glenncz wrote:Hi Q.
I keep coming across my pals stating that increasing CO2 will only have a mild effect on temperature, because it has a reverse logarithmic GHG effect. The first 20 ppm have a big effect, then less so to 100 ppm and then by the time we get to 380, doubling it's concentration will have little effect.
I found that greenhouse plastic has a similar effect.
http://www.nofreewind.com/2009/12/dimin ... c-co2.html
some other pal told me that even the IPCC agrees that: the reverse logarithmic effect from CO2 "settled science".
and I found these people who seem to agree... according to Stefan Boltzmann law and Idso paper and U of Chicago MODTHRAN and Beer-Lambert law?
what's the workaround?
whats up with that?
glenncz wrote:I am not saying this is authoritative, because I know there are many views, esp when the science is not settled.
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/S ... 202008.pdf
Starting on page 22 he talks about the decreasing logarithmic effect of CO2 on the greenhouse effect. Is this accepted by all scientists as pure science? He comes up with the same 3 degrees you mentioned, but we are already there. Do you know what chapter IPCC report discusses this?
"The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and thus climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. The rate of annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 30 years has averaged 1.7 ppm. From the current level of 380 ppm, it is projected to rise to 420 ppm by 2030.
The projected 40 ppm increase reduces emission from the stratosphere to space from 279.6 watts/m2 to 279.2 watts/m2. Using the temperature response demonstrated by Idso (1998) of 0.1°C per watt/m2, this difference of 0.4 watts/m2 equates to an increase in atmospheric temperature of 0.04°C.
Increasing the carbon dioxide content by a further 200 ppm to 620 ppm, projected by 2150, results in a further 0.16°C increase in atmospheric temperature."
glenncz wrote:Q. I read that review but did not analyze it. Actually, I am not prepared to predict solar cycles and "future theories". I know that there is controversy regarding the sun cycles and I accept that. I only used the paper because it tipped me off to the logarithmic reverse saturation effect of CO2 on the greenhouse effect. What Archibald wrote in his paper about CO2 saturation does not seem that controversial. If what you and your pals say about Archibalds cherry-picking to make his future predictions is true, it is absolutely no different than the what IPCC et al is doing to skim/scam trillions of dollars from our world economy. Same exact thing! I'm not here to argue about predictions for the future because certainly the green movement has a complete monopoly on that issue. Or they did. Things have changed since ClimateGate and Dopenhagen, and stable temperatures.
Mike Davis wrote:Q:
It appears that you have not read any of the 4 IPCC annual reports which is all the evidence required to answer your question regarding Cherry Picking. The evidence is on every page that has words written on them. The entire purpose for creating the IPCC group was to "Cherry Pick" data to provide evidence that humans might has a role in climate change. They proved the theory that with control of the numbers one can get any answer desired. All that is required is a minor adjustment here and there. Ignore what does not conform to the desired results and you end up with the annual reports.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests