It was meant to indicate that the definitions include a state not necessarily extant in the real world. If you're having trouble understanding this, please just say so.

Well, of course you don't "know" that. No one does.

It [how many years to double CO2 at 1% per year] is easily calculated, I just haven't bothered to do the math. Google tells me it would take 72 years.

It's all speculating about a hypothesis (in the layman's sense of he word), with no experimentation possible, or even desired by the "climate scientists."

Your comments here really seem to indicate you're not following the conversation.

 

[jc456]

Are you talking about the appearance of "hypothetical" in the definitions of ECS and TCR. Think of the definitions of mph and mpg. The both involve similar hypotheticals: a car driving at a precise speed for one hour or one gallon

So you don’t even know what a hypothetical means! Wow

 

[Crick]

So you don’t even know what a hypothetical means! Wow

What might YOU think it means?

 

[jc456]

What might YOU think it means?

What the definition says. “What if scenarios! Why don’t you?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Water vapor differs from other greenhouse gases because it is a precipitable component. Humans cannot increase it's level in the atmosphere by any method other than increasing the atmosphere's temperature.

That statement shows the wrong-headedness of the AGW alarmists' approach to "global warming."

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, and its beneficial effects are not disputed by any reputable scientist, regardless of their stance on AGW.

But to you it "doesn't count," because humans did not produce it. Plus you are factually wrong. Every time a human boils a pot of water for boiled eggs, soup, etc. or produces steam to power a steam turbine, it increases the level of water vapor.

Sure, it is by a minute amount, relative to Earth's atmosphere. But the same is true of all human increase in greenhouse gases. That humans are causing the climate to change is an idea that can only be supported by ignoring the truism that correlation does not imply causation.

Those were my words.

Are you talking about the appearance of "hypothetical" in the definitions of ECS and TCR. Think of the definitions of mph and mpg. The both involve similar hypotheticals: a car driving at a precise speed for one hour or one gallon.

It was meant to indicate that the definitions include a state not necessarily extant in the real world. If you're having trouble understanding this, please just say so.

No, I understood it perfectly. None of so-called "AGW theory" uses conditions extant in the real world. It relies on computer models, in which the computers are carefully programed to give the desired result, so that alarmists can say, "See? The computer said so!"

It [how many years to double CO2 at 1% per year] is easily calculated, I just haven't bothered to do the math. Google tells me it would take 72 years.

Your comments here really seem to indicate you're not following the conversation.

Yes, you needn't bother. The "Rule of 72" is well known to anyone who takes an interest in their financial investments.

Point is that it is a meaningless number in the context of AGW if you have no evidence of any steady and predictable 1% increase in CO2, or temperature, or anything else.

It would be as if I walked into a bank and the manager says, "You should invest your money in one of our money market account's. Why do you realize that if the money market earns 20% interest per year, you would double your money in less than four years?" And shows me this:

But, I look at the terms of service for the CD, and it nowhere states I'll get 20%. Instead is says "interest may vary," or some such.

I question the manager and he says, "Double your money in four years, man! That's the part I want you to think about! Double!

 

[abu afak]

Not just "also," water vapor is a key greenhouse gas.

From Google Bard:

In fact, it's the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, making up about 70% of the natural greenhouse effect. This means that it plays a crucial role in keeping our planet warm enough to be habitable.

Here's how water vapor works as a greenhouse gas:

• Traps heat: When sunlight reaches Earth, some of it is reflected back into space. However, some of the sunlight is absorbed by Earth's surface and re-emitted as infrared radiation. Water vapor in the atmosphere absorbs this infrared radiation and traps it, preventing it from escaping back into space. This trapped heat is what warms our planet.

Could you put that in your own words, please?

Interesting "hypothetical." A hypothesis is subject to experiments and is disprovable, by proving the null hypothesis. What experiments have been done in an attempt to prove the null hypothesis? Please link to any such experiments, please.

Or do you mean "hypothetical" in the layman's colloquial meaning, which has nothing to do with science?

Well, of course you don't "know" that. No one does. It's all speculating about a hypothesis (in the layman's sense of he word), with no experimentation possible, or even desired by the "climate scientists."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect.
Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with water vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

`

 

[jc456]

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect.
Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with water vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

`

DISINFORMATION

 

[miketx]

As if 2 scientists cannot disagree. So, what you are saying is that what is real science is whatever the first one says to you?

That's cause they don't have the power or the authority to effect change and that may be a good thing.

 

[miketx]

Earth could become an uninhabitable HELL, study shows

Earth could look like Venus due to the 'runaway greenhouse effect' - a dramatic escalation in temperatures, report scientists at the University of Geneva.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The linked story talks about this simulation. The reason I am posting about it here is to point out what is going on here. These "climate scientists" have been pulling stunts like this for years now. They run these concocted computer models that are dependent upon multiple variables, many combinations of which either do not occur in nature or are highly unlikely to occur. Some of their modeling runs mathematical equations that work going forward, but do not work in reverse. For example, 10 plus 10 equals 20. 20 minus 10 equals 10. But in the climate scientology world, where ongoing life-and-death crisis is necessary to keep the funding flowing, 10 plus 10 equals 20, but 20 minus 10 may equal 3. This is the sort of end-result focused, corrupt modeling that the "climate scientists" are dealing with. They seemingly attempt to justify such an unscientific approach with the rather base ethic of "Yeah, but what if it IS true?!? Then we are all going to die!!"

This "simulation" is dependent upon the equations and variables these "climate scientists" programmed. I mean, they could just as easily create a simulation of another ice age. It depends on who is writing the code in the modeling software. Why aren't people asking for independent evaluations of these models? I could create a modeling system on paper that determines for every cigar I smoke I get a sloppy hummer from Erin Burnett. That may be what I want to happen, but I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that it ain't gonna happen.

The purpose of this end of the world simulation is to keep people upset in order to (1) keep the money flowing to these half-assed scientists, because this is how they are getting paid; and (2) to further the neo-Marxist narratives that keep people on edge and falsely believing that every day they wake up on the precipice of death due to one of many non-existent crises.

If that's what it takes to rid us of the scourge of leftism, bring it.

 

[EMH]

Now that you've had a good cry, I bet you feel better, so care to address the thread topic?

The big one is that every single denier here of fell hard for a stupid tabloid story. Not oone of them even considered looking at the actual scientific paper. Why should they? They don't need any stupid facts .Their masters told them what to say.

Why are deniers always so gullible?

When you were confronted with the claims of McBullshit, you admitted that McBullshit is lying about the tectonic movement of land mass Antarctica....

Wanna see it ....???

 

[mamooth]

When you were confronted with the claims of McBullshit, you admitted that McBullshit is lying about the tectonic movement of land mass Antarctica....

Wanna see it ....???

If you can first tell us how it applies to the topic of this thread, sure.

However, if it's just some crazy personal vendetta thing, then nobody wants to see it.

 

[mamooth]

That statement shows the wrong-headedness of the AGW alarmists' approach to "global warming."

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, and its beneficial effects are not disputed by any reputable scientist, regardless of their stance on AGW.

But to you it "doesn't count," because humans did not produce it.

If you're just going to make up crazy stories about what the normal people supposedly believe, why should anyone bother talking to you?

We understand. Due to your complete ignorance of the topic, you can't debate it, and you know it. That means the only option you see as viable is making up these crazy strawmen to argue against.

It relies on computer models,

No, it doesn't. The direct measurements prove the human cause of the current fast warming, no models required.

Wait, you didn't know that? Oh, that's right. You only know what the cult wants you to know, and the cult keeps you ignorant.

in which the computers are carefully programed to give the desired result, so that alarmists can say, "See? The computer said so!"

You have no evidence to back up that crazy story. The cult told you to repeat it, so you do. You're projecting your own side's dishonest nature. They always lie for money and political power, so you assume everyone must be like that.

That's not the case. We are not like you. We will not lie for money and political power. Sadly, you're too far gone to understand that. You're so corrupt, you can't even imagine that someone else could be ethical.

The "Rule of 72" is well known to anyone who takes an interest in their financial investments.

And it has no bearing on climate.

CO2 feedback is logarithmic.

Human emissions are not exponential.

Human emissions are on top of natural emissions.

There are CO2 sinks as well as sources.

Point is that it is a meaningless number in the context of AGW if you have no evidence of any steady and predictable 1% increase in CO2, or temperature, or anything else.

We agree it's meaningless, so why did you bring it up? No one else was talking about exponential warming. It looks like another strawman that you tossed in so you could avoid talking about the actual science.

 

[Crick]

If you're just going to make up crazy stories about what the normal people supposedly believe, why should anyone bother talking to you?

We understand. Due to your complete ignorance of the topic, you can't debate it, and you know it. That means the only option you see as viable is making up these crazy strawmen to argue against.

No, it doesn't. The direct measurements prove the human cause of the current fast warming, no models required.

Wait, you didn't know that? Oh, that's right. You only know what the cult wants you to know, and the cult keeps you ignorant.


You have no evidence to back up that crazy story. The cult told you to repeat it, so you do. You're projecting your own side's dishonest nature. They always lie for money and political power, so you assume everyone must be like that.

That's not the case. We are not like you. We will not lie for money and political power. Sadly, you're too far gone to understand that. You're so corrupt, you can't even imagine that someone else could be ethical.

And it has no bearing on climate.

CO2 feedback is logarithmic.

Human emissions are not exponential.

Human emissions are on top of natural emissions.

There are CO2 sinks as well as sources.


We agree it's meaningless, so why did you bring it up? No one else was talking about exponential warming. It looks like another strawman that you tossed in so you could avoid talking about the actual science.

72 came up in the definition of transient climate response (TCR).

 

[ding]

No, it doesn't. The direct measurements prove the human cause of the current fast warming, no models required.

Incorrect. The planet is naturally warming up to it's pre-glacial temperature just like it always has for the past 3 million years, you idiot.