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★★★★☆ (1085) |
Where do they come up with this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjIJsVEquE |
| 07-02-2019 01:47 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21588) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Fabricating numbers and calling them 'data'. That's where. 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 |
| 07-02-2019 04:34 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: 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★★★★★ (21588) |
still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: I do not debate people that aren't here to answer for what they say. still learning wrote: 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: 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: They are bogus. It is zero...zilch...nada. still learning wrote: There is no calculation. The records you refer to don't exist. still learning wrote: 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: Ignore these factors for now. Let's see your equation and the theory of science backing it up. still learning wrote: Because there is no record from the past that's of any use. still learning wrote: 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: 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 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 |
Join the debate Where did they come up with 450 ppm CO2 = 2 C rise in temperature?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium.. | 392 | 01-12-2023 21:58 |
| Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat | 326 | 07-11-2023 19:16 |
| Present temperature spike July '23 | 31 | 27-09-2023 00:27 |
| Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity | 2 | 13-07-2023 15:50 |
| Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law | 56 | 10-05-2023 15:46 |