the logarithmic effect of CO2
| the logarithmic effect of CO215-11-2020 02:28 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I was pleased to discover the effects of CO2 are logarithmic not linear so increasing the dilution of CO2 in the atmosphere has no corelation to direct temperature increases at some point it plateaus so the runaway effect is no longer possible. duncan61 |
| 15-11-2020 07:59 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14401) |
duncan61 wrote: I was pleased to discover the effects of CO2 are logarithmic not linear so increasing the dilution of CO2 in the atmosphere has no corelation to direct temperature increases at some point it plateaus so the runaway effect is no longer possible. The effects of CO2 are constant. If you are talking about causing the spontaneous increase in a planet's temperature without additional energy then the effect of CO2 is constant at zero. If you are talking about CO2's effect on plantlife then its effect remains constant as a life-essential compound. How do you see it differently? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 |
| 15-11-2020 10:11 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I agree with Svante August Arrhenius and Freeman dyson.By some freak of nature he got it right back then.CO2 does reflect long wave radiation. .Without an Atmosphere our weather would be different.We would cook in the sunlight and freeze at night like the moon .The small amount of trace gas has little to no effect and there are many factors that could be warming the Atmosphere if indeed it is warming at all.I can find very little on what the perfect global average should be just bollocks on how its warmer .As you know I have a CO2 meter and I put it on this week to show a client and it still is around 400ppm.The problem I have is my data record is a few months old.In 10 years when it is still 400ppm do you think the Warmazombies will move on to something else maybe.I have no idea what it was in 1956 when it was first measured and some dumbass sites start quoting figures from 1850 which is fictional and proxy data from trees and ice is absolute not possible and too easy to homogenize and as soon as I see homogenize it means you made it up to suit what you want it to be.Climategate exposed all this and it was shoved under the mat.That tosser Micheal Mann was exonerated of any wrong doing by the very people who pay him.I could write 10 pages along this line.I have enjoyed seeking the truth and the whole Theory of AGW/CC does not stand up to scrutiny.If you can be bothered watch Conversations that matter where he questions the Canadian climate scientist.It realy shows how outlandish the theory is.I lived with a women who had an office job and the deal was rock up around 9.30.Someone goes for coffee and donuts same again around 11.30 and everyone is on the payroll and cruising who does not want a job like that.I would make up stuff to have a job like that |
| 15-11-2020 16:44 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
That's really the key point. CO2 is a trace gas. Even if there was 1200 ppm, we would still be okay, plants would do really well, food plentiful. Even if the climate people get their way, and do all the renewable, anti-fossil fuel crap. It's not really going to change much. The IPCC tells us that CO2 isn't the most plentiful, or even the most powerful 'greenhouse' gas. Both Methane, and water vapor, are have a much greater influence. Water vapor, is obvious, no way to control it. So, methane would be the next target, since controlling CO2 had no impact. They want to do away with all livestock, and transition us to a plant based diet. Really not seeing the point in that, the methane would still be generated, just mainly by different animals... Raw fruits and vegetables are fine. Variety of way to prepare, and cook them. But, sort of a limited shelf life, and seasonal. Without neat, people would need to consume large quantities, and a huge variety, to get the same nutritional value. Foods would be heavily processed, artificially supplemented. Basically, the producers could put anything in our foods, and have a much great control over distribution. I really don't think the can actually control CO2, whether we burn stuff, or not, there are natural sources. California burns hundreds of thousands of acres, every year. But, if they managed to reduce CO2, they reduce plant growth, the food supply. |
| 15-11-2020 18:22 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14401) |
duncan61 wrote:I agree with Svante August Arrhenius and Freeman dyson. This is unfortunate because all of their work on the matter was shown to be wrong, their conclusions shown to be false, and their models pertaining to what you are referencing discarded from the body of science. There is no Arrhenius law or any Dyson equation in physics that relates to this subject. This, and because they are deceased and cannot be questioned, is why only scientifically illiterate warmizombies herald Arrheius and Dyson as champions of their religion and as prophets of their faith. Scientists rarely have any reason to ever reference them. This is the problem you run into when you are forced to point to people (clergy) and not to actual science. Science is not people. Science is not subjective and is not based on anyone's opinion. Nobody owns science. If you are allowing others to do your thinking for you because you are too lazy to independently learn the subject matter in question then you deserve to be manipulated as you are being right now by whomever told you to worship Arrhenius and Dyson as prophets of Greenhouse Effect. In physics, CO2 does not have the magical superpowers to violate physics as you seem to believe. No body of matter anywhere in the universe under any conditions (and this includes the earth) can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. You learned this when you were a child. You instinctively know that things don't just get hotter without some new energy entering the picture. Yet somehow you allowed others to convince you that your thinking is wrong and to let them do your thinking for you properly. You committed an error when you allowed that to happen. duncan61 wrote: By some freak of nature he got it right back then.CO2 does reflect long wave radiation. Let's review the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can change form all day, all night, all week, all year ... but you can never create any more of it and you can never destroy any of it, i.e. you always have the same amount of energy. So then some warmizombies come along and tell you that long wave radiation changes form in the upper stratosphere, and then changes form in the lower troposphere, and then it changes form again, and again, and again and suddenly you have more energy than when you started and temperature increases. And you bought it. You never called bullshit. That was your next error. duncan61 wrote: Without an Atmosphere our weather would be different. We wouldn't have any weather if we had no atmosphere. duncan61 wrote: We would cook in the sunlight and freeze at night like the moon Yes, the daytime oceans would boil away. Yes. All without any CO2. Go on. duncan61 wrote:The small amount of trace gas has little to no effect Actually, it just has no effect. There is no "little" effect that it can have (re: 1st law of thermodynamics). duncan61 wrote: ... and there are many factors that could be warming the Atmosphere if indeed it is warming at all. When you write "many factors" ... do you really mean only one factor, i.e. the sun? If so then you are correct, but I rarely read "one" referred to as "many" and singulars swapped with plurals. duncan61 wrote:I can find very little on what the perfect global average should be just bollocks on how its warmer This is because the average global temperature is not something that anyone knows to any useful accuracy, much less what a "perfect" average global temperature would be. Without knowing what the earth's average global temperature is to any useful accuracy it is just bollocks to claim to know that there is any change in that temperature. duncan61 wrote:.As you know I have a CO2 meter and I put it on this week to show a client and it still is around 400ppm.The problem I have is my data record is a few months old.In 10 years when it is still 400ppm do you think the Warmazombies will move on to something else maybe. I think it will always be around as a religion but they already acknowledge that their inquisition to convert the rest of the planet has become a money-wasting lost cause and have shifted their emphasis to Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA. duncan61 wrote: I have no idea what it was in 1956 when it was first measured Nobody does ... to any usable accuracy. duncan61 wrote:... and proxy data from trees and ice is absolute not possible and too easy to homogenize and as soon as I see homogenize it means you made it up to suit what you want it to be. Exactly. It is not science. It is reading tea leaves (i.e. religion/superstition/voodoo/etc..). duncan61 wrote: If you can be bothered watch Conversations that matter where he questions the Canadian climate scientist. There is no such thing as a Climate Scientist because there is no such thing as a global climate and there is no branch of physics "Climate Science." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 |
| 15-11-2020 23:01 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21596) |
duncan61 wrote: Ah yes...abusing poor ole' Arrhenius once again. No, his theory that CO2 is warming the Earth is falsified...by the laws of thermodynamics. No. CO2 is a gas that is colder than the surface. It cannot heat the surface, no way, no how not in any way. Yes., CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. It is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. The 2nd law of thermodynamics can't be ignored. You can't reduce entropy in any system. Heat always flows from hot to cold, never the reverse...ever. You can't increase energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. The amount that CO2 warms the Earth is zero. nada. nan. 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 Edited on 15-11-2020 23:03 |
| 15-11-2020 23:54 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
IBDM wrote There is no such thing as a Climate Scientist because there is no such thing as a global climate and there is no branch of physics "Climate Science." That is the first thing that gets mentioned and anyone can call themself a climate scientist. ITN wrote Yes., CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. It is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. I like it.This makes more sense and heat rises so no energy is coming back which explains why no events are happening. |
Join the debate the logarithmic effect of CO2:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist | 145 | 24-04-2024 02:48 |
| 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 |