Remember me
▼ Content

There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.


There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.11-03-2019 23:13
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(837)
Assuming the first 10 ppm CO2 absorbed 98% or 99% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs, increasing CO2 concentration beyond the first 10 ppm makes no difference to temperature.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html
12-03-2019 04:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Assuming the first 10 ppm CO2 absorbed 98% or 99% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs,


Let's NOT assume this. It would be stupid to do so.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
increasing CO2 concentration beyond the first 10 ppm makes no difference to temperature.

This is true always, simply because atmospheric composition is not a factor in the temperature of a black body.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

... and then *it* instantaneously begins radiating that energy away at different wavelengths per it's temperature according to Planck's law, Wein's law and good-ol' reliable Stefan-Boltzmann.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-03-2019 06:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
Why does no one consider how CO2 effects atmospheric temperatures?
If the average global temperature is 58.5° F. which is about 287.9 Kelvin, why does CO2 have so much influence so far above 0 Kelvin and yet so little influence if the temperature drops 20 kelvins?
That simply means that about 200 ppm is responsible for the first 268 Kelvin. I'd like to think there wouldn't be such a severe discrepancy in the amount of warming that 200 ppm is responsible for. This is almost funny.
12-03-2019 13:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
James___ wrote: Why does no one consider how CO2 effects atmospheric temperatures?

Why does no one ever post any science showing that CO2 somehow affects the earth's average global temperature?

Oh wait, science already says that CO2 doesn't.

I guess that answers your question.

James___ wrote: If the average global temperature is 58.5° F. which is about 287.9 Kelvin,

I suppose that if you are going to take a wild guess at the earth's average global temperature, you might want to guess a bit cooler, but 58.5° F is fine for a hypothetical.

James___ wrote: why does CO2 have so much influence so far above 0 Kelvin and yet so little influence if the temperature drops 20 kelvins?

Do you have any CO2-influence science? Why don't you start with that and let the science tell you exactly what influence CO2 has at any arbitrarily selected temperature?

James___ wrote: That simply means that about 200 ppm is responsible for the first 268 Kelvin.

Responsible? CO2? Not the sun? Hmmm.

I hope you realize that despite the moon having no CO2, the sun still manages to cook the crap out of it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
At what ppm does CO2 capture 99% of IR?124-03-2019 05:24
How much does it cost to rocket 1 billion tons of CO2 into space like Green New Deal does?022-03-2019 17:32
Alpine tundra releases long-frozen CO2 to the atmosphere, exacerbating climate warming522-03-2019 04:21
Oceans absorb almost a third of global CO2 emissions, but at what cost?220-03-2019 04:36
411.66 PPM: Scientists Alarmed by Early Rise in Atmospheric CO2209-03-2019 16:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact