We are already passed 50% pf the possible forcing from the first CO2 doubling.Is it a silly question but given that the rise in CO2 as a proportion of the total CO2 in the air has probably seen the max already, given the low start and current comparitive high figure, surely the max rate of temperature growth has already happened?
We are already passed 50% pf the possible forcing from the first CO2 doubling.
This can be easily demonstrated with the energy imbalance equation the IPCC uses.
since 5.35 X ln(2)=~3.71 Wm-2, then 5.35 X ln(408/280)= 2.014 Wm-2,
while 5.35 X ln(560/408)= 1.69 Wm-2.
Maybe, let's see how this come out.
View attachment 67245841
The rate of rise vs run decreases as CO2 levels increase.
Yeah, we need a forcing vs year graph really so you can see when the gradient was steepest.
Note; this is beyond my can-be-arsed vs ability.
People aren't buying the alarmism.
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/11/washington-state-voters-reject-carbon-dioxide-tax-again-december-7-2018/"][/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Washington State Voters Reject Carbon Dioxide Tax, Again December 7, 2018[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]From The Heartland Institute. By Joe Barnett Tax would have funded ‘clean energy’ projects For the second time in two years, Washington State voters rejected a proposal to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Fifty-six percent of those voting in Washington’s midterm elections said no to a referendum that would have made the state the first in…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/11/washington-state-voters-reject-carbon-dioxide-tax-again-december-7-2018/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
People vote against a tax, therefore climate change isn't a problem!
Yeah, we need a forcing vs year graph really so you can see when the gradient was steepest.
Note; this is beyond my can-be-arsed vs ability.
Nothing to be alarmed about.
Word it however you like. People voting against a tax is not scientific evidence of... well, anything.
Yeah, we need a forcing vs year graph really so you can see when the gradient was steepest.
Note; this is beyond my can-be-arsed vs ability.
I used the existing growth curve of .11 ppm per year, plus the average growth over the last decade.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
It seems the growth flattens out the curve, but still shows that there is only 1.6 Wm-2 or so left for the first doubling,
compared, to the slightly over 2 Wm-2 that have already occurred.
View attachment 67245850
Nice graph, does not really show what I was after in terms of the way the warming should follow the input of constant (ish) increase in CO2 vs warming increase (reducing per increase).
I know it doesn't show what you want. A wise person would have taken that as an opportunity to revise their expectations and beliefs. Starting with this absurd notion that the CO2 increase has been constant... ish :roll: Both population and economic activity have been increasing exponentially. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The number I used was I took the average growth from the last decade, and then added ESRL's .11 ppm per year on top of that.Isn't the rate of increase of CO2 around 2ppm/yr?
And why is it a straight line? Suely if you have a constant increase in CO2 the warming would be decreasing?
The number I used was I took the average growth from the last decade, and then added ESRL's .11 ppm per year on top of that.
I think the reason the line looks straight, is the predicted growth keeps up with the loss of efficiency of CO2's response.
In any case it looks like the higher RCP's would be too high, so RPC8.5 would require a much higher growth rate.
If we were to look at the past growth like how a stock moves up and down, it looks like we hit resistanceOh, so the 0.11ppm/yr/yr is an acceleration.
Assuming that is the case, how long before the slope reaches, or has reached, the max?
The graphs showing CO2 levels show about a 2ppm/yr increase.
The rate of human output have indeed increased but then the rate of uptake of CO2 that the natural world has is a function of the amount in the air.
Thus the rate of increase appears to be constant-ish. Despite your want for a scary line flying off upwards.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...sues/327832-atmospheric-co2-tops-408-ppm.html
Sure, that would be why the concentrations averaged a 0.83ppm per year increase in the 1960s, 1.9ppm per year in the 2000s and 2.36ppm per year in the 2010s :roll:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html
Pro tip; if one of the world's biggest and most thorough scientific collaboration reports says one thing, and you've glanced at a graph to 'confirm' your wishful thinking to the contrary, you're probably still the one who is wrong. As usual.
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?