Your graph has the right shape, but for CO2, the x intercept is wrong.
if YOU don't necessarily know the details about logarithmic curves related to CO2, why would you act so gleeful about someone else's understanding being questioned? I honestly don't understand that mindset.
(But don't feel bad, I'm not the world's greatest mathematician myself, so I'm not one to be too brutal about others' lack. But you should know the details of a topic before taking someone else to task)
Actually, all the experts agree that CO2 works on a natural log curve!
If you believe otherwise, you will have to support that with a citation.
Bingo! Center mass hit.
No, I mean what does the importance of the logarithmic curve mean to you?
If it is accurate then what are the implications?
You seem to understand ‘center mass hits’ about as well as Monte Carlo simulations.
Which is to say... you’re confused.
Because I knew the curve was logarithmic and 3G did not.
But your point supports my graph showing the response to added CO2, thank You!I was making a point of what a log curve is for Jack. I KNOW this isn't the CO2 curve and I explicitly stated so in my post.
Amazing what a guy can do with an education that doesnt go past high school trigonometry and Rocks for Jocks.
Define significant? Adding CO2 will cause some additional warming, the question still is if that warmingDo they also agree that CO2 wont cause significant warming if we continue to emit it at current levels?
For the record, my college didn't have anything like "Rocks for Jocks."
But here, today, I knew the sensitivity curve is logarithmic, as you, apparently, did not.
Of course I did.
You just seem totally confused, as does Longview.
My post was about the fact that Longview is arguing CO2 isn’t substantially going to be impacting global warming in the future, and his ‘proof’ is not much more solid than some disembodied graph he found on the Internet.
But you wouldn’t understand, because you’re a denier.
in the case of all the CO2 5.35 X ln(271.8)=29.987 W/m2.ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2
The proof is purely in the numbers.
If all the CO2 form the beginning of our atmosphere(~1ppm) to the level of 271.8 ppm, caused 30 W/m2 of energy imbalance
then the equation used by everyone, including the IPCC shows that the first 20 ppm pushed more than half of the total imbalance.
Since you will not believe me, let's run the numbers.
I will use the ACS's formula
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
in the case of all the CO2 5.35 X ln(271.8)=29.987 W/m2.
So the change from 1 ppm to 20 ppm, is 5.35 X ln(20)=16.027W/m2
and the rest of the CO2 above 20 ppm, is 5.35 X ln(271.8/20)=13.95W/m2.
So the graph I found from the Washington state government (and Cited),
is supported by numbers and formulas from the American Chemical Society.
So go ahead, and show me how CO2's forcing is not a natural log curve?
You will believe as your faith dictates! Carry on!I really dont care about your mathematical masturbation.
All I can tell you is that the overwhelming consensus is that there is substantial threat to having CO2 levels continuing to increase at the current rate.
And you can ‘run numbers’ all day long to tell us all differently, but after the initial peals of laughter, it ends up being kinda pitiful.
You will believe as your faith dictates! Carry on!
I am going to say that you do not understand how CO2 warms the surface.
Doubling the CO2 level from say 1 ppm to 2 ppm, would have the same effect as moving from 300 ppm to 600 ppm,
that is how a doubling curve works.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/164001
I found this graph on a state site (Not a blog) Early increases in CO2 had a much greater warming per ppm than later increases.
Per the Modtran calculations the first 20 ppm caused most of the CO2 warming.
No need, I already believe it!Yes, I have faith that the experts in the field, who are incredibly talented and smart and have devoted their entire careers to understanding the issues are better equipped to understand it than some anonymous internet rando who seems to be a bit confused.
Call me crazy.
I didn't say 1 ppm, I said 1 molecule. Do you really think that adding 1 more molecule to a single molecule in the atmosphere would have the same effect as moving from 300 ppm to 600 ppm? That the presence of a single additional molecule could raise the temperature of the Earth by a degree or two? :shock:
Because I knew the curve was logarithmic and 3G did not.
But your point supports my graph showing the response to added CO2, thank You!
I am sure that the response would fall off it's natural log curve somewhere., but likely quite a bit before 1 ppm.I didn't say 1 ppm, I said 1 molecule. Do you really think that adding 1 more molecule to a single molecule in the atmosphere would have the same effect as moving from 300 ppm to 600 ppm? That the presence of a single additional molecule could raise the temperature of the Earth by a degree or two? :shock:
For the record, my college didn't have anything like "Rocks for Jocks."
More CO2 (to a point) will not be a problem, The climate is simply not that sensitive to added CO2.At no point was I disagreeing with the curve you showed. We ALL know that radiative forcing of CO2 is logarithmic in relative concentration. (Again, sounded like 3G was talking about adding moles of CO2 so I assume that all things being equal it would carry the same relationship, but I wasn't sure what the point of proposing adding 1ppm vs 1molecule of CO2 was getting at.)
The reason I asked Jack about the nature of a logarithmic curve was:
1. He seemed so pleased to see a "hit" on 3G. So I just wanted to make sure Jack, himself, was as or more informed on what that meant (it seems unlikely that he was)
2. The implication is often that the effect of added CO2 is somehow capped out or will be insignificant for added CO2 and that isn't necessarily so (the bands are not fully saturated and the real effect of added CO2 will be to simply push up the boundary where the atmosphere re-radiates back into space to higher and higher levels where it becomes radiatively inefficient)
(Just hoping to forestall the inevitable concept that more added CO2 won't be a problem. It will.)
Define significant? Adding CO2 will cause some additional warming, the question still is if that warming
will be enough to cause any concern.
But why? Only based on the assumptions used in models?The vast majority of the earth's climate scientists, oceanic and atmospheric and earth scientists over the last 50 or so years believe it will.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?