• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deniers, explained.

Your graph has the right shape, but for CO2, the x intercept is wrong.

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.
 
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)

Because I knew the curve was logarithmic and 3G did not.
 
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.

Do they also agree that CO2 wont cause significant warming if we continue to emit it at current levels?
 
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.
But your point supports my graph showing the response to added CO2, thank You!
 
Amazing what a guy can do with an education that doesnt go past high school trigonometry and Rocks for Jocks.

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.
 
Do they also agree that CO2 wont cause significant warming if we continue to emit it at current levels?
Define significant? Adding CO2 will cause some additional warming, the question still is if that warming
will be enough to cause any concern.
Based on the general agreement that ~20% of the warmer Earth is from all the CO2 up to the pre industrial level,
all the CO2 that came before, has only caused 6.6C of warming.
It looks like there is a minimum of 8.129 doubling s, to get from 1ppm to 271.8 ppm,
so each fully equalized doubling, only created 6.6/8.129= .812C.
It means that there are net feedbacks, negative ones!
 
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.
 
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.

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
ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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!
 
You will believe as your faith dictates! Carry on!

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 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.
images

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.

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:
 
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.
No need, I already believe it!
 
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:

But...but.... HE DID THE CALCULATIONS!
 
Because I knew the curve was logarithmic and 3G did not.

But do you know what it means to be "logarithmic" which is what I asked you.

(BTW: I don't know what 3G does or doesn't know (it appears that 3G and longview were talking past each other one discussing CO2 logarithmic on relative concentration and the other talking about added moles of CO2. I assume that CO2 is logarithmic in terms of moles of added CO2 but I don't know for certain. We DO know that on a basis of relative concentration it is logarithmic.)
 
But your point supports my graph showing the response to added CO2, thank You!

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.)
 
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:
I am sure that the response would fall off it's natural log curve somewhere., but likely quite a bit before 1 ppm.
Sort of like in a vacuum system, when you hit the boundary between viscus flow and molecular flow.
There are modtran runs I think going back to 1ppm, that are still on the same log curve.

The reality is that the accepted science says that all the CO2 in the atmosphere up to the pre industrial level,
added 30 W/m2 of energy imbalance, and ~6.6 C of warming.
All the past warming divided by all the forced imbalance, (6.6/30=.22) amounts to how the climate responds to energy imbalances
when fully equalized, so .22C per Watt per meter squared on energy imbalance.
If the alarmist are to be believed then the 3.71 W/m2 from a doubling of CO2, would somehow be equal to between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Let's check how those numbers compare to the historic sensitivity?
1.5C/3.71= .40 C per W/m2, vs 3C/3.71=.80 C per W/m2, vs 4.5C/3.71W/m2=1.21Cper W/m2.
The entire range is higher than the stated response for all CO2 since Earth had an atmosphere.
 
For the record, my college didn't have anything like "Rocks for Jocks."

Most universities do. It's called Intro Geology. Those of us who teach it called it "Rocks for Jocks" precisely because it was a favorite of folks who were at college but didn't want to stress their GPA and their possible scholarship funding by taking a hard-core science class. eg student athletes.

The joke among those of us who went into geology was that we went in because we couldn't handle the math in chemistry, physics or engineering. I'll 'fess up to that to some extent. I am a weaker mathematician than I should be. But once you get up into grad level stuff it all kind of evens out. And considering I went on to spend a huge amount of time taking higher level chem classes I couldn't hide forever.

I believe you told us you took an intro geology class (?) If so, it was likely a "rocks for jocks" kind of class. At almost all of the universities I attended and taught at, intro geology was kinda that.

(Now, that being said, I've seen some Ivy League unis that probably had a bit more mathematical robustness and stringency even at the "intro" level, but by and large intro geology is a "friendly" science class to take for undergrads).
 
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.)
More CO2 (to a point) will not be a problem, The climate is simply not that sensitive to added CO2.
When I say to a point, I do not think, we will even reach the first doubling of CO2 at 560 ppm, and if we do, it will not be an issue.
Reaching a second doubling to 1120 ppm, would be almost impossible.
 
Define significant? Adding CO2 will cause some additional warming, the question still is if that warming
will be enough to cause any concern.

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.
 
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.
But why? Only based on the assumptions used in models?
We know that Earth is 33C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent,
because of a 150 W/m2 of Energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
Of that 33 C, 20%, or 6.6C is from all the CO2 present in the atmosphere up to the pre industrial level of ~272 ppm.
If all the doubling s of CO2 between 1 ppm and 272 ppm, only produced 6.6C of warming,
Why would anyone believe that changing the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, would produce between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming.
It simply defies logic, to believe that the new CO2 doubling will somehow behave different than earlier CO2 doubling s.
 
Back
Top Bottom