Remember me
▼ Content

Where did they come up with 450 ppm CO2 = 2 C rise in temperature?


Where did they come up with 450 ppm CO2 = 2 C rise in temperature?07-02-2019 00:55
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(560)
Where do they come up with this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjIJsVEquE
07-02-2019 01:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Where do they come up with this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjIJsVEquE


Fabricating numbers and calling them 'data'. That's where.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2019 04:34
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Where do they come up with this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjIJsVEquE


You'll have to ask the person who posted the video. Maybe they will know. Maybe.

You're asking about "climate sensitivity." The sensitivity of the Earth's climate to increased CO2.

Nobody really knows the answer. Not for sure. There are a lot of different estimates arrived at in different ways. Two main methods are to either calculate the sensitivity from physical principles or to exrapolate based on what has happened in the past.

The calculation method isn't that hard when considering only temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere, but the complications of water vapor feedback and clouds and oceans and everything else in the real world make for a lot of uncertainty.

As far as extrapolating from the past, again uncertainties,

Maybe start with the wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Also, LOTs of articles on the subject in the scientific literature.
07-02-2019 09:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
still learning wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Where do they come up with this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjIJsVEquE


You'll have to ask the person who posted the video. Maybe they will know. Maybe.

I do not debate people that aren't here to answer for what they say.
still learning wrote:
You're asking about "climate sensitivity." The sensitivity of the Earth's climate to increased CO2.

There is no such thing as "Earth's climate". There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. The effect of CO2 on Earth's temperature is zero.
still learning wrote:
Nobody really knows the answer. Not for sure.

Yes. For sure. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law apply here.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot destroy energy into nothing.
* You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. You cannot make heat flow backwards.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth by 'trapping' or 'slowing' heat and increase the temperature of Earth at the same time.
* You cannot 'trap' or 'slow' heat.

All CO2 absorption of infrared light does is provide another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere. Absorption of surface emitted IR does not warm the Earth.

still learning wrote:
There are a lot of different estimates arrived at in different ways.

They are bogus. It is zero...zilch...nada.
still learning wrote:
Two main methods are to either calculate the sensitivity from physical principles or to exrapolate based on what has happened in the past.

There is no calculation. The records you refer to don't exist.
still learning wrote:
The calculation method isn't that hard when considering only temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere,

Okay. Let's see your equation. Remember, you have to back up that equation with a theory of science. All theories of science are falsifiable ones.
still learning wrote:
but the complications of water vapor feedback and clouds and oceans and everything else in the real world make for a lot of uncertainty.

Ignore these factors for now. Let's see your equation and the theory of science backing it up.
still learning wrote:
As far as extrapolating from the past, again uncertainties,

Because there is no record from the past that's of any use.
still learning wrote:
Start with the Wikipedia entry...deleted Holy Link...

Wikipedia links are summarily discarded. They are not a valid source. You cannot use them with me. Their articles are too often biased, badly written, or just plain wrong.
still learning wrote:
Also, LOTs of articles on the subject in the scientific literature.

Science isn't 'literature'. It is not a book or textbook. It is not a university course. It is not a society or academy. It is not a government agency or a university. It is not a 'study' or a 'research'. It is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science does not use consensus.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

You say there is theory of science for 'global warming'. The first problem you must solve is to DEFINE 'global warming'. You cannot define a word or phrase with itself. No theory is possible, not even a nonscientific theory, based on a meaningless buzzword, for the resulting argument is a void argument and not valid.

Once you've done that, we can start discussing any theories that you might have. YOU have to present your arguments. Holy Links will be ignored. You cannot substitute someone else's arguments as your own.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Where did they come up with 450 ppm CO2 = 2 C rise in temperature?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
10 ppm O3 in stratosphere convert 98% of UV into heat, so what makes people think715-02-2019 19:09
Do you think Marxists in America will gain power and rocket CO2 into space215-02-2019 04:42
10 years ago, Marxist Obama declared CO2 was a poison gas in EPA to bankrupt215-02-2019 04:37
Do air CO2 capture factories make more CO2 emission?215-02-2019 03:58
Do you think UN Marxists will order America to build 250,000 air CO2 catpure factories costing314-02-2019 22:14
▲ 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