Is the CO2 effect saturated?
<p>If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.</p>skepticalscience.com
Meanwhile within the last two weeks...
‘Years of Good Life’ Is the Latest Measure of Global Warming’s Impact
A group of Austrian researchers developed a new index that calls for a change in economic thinking about climate adaptation.www.bloomberg.com
Global warming could make survival in tropics impossible: Study
Limiting global warming to targets proposed in the Paris Agreement could keep tropical regions from reaching temperatures that are beyond human tolerability, a new study projects.phys.org
Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns
A new algorithm-based study by a group of UK universities has predicted that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.www.reuters.com
You just proved you know zero about what is going on by mentioning Venus and runaway greenhouse effect.We are not saturated but I guess we can look forward to our planet becoming Venus.
Back to mythbusters. Doh!
Global Temperatures and CO2 Concentrations (2020)
A first step in reducing emissions is understanding where they’re coming from—this week we’re breaking down U.S. emissions.www.climatecentral.org
Global Temperatures and CO2 Concentrations (2020)
A first step in reducing emissions is understanding where they’re coming from—this week we’re breaking down U.S. emissions.www.climatecentral.org
Century-old climate myth still making the rounds
Carbon dioxide or water vapor, pick a side in this global warming debate. The fourth myth in the climate change series keeps the conversation going.news.utexas.edu
From 10 years ago. This is a denier ploy. Keep bringing back old nonsense.
100% fact.This is a fine example of what I would call science history. And like all history the author will use the information and facts that support their thesis. And to be clear there's nothing wrong with that and in a discussion like Global Warming these types of articles serve a useful purpose.
However, this is not science and doesn't represent a scientific rebuttal to the claims that beyond a certain level increasing CO2 concentrations does not result in substantial new warming.
One thing this article does call out is the dependence of Climate Science on modeling. IMO this is a fundamental weakness of this field of science. In complex natural systems modeling has not proven to be very good. Modelings track record for climate prediction is poor. Their reliance on modeling is problematic.
A summary of Happer's latest research was released by the CO2 Coalition, the group he founded and on whose board he now serves, which claims that the world needs more carbon dioxide emissions to thrive. Happer's latest research claims that "much of the concern over climate change and greenhouse gases comes from misunderstanding basic physics." The paper lays out a case as to why methane emissions are not worrisome, and says proposals to regulate emissions therefore are not justified.
"Given the huge benefits of more CO2 to agriculture, to forestry, and to primary photosynthetic productivity in general, more CO2 is almost certainly benefitting the world," the authors wrote. "And radiative effects of CH4 [methane] and N2O [nitrous oxide], another greenhouse gas produced by human activities, are so small that they are irrelevant to climate."
Happer's research was submitted to EPA by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry and the Koch network. In its EPA comments, the foundation argued that methane does not contribute to air pollution that harms public health
We know the things you claim we do not. You are a walking contradiction who tries his hardest to pass himself off as "smart." Try using "bifurcating" a couple more times.100% fact.
The thing about science and the scientific method is that it is amazing in explaining the world around us as it is right now.
Science and especially prediction models, are good at determining what is going on right now but slowly get worse and worse in accuracy the further you go in the future or in the past.
Any model specifically on non-linear dynamics, bifurcating systems, chaos mathematics is ok at modeling the "right now" but quickly gets "terrible" as soon as you go more than a year or so in the future or in the past then it is literally guess work.
I am not saying modeling is wrong to use and/or we should avoid models completely. I mean I use models all the time to model industrial combustion emissions (CO2, NOx, CO, SOx, etc) in large industrial furnaces to figure out how to reduce the various emissions. I will say that the models I use, which are VASTLY more simple (the combustion of natural gas is about a 100ish step reaction once you include all the partial chemical steps that form the bad emissions, not a simple 1 step equation they teach in chemistry). Those 100ish step reaction modeling with fluid dynamics, thermal dynamics, etc of the system is vastly more simple than a non-linear bifurcation chaos system that climate is.
My models are way easier and they STILL are inaccurate to what really happens in a furnace. I use them mainly to determine possible trends as I change things in a burner design to eliminate some "bad" ideas before I test things in a lab.
Science in general is bad at predicting the past and the future because it is designed to describe the world as it is right now. Scientific models are even worse at going back and forward in time.
The easiest way on a simple example I have explained this to people is the projectile motion of a baseball being thrown or hit by a bat. Physics and calculus can give us equations based on the balls instantaneous velocity (with angle) height from the ground, spin rate, and current wind velocity/direction and predict where the ball was probably hit/thrown from and where it will finally land.
However, the probability of the prediction based on the equations being right goes down as you move away from the balls current location either backwards or forwards in time. The main reason is you don't know even simple things that will/can change the trajectory like change in wind speed, change in air density (pressure/temperature in a given area), wind direction, etc.
Take a ball flying through the air as something vastly simple mathematically compared to bifurcating non-linear dynamics/chaos mathematics. Again, the further in the future or past you try to model a system the worse the model is at predicting anything.
We have seen this over and over again over the last 50 years of climate modeling. The further out they make "dire" predictions and they are ALWAYS wrong.
So where exactly have I contradicted myself? I have never claimed to be “smart” you are the one who has repeatedly on this thread called people stupid or treated them as such for not believing your opinion on the matter.We know the things you claim we do not. You are a walking contradiction who tries his hardest to pass himself off as "smart." Try using "bifurcating" a couple more times.
Adding more CO2 and Methane is not better for anyone.
It is overwhelmingly held that global warming is greatly effected by carbon emissions. You know that. There’s very few idiots left in the scientific community like Trump’s last COVID expert.And a lot of very smart people in the scientific community don't think it's a problem at all.
The fact that you say so. Especially after reading all the bull hit you normally post.What in my posts suggest I have not taken, and aced, a non-linear dynamics/chaos theory class?
I mean it’s not like chaos theory mathematics is a common topic here on yappi where you cold assess my general knowledge on the topic.
What exactly do you question and what “bull shiit” have I specifically posted?The fact that you say so. Especially after reading all the bull hit you normally post.
Just for fun, tell us the highest level of math you have taken.The fact that you say so. Especially after reading all the bull hit you normally post.
It is overwhelmingly held that global warming is greatly effected by carbon emissions. You know that. There’s very few idiots left in the scientific community like Trump’s last COVID expert.
The fact that you say so. Especially after reading all the bull hit you normally post.
Anyone can get on here and lie. I’m pretty sure I am much better educated than you.Just for fun, tell us the highest level of math you have taken.
They are scientists, and you are some who spends his day playing on Yappi.Let me fix this for you: Global warming MAY be effected by human release of CO2 though the magnitude of any increase in temperature is NOT KNOWN.
And don't tell me what I know and don't know. At least I'm honest enough to admit what I don't know unlike the majority of climate scientists.
Maybe you're just a crafty liar.Anyone can get on here and lie. I’m pretty sure I am much better educated than you.
They are scientists, and you are some who spends his day playing on Yappi.