/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9825507
>Based on the amount of CO2 humans pump into the atmosphere, basic chemistry would tell us to expect significant global warming.

How incredibly stupid. This isn't even chemistry. Its just the (quantum) physics of photon absorption and emissions by the CO2 molecule. Hint, because of quantum mechanics, a CO2 molecule can only absorb certain wavelengths of light. Once those are absorbed. there is nothing more it can do. That's why the warming effect of CO2 gets weaker and weaker, following a logarithmic curb.

>>9811335
IPCC depiction of logarithmic sensitivity of CO2. A very weak greenhouse gas.

>>9110682
John Cook forgot to mention this.

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/RebuttalSkepticalScience.pdf
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

>>8744634
>Can Deniers show how CO2 doesn't absorb long wave radiation?

Dumbshit. It's already absorbed 99% of it. Not much more for it to do.
Let me guess, you didn't know that there are only fixed wavelengths that CO2 can absorb?
Its called quantum mechanics. Look it up.

>>8675572
>>CO2 releases energy in 5ms, and is not an insulator.
>No idea what you're trying to say here. Denying the greenhouse effect is just stupid. It's been proven countless ways and measured directly.

Denying the extremely weak effect of added CO2 because of its logarithmic temperature response is extremely stupid.

>>8546372
CO2 has diminishing returns to greenhouse warming as it has a logarithmic temperature response to increased concentrations.
tl;dr CO2 is a WEAK greenhouse gas.

>>8362936

>>We have hard evidence going back a few hundred thousand years on a cycle that works in millions of years.
>So you are concerned about what will happen millions of years from now and not about what will happen in the next hundreds? This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW.
>Its happening soon, therefore its true!
Thems some nice circular reasoning


>>Carbon and methane heat things up in a tiny lab so the IPPC go off that in the main
>Except we can directly measure the infrared spectra of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Meme science. CO2 induced temp increase is logarithmic and almost all energy that CO2 can absorb has already occurred.

>>8310093
The effect of increasing CO2 concentration is diminishes at a logarithmic rate.

>>8221453
Water vapor/atmosphere is general does not physically behave as a black body. Stefan-Boltzmann is inapplicable. And CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic; pic related. And you might want to mention that the majority (about 6/7) of heat transport in the atmosphere is convective; not radiative. Which of course, means CO2 has no effect on 6/7 of all heat transport. Oh, and please mention that water vapor's absorption spectrum almost completely covers the absorption spectrum of CO2; rendering it irrelevant (there's only a fixed amount of solar radiation to absorb).

If you're going to talk scientific facts, you can't omit the inconvenient ones.

>>8094386
>>If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Almost no one says that CO2 has no greenhouse effect. But the effect is very weak, logarithmic over CO2 concentration. The real argument is over feedback: is it positive, negative or none? Its been demonstrated to be negative. See, e.g., Lindzen and Choi 2009, 2011.

>>7749983
Nothing outside the range of normal variation. Therefore to ascribe potential disaster/disruption/fright-du-jour to the very weak greenhouse gas, C02. Pic related. This strikes a rational person as a money-grabbing >>7750007
"the sky is falling" scheme.

>>6997246
>>Most people would agree that not all CO2 increase is from ocean out-gassing.
>So where is it coming from? According to Mr. J. Griffin:
>>"CO2 in the air is a RESULT of a warming earth. The amount of CO2 released into the air from the water corresponds quite well with the estimated 59 ppm rise per degree C seen globally in recent years."
Probably a significant part is from the earth warming:
>>6989325

>As I have explained, Mr. J. Griffin seems to have no idea what he's talking about.
Not really, you've certainly made authoritarian assertions; largely unsubstantiated.

>>I don't see how you reach this conclusion. I think you're making a linear extrapolation. But the Henry's law "constant" is not linear with temperature.
>Yes, it's non-linear. The non-linearity actually makes it even somewhat worse for Mr. J. Griffin in this regard, because solubility increases with decreasing temperature.
The big non-linearity that you are conveniently ignoring is that Sea Water freezes at about -2 degrees Centigrade; end of solubility.

>>Not sure what you mean by "accounting for more than 100% of the increase"?
>If all the human carbon emissions remained in the atmosphere, the Co2 concentration would be even higher than it is now.
Not well phrased...

>Pre-industrial Co2 level ~ 280 ppm ~ 2170 GtCo2
>Current Co2 level ~ 400 ppm ~ 3100 GtCo2
>Human emissions since pre-industrial ~ 580 GtC ~ 2120 GtCo2
>(see http://lcluc.umd.edu/Announcements/2014/essdd-7-521-2014.pdf))
CO2 levels were much, much higher in the past:
>>6989320

>>Sure, its not a simple problem.
>Tell that to Mr. J. Griffin. I'd wager you could use a carbon cycle textbook yourself as well.
Your condescending appeal to authority doesn't change the fact that you ignore that CO2 works on a logarithmic scale; pic related - - even the IPCC admits this.