4 ms·

Can someone explain: - since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming - the catastrophic climate prediction models have not proven effective at predicting clim

by PKop 10y ago

Can someone explain: - since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming - the catastrophic climate prediction models have not proven effective at predicting climate - we should expect moderate increases in warming, which can be beneficial (livable climate, crops etc) - the unquestionable benefits of hydro carbon energy to bring people out of poverty and into modern prosperity (food, healthcare, modern technology) ..what's all the sensationalism about? Shouldn't we be happy that the alarmists were wrong and the threat has been overblown? An alternative viewpoint: https://youtu.be/500MmY5rB1w https://youtu.be/500MmY5rB1w https://youtu.be/EaNPBZ6BZZ8 https://youtu.be/EaNPBZ6BZZ8 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influ...

alex_young 10y ago
Citations needed
isolli 10y ago
The problem is non-linearity. Moderate increases in temperatures can have catastrophic effects. While warming can be moderate at the planetary level, changes can be dramatic locally. Droughts and failing crops lead to massive migration (which we're already witnessing). Changing climate has brought tropical diseases to temperate climates.
Rexxar 10y ago
- since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming Where does this affirmation come from ?
- sanxiyn 10y ago
  Eh, this is actually well known. "The existing concentrations of a particular gas dictate the effect that additional molecules of that gas can have. For gases such as the halocarbons, where the naturally occurring concentrations are zero or very small, their forcing is close to linear in concentration for present-day concentrations. Gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are present in such quantities that significant absorption is already occurring and it is found that their forcing is approximately proportional to the square root of their concentration. (snip) For carbon dioxide, as has already been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration." From page 49 of http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02...
  - Oletros 10y ago
    The question should be why the OP made this observation regarding the other claims he made
Oletros 10y ago
> - since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming Sources? > - the catastrophic climate prediction models have not proven effective at predicting climate What catastrophic models? > - we should expect moderate increases in warming, which can be beneficial (livable climate, crops etc) 2C is not moderate > - the unquestionable benefits of hydro carbon energy to bring people out of poverty and into modern prosperity (food, healthcare, modern technology) Because renewable has not benefits? Isn't? > Shouldn't we be happy that the alarmists were wrong and the threat has been overblown? I don't know about alarmists, but IPCC has been spot on, if not optimistic with their models > An alternative viewpoint: Alex Epstein and WUWT? Really?
voice_of_reason 10y ago
PKop, I'm afraid that deprogramming global warming people is a futile effort. Logarithmic scale of CO2 forcing: http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf Failure of glorified climate models: http://www.thegwpf.com/epic-climate-model-failure/ http://www.thegwpf.com/epic-climate-model-failure/
CalRobert 10y ago
You have no idea how much I want what you write to be true. Trust me, I LIKE driving fast and burning gas and building stuff. It's fun! However, peddling this without very, very good sources is harmful. Yours are dubious at best, and come from a political organization (the Reason Foundation), not a scientific one.

by PKop 10y ago

alex_young 10y ago

Citations needed

isolli 10y ago

The problem is non-linearity. Moderate increases in temperatures can have catastrophic effects. While warming can be moderate at the planetary level, changes can be dramatic locally. Droughts and failing crops lead to massive migration (which we're already witnessing). Changing climate has brought tropical diseases to temperate climates.

Rexxar 10y ago

- since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming Where does this affirmation come from ?

sanxiyn 10y ago
Eh, this is actually well known. "The existing concentrations of a particular gas dictate the effect that additional molecules of that gas can have. For gases such as the halocarbons, where the naturally occurring concentrations are zero or very small, their forcing is close to linear in concentration for present-day concentrations. Gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are present in such quantities that significant absorption is already occurring and it is found that their forcing is approximately proportional to the square root of their concentration. (snip) For carbon dioxide, as has already been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration." From page 49 of http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02...
- Oletros 10y ago
  The question should be why the OP made this observation regarding the other claims he made

Oletros 10y ago

> - since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming Sources? > - the catastrophic climate prediction models have not proven effective at predicting climate What catastrophic models? > - we should expect moderate increases in warming, which can be beneficial (livable climate, crops etc) 2C is not moderate > - the unquestionable benefits of hydro carbon energy to bring people out of poverty and into modern prosperity (food, healthcare, modern technology) Because renewable has not benefits? Isn't? > Shouldn't we be happy that the alarmists were wrong and the threat has been overblown? I don't know about alarmists, but IPCC has been spot on, if not optimistic with their models > An alternative viewpoint: Alex Epstein and WUWT? Really?

voice_of_reason 10y ago

PKop, I'm afraid that deprogramming global warming people is a futile effort. Logarithmic scale of CO2 forcing: http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf Failure of glorified climate models: http://www.thegwpf.com/epic-climate-model-failure/ http://www.thegwpf.com/epic-climate-model-failure/

CalRobert 10y ago

You have no idea how much I want what you write to be true. Trust me, I LIKE driving fast and burning gas and building stuff. It's fun! However, peddling this without very, very good sources is harmful. Yours are dubious at best, and come from a political organization (the Reason Foundation), not a scientific one.