Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.

Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.08-03-2017 20:55
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	I think I read once that increases of CO2 in the atmosphere without positive feedback from other greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) has a hyperbolic relationship with global temperatures. That is it approaches a maximum temperature. Is this true?
08-03-2017 21:32
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	The Royal society gives a figure of 3.6 Watts per square meter from a doubling of CO2. That's about 1c. I have no idea if this is correct or not. Well beyond my physics. Edited on 08-03-2017 21:32
08-03-2017 23:17
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Frescomexico wrote: I think I read....... has a hyperbolic relationship with global temperatures. That is it approaches a maximum temperature. Is this true? Read again. A logarithmic relationship. Each doubling of atmospheric CO2 would have the same effect. In principle. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing A graph that shows atmospheric CO2 on one axis and temperature on the other has a curve that is initially steep and flattens out. Doesn't ever completely level out though. The reality though, with water vapor and clouds and dust and whatnot is different.
09-03-2017 18:43
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Tim the plumber wrote: The Royal society gives a figure of 3.6 Watts per square meter from a doubling of CO2. That's about 1c. I have no idea if this is correct or not. Well beyond my physics. Sorry, +3c for a doubling of CO2. Sleep enlightens..
09-03-2017 23:41
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	Thanks still learning, (evidently so am I) a logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration is a diminishing returns situation which, by itself, does not result in a catastrophic increase in temperature. In order to show that increasing CO2 will cause catastrophic global temperature rise it is necessary to leave empirical science and enter the realm of modeling. In the modeling realm we combine what we know, and can prove empirically, with what we don't know, and on which we can only make educated guesses. The key guess in the panic models is that the "greenhouse effect" of increased CO2 will trigger a positive feedback, probably through water vapor, to leverage the temperature rise to catastrophic levels. As I understand it, there is no evidence of positive feedback, or negative feedback, but the modelers chose positive. Should we be basing so much on such an unsubstantiated choice? Let's back off and get some more scientific evidence that there is a problem.

10-03-2017 00:37
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Frescomexico wrote: Thanks still learning... guess... increased CO2 will trigger a positive feedback, probably through water vapor, to leverage the temperature rise to catastrophic levels. Mixing hyperbolic & logarithmic functions is a lazy beginner's botch. Ain't no guess on water vapor feedback. Increasing temperature due to man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing CO2 increases, WILL control phase change infra-red energy absorbing water vapor increases AND corresponding temperature increases. https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm Frescomexico slides in like its a beginner. But it uses the same tactics all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy AGW denier liar whiners use.
10-03-2017 02:56
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Frescomexico wrote: ......The key guess in the panic models is that the "greenhouse effect" of increased CO2 will trigger a positive feedback, probably through water vapor, to leverage the temperature rise to catastrophic levels...... What panic models? Something from an actual climate scientist? Catastrophic level? Guess one person's inconvenience is another person's catastrophe. Bangladesh villages being uninhabitable because of rising sealevel would be catastrophic for the people who live there but it wouldn't be a catastrophe for me. First-world nations will be able to adapt. Expensive adaptations, true. An expense that could have been avoided. Some of that adaptation will be abandonment. Third world? Not all will be able to adapt. Water vapor does provide a positive feedback to warming. Warmer air is able to hold more water vapor than cooler air, so CO2 warming is amplified by water vapor. Some. Not to an unlimited extent. Air gets saturated with water vapor, unlike with CO2. Try to oversaturate with water vapor and you get rain or snow or dew or something. Clouds, which are not water vapor complicate matters. Methane complicates matters. Dust does too. Panic models?
10-03-2017 04:42
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	By panic models I mean models that indicate we should do something right away to reverse the increase in CO2. What do you call such models? Water vapor in the form of clouds reflect solar radiation back to space (cooling) as well as trapping radiation leaving the earth (greenhouse effect heating). It has not been determined which effect is the greater.
10-03-2017 06:12
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	By panic models I mean.... .... you mean you are an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner.
10-03-2017 06:20
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Frescomexico wrote: ....By panic models I mean models that indicate we should do something right away to reverse the increase in CO2..... You use the word "panic" to mean something different from the dictionary meaning. Quoting from an online dictionary "a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause, that produces hysterical or irrational behavior, and that often spreads quickly through a group of persons or animals." In 1988 James Hansen testified before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee about fossil fuel CO2 and climate change. Apparently, after hearing the testimony of Hansen and others at least some Senators thought that action should be taken. So, nothing sudden about the concern. Overwhelming fear? Irrational behavior? Spread rapidly? Don't think any of those apply. Not to climate scientists anyway. Now, it is thoroughly accepted in the climate science community that cutting down CO2 emissions earlier rather than later will work better and cost less than cutting way down on emissions later.
10-03-2017 06:30
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	still learning wrote: frescomexico wrote:....By panic models I mean.... You use the word "panic" to mean something different from the dictionary meaning.... As stated, frescomexico's use of the word, "panic" means frescomexico is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner. Edited on 10-03-2017 06:33
10-03-2017 15:13
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	In the time frame of climate change, which is decades if not centuries, this is an unnecessarily hasty reaction to unsubstantiated science based on models, which are easily manipulated to produce any desired results.
10-03-2017 19:46
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Frescomexico wrote: In the time frame of climate change, which is decades if not centuries, this is an unnecessarily hasty reaction to unsubstantiated science based on models, which are easily manipulated to produce any desired results. Yes. And the idea that a 1m sea level rise by 2100 will drown Bangladesh is silly. The place gets at least 2cm of silt deposited on it every monsoon.
10-03-2017 22:29
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	Tim, I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future the sea level will rise by one meter or more. It has been well over that in the past. But I doubt it will happen by 2100 based on any empirical science (without model prognostications) or actual current trends. Lite, you need to lighten up. Anyone who can glean from a persons use of the word panic that he/she is an Old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner is capable of excitement that can singlehandedly raise the global temperature by one degree C. Webster's dictionary defines panic as "a situation that causes many people to become afraid and to rush to do something". This seems applicable to those who rushed to blame CO2 for what could be a normal continuation of the temperature rise since the "little ice age".
10-03-2017 23:09
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner frescomexico" flopped:... this is an unnecessarily hasty reaction... "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner frenzymex" reports the oil, energy, coal, business & re-pubic-lick-un boardroom propaganda PR poop (but no sigh-ants). Repeating oil, energy, coal, business & re-pubic-lick-un boardroom propaganda PR poop is why "frenzymex" got its hyperbolic & logarithmic functions.... dis-functioned. Meanwhile: The solar TSI has been languid for many decades & low for 10 years (including a 3+year low setting a 100 year record). Yet, 385+ straight months of temperatures have past, all over the 20th century average. The last 3 years have been successively the hottest years ever recorded. Presently, Arctic sea ice extent has been below 14 million square kilometers, ~ 1.5 million square kilometers LESS than the 1980's. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than that of the 1980's. This is an equivalent cube of ice, 21.2 kilometers by 21.2 kilometers by 68,000 feet high, the energy needed to melt it being 30 times the energy consumption of the U.S. All this, while the sun's HEAT.... is low. Yes, AGW denier liar whiners are parrots..... also..... old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiners are vociferous voices for rich men who will NOT reward underlings for being underlings. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&q=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Volume+Graph+feb+2017&simid=608038143506452087&selectedIndex=9&ajaxhist=0

10-03-2017 23:19
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"frenzymex" flubbed: Lite, you need to lighten up. Like dozens of other old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liars, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner frenzymex" rinses, squeezes & deposits the SAME BS as old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiners have done fer decades. Ya don' ev'n havt nuthun new ta tell & came here with the same brand with which oil, energy, coal, business & re-pubic-lick-un boardrooms burned you. Stuff yer little self-righteousness that can't fill a shriveled pea of a heart. Meanwhile: The solar TSI has been languid for many decades & low for 10 years (including a 3+year low setting a 100 year record). Yet, 385+ straight months of temperatures have past, all over the 20th century average. The last 3 years have been successively the hottest years ever recorded. Presently, Arctic sea ice extent has been below 14 million square kilometers, ~ 1.5 million square kilometers LESS than the 1980's. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than that of the 1980's. This is an equivalent cube of ice, 21.2 kilometers by 21.2 kilometers by 68,000 feet high, the energy needed to melt it being 30 times the energy consumption of the U.S. All this, while the sun's HEAT.... is low. Yes, AGW denier liar whiners are parrots..... also..... old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiners are vociferous voices for rich men who will NOT reward underlings for being underlings. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&q=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Volume+Graph+feb+2017&simid=608038143506452087&selectedIndex=9&ajaxhist=0 Edited on 10-03-2017 23:22
11-03-2017 03:26
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Frescomexico wrote: Tim, I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future the sea level will rise by one meter or more. It has been well over that in the past. But I doubt it will happen by 2100 based on any empirical science (without model prognostications) or actual current trends. Lite, you need to lighten up. Anyone who can glean from a persons use of the word panic that he/she is an Old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner is capable of excitement that can singlehandedly raise the global temperature by one degree C. Webster's dictionary defines panic as "a situation that causes many people to become afraid and to rush to do something". This seems applicable to those who rushed to blame CO2 for what could be a normal continuation of the temperature rise since the "little ice age". The question you have to ask yourself is: How has the global temperature risen by a degree or so in a century? Just claiming natural causes isn't good enough. Natural causes also have to obey the laws of physics. The only way that the Earth can have heated up is though an imbalance of the energy arriving at and the energy leaving the Earth. Now, how can this imbalance have arisen? The sun hasn't gotten any brighter over the past 100 years or so, so the same amount of energy is coming in. Something must have changed so that the Earth emits less energy than previously. The very obvious candidate is the reduction in the Earth's effective emissivity resulting from the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale. Do you have an alternative explanation?
11-03-2017 04:36
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	Actually the sun does burn brighter now than it did 100 years ago by 0.1%. Some scientists think this is a significant cause of warming, although this was supposedly accounted for in the models. As you may know, the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age from the 16th to the 19th centuries, before the industrial revolution and the marked CO2 increase. What caused that, and why isn't it being investigated? Maybe that is your alternative explanation.
11-03-2017 04:55
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Frescomexico wrote: Actually the sun does burn brighter now than it did 100 years ago by 0.1%. Some scientists think this is a significant cause of warming, although this was supposedly accounted for in the models. As you may know, the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age from the 16th to the 19th centuries, before the industrial revolution and the marked CO2 increase. What caused that, and why isn't it being investigated? Maybe that is your alternative explanation. Do you have a source for your claim that the sun burns brighter now than it did 100 years ago by 0.1% and that this would be sufficient to raise the temperature of the Earth by 1 C? Also, the industrial revolution and associated CO2 emission started in the mid 19th century, so it would be reasonable to think that the industrial revolution caused of the end of the little ice age, would it not?
11-03-2017 06:14
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	The source was https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sunspots, and I didn't say that it was was responsible for 1 degree temperature increase. My point was that there are other theories to account for the temperature rise since the Little Ice Age. I have never read where the industrial revolution was cited as the cause for the termination of the Little Ice Age. I realize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such it contributes to global warming. However I have yet to see proof of how significant that contribution is and why it is assumed that positive feedback from other sources will elevate its effect to something threatening.
11-03-2017 07:17
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner frensymex" flubbed: The source was https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sunspots.... ....I have yet to see proof of how significant that contribution .... Superficially, TSI has increased in 100 years, but TSI tiny fluctuations have not been linear. For the past 30-40 years, TSI has been languid, & below normal for the last 10 years (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low TSI). https://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/total-solar-irradiance.gif 385+ straight months of temperatures have past, all over the 20th century average. The last 3 years have been successively the hottest years ever recorded. Presently, Arctic sea ice extent has been below 14 million square kilometers, ~ 1.5 million square kilometers LESS than the 1980's. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than that of the 1980's. This is an equivalent cube of ice, 21.2 kilometers by 21.2 kilometers by 68,000 feet high, the energy needed to melt it being 30 times the energy consumption of the U.S. All this, while the sun's HEAT.... is low. Yes, AGW denier liar whiners are parrots..... also..... old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiners are vociferous voices for rich men who will NOT reward underlings for being underlings. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&q=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Volume+Graph+feb+2017&simid=608038143506452087&selectedIndex=9&ajaxhist=0
11-03-2017 13:59
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	Of course there is evidence that the earth is warming, and litesong has pointed out some of it. My point is that it was warming before CO2 could have been a significant factor. So why give it such significance now? Especially when, without positive feedback, it cannot influence climate to the extent projected by the models. And there seems to be no empirical evidence that there is positive feedback.
11-03-2017 17:25
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"frenzymex" muffed: My point is that it was warming before CO2 could have been a significant factor. Nah! Earth temps were not rising before man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs began dumping into the air. AGW denier liar whiners keep saying THEY don't know what is warming Earth now. But that is obvious because AGW denier liar whiners aren't scientists. But AGW scientists know... & they accurately calculate the effect of man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs. Edited on 11-03-2017 17:27
11-03-2017 22:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Frescomexico wrote: Actually the sun does burn brighter now than it did 100 years ago by 0.1%. Some scientists think this is a significant cause of warming, although this was supposedly accounted for in the models. As you may know, the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age from the 16th to the 19th centuries, before the industrial revolution and the marked CO2 increase. What caused that, and why isn't it being investigated? Maybe that is your alternative explanation. Do you have a source for your claim that the sun burns brighter now than it did 100 years ago by 0.1% and that this would be sufficient to raise the temperature of the Earth by 1 C? Also, the industrial revolution and associated CO2 emission started in the mid 19th century, so it would be reasonable to think that the industrial revolution caused of the end of the little ice age, would it not? You have it backwards. The Little Ice Age actually helped cause the industrial revolution. People learned a LOT about fires during that time. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-03-2017 22:29
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Frescomexico wrote: The source was https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sunspots, and I didn't say that it was was responsible for 1 degree temperature increase. My point was that there are other theories to account for the temperature rise since the Little Ice Age. I have never read where the industrial revolution was cited as the cause for the termination of the Little Ice Age. I realize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such it contributes to global warming. However I have yet to see proof of how significant that contribution is and why it is assumed that positive feedback from other sources will elevate its effect to something threatening. Your link doesn't work. So what is the source of your claim that the output of the sun has increased by 0.1% in the last 100 years? How much of the observed temperature rise do you consider that it accounts for?
12-03-2017 01:25
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	Google sunspots and read the Scientific American article. They don't think it is very important.

Join the debate Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	140	15-04-2024 19:43
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46