Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Question about the CO2 warming effect

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:09:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.

So if this period of little warming from this decade continues for another 30 years we can assume we have met our near maximum.... Silly climate alarmists, trix are for kids.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:26:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:09:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.

So if this period of little warming from this decade continues for another 30 years we can assume we have met our near maximum.... Silly climate alarmists, trix are for kids.

Yes.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:41:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:26:05 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:09:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.

So if this period of little warming from this decade continues for another 30 years we can assume we have met our near maximum.... Silly climate alarmists, trix are for kids.

Yes.

Note that no alarmists respond to this forum
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:43:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You guys done with this circle jerk?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 8:49:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:09:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.

So if this period of little warming from this decade continues for another 30 years we can assume we have met our near maximum.... Silly climate alarmists, trix are for kids.

Remember, however, y=log(x) is the most basic logarithmic function. The actual log equation could be wildly different and have a much less "violent" slope.
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:09:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 8:49:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:09:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.

So if this period of little warming from this decade continues for another 30 years we can assume we have met our near maximum.... Silly climate alarmists, trix are for kids.

Remember, however, y=log(x) is the most basic logarithmic function. The actual log equation could be wildly different and have a much less "violent" slope.

The two theories on this, however, is either more CO2 lead to an amplification of 3 or a multiplication of .5. One is from computer models, the other from direct observation. You choose.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:41:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 6:09:55 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/24/2012 8:49:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:09:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.

So if this period of little warming from this decade continues for another 30 years we can assume we have met our near maximum.... Silly climate alarmists, trix are for kids.

Remember, however, y=log(x) is the most basic logarithmic function. The actual log equation could be wildly different and have a much less "violent" slope.

The two theories on this, however, is either more CO2 lead to an amplification of 3 or a multiplication of .5. One is from computer models, the other from direct observation. You choose.

So y=3log(x) or y=0.5log(x)? Or does b=3 or 0.5?
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:52:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 10:41:57 PM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/25/2012 6:09:55 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/24/2012 8:49:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:09:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:28:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

You are correct. Every single particle of CO2 that is emitted, the next particle will have a smaller effect on the climate.

Using the logarithmic function, y=log(x), this can be shown.

But remember, it will never be zero, just an infintesimally small number per increase.

So if this period of little warming from this decade continues for another 30 years we can assume we have met our near maximum.... Silly climate alarmists, trix are for kids.

Remember, however, y=log(x) is the most basic logarithmic function. The actual log equation could be wildly different and have a much less "violent" slope.

The two theories on this, however, is either more CO2 lead to an amplification of 3 or a multiplication of .5. One is from computer models, the other from direct observation. You choose.

So y=3log(x) or y=0.5log(x)? Or does b=3 or 0.5?

Its up for debate
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 5:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

The effect would reach a maximum.. However, not without turning the Earth into an extreme version of Venus. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it alone isn't what is causing the Earth to warm up. The issue is in science concerning global warming is that an increase of C02 has enough effect to cause higher levels of a much more dangerous green house gas known as water vapor.. Adding CO2 to the system increases vapor and potential for creating conditions for the release of other dangerous gases such as methane trapped in methane deposits..

The rise of co2 is certainly a driving force in the current changes in climate. It's not the sole driver, but it today is playing a pretty big role in it. And higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere will compound the problem and result in more vapor and potential release of other gasses.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 5:59:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I also wonder how many of you understand that increase in gasses alone in the atmosphere increases atmospheric pressure and conditions around the world.. And if you know the properties of ice for example, pressure melts ice. You can look up the secret life of ice.. Also, water doesn't have to freeze until it reaches a temperature of -55F
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Other factors of global warming deals with loss of ice in the arctic and antarctic. Loss of ice means more water per cubic area and that effect the Earth Albedo.. Hence, waters reflectivity of solar energy and light in a liquid state is far less than it is in its crystal state or ice state. Ice reflects much of that energy back out to space. Less of this, and you will of course have rising temperatures in relation to.. And the slightest differences can have massive effects giving again that water doesn't have to freeze until it reaches -55F.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 11:18:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 5:47:53 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:13:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:44:15 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:56:14 AM, 16kadams wrote:
CO2 and temperture are related logarithmically. So...

If X co2 causes Y warming, you double X you get half of Y. If X doubles again you get half of the previously halved Y, and a few more times doesn't Y become zero and co2 loses effect?

That depends on the exact mathematical relationship if it is logarithmic. But if y=log(x), then yes, you are correct.

That means the CO2 effect will eventually be zero using the theory that says we're all going to die...

The effect would reach a maximum.. However, not without turning the Earth into an extreme version of Venus. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it alone isn't what is causing the Earth to warm up. The issue is in science concerning global warming is that an increase of C02 has enough effect to cause higher levels of a much more dangerous green house gas known as water vapor.. Adding CO2 to the system increases vapor and potential for creating conditions for the release of other dangerous gases such as methane trapped in methane deposits..

The rise of co2 is certainly a driving force in the current changes in climate. It's not the sole driver, but it today is playing a pretty big role in it. And higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere will compound the problem and result in more vapor and potential release of other gasses.

+plus infinity

CO2 itself isn't causing global warming. It's just that the addition of more CO2 is causing an influx of more water vapor, which is the no.1 greenhouse gas.
turn down for h'what
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 1:47:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So y=3log(x) or y=0.5log(x)? Or does b=3 or 0.5?

This of course is utterly nonsense. :/ You can't just make crap up and think it has any real value to such a subject as this.. Earth warms due to compounding effects from numerous variables. Even an increase in atmospheric pressure means an increase in energy potential... Just rub your hands together lightly to simulate a current pressure, and then slowly rub them with increasing pressure. Your hands will get warmer and hotter. Energy potential and generation increases.. Same with increase in atmospheric pressure. By consequence, out gassing can increase pressure and thus increase heat. For example, if the Earth had an atmospheric pressure 800 times what it is today, the temperature on the surface of the Earth could reach a potential 1200+F.. No water could then exist on the surface, and would all be confined to the upper atmosphere like it is on Venus. Even sulfuric acid rain on Venus evaporates long before it ever could reach it's surface.

Now Earth isn't anywhere near that point.. We are at the point where it can cause a ton of damage and even possibly, if we let it fester, a possible mass extinction event. And if plankton go, and the rainforests go, it's pretty much lights out for us.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 11:03:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As far as I know everyone agrees that the basic physics of CO2 leads to logarithmic warming. So if doubling CO2 produces 1.5 degrees of warming, then doubling it again produces another 1.5 degrees. Doubling it again after that produces another 1.5 degrees.

Alarmists claim that warming from CO2 increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and water vapor account for more warming that CO2. So they say that the CO2 effect is multiplied. Back around 1990, claims we made that the sensitivity was greater than 10, so we would all be steam-cooked by 2010. By the 2000, the claim was that while other factors drove climate in the past, nothing of significance was happening in modern times other than CO2. The lack of warming from 2000-2009 showed that something else, something at least as large as CO2, was going on. It seems to have been a natural cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

A very small change in cloud cover has a large effect. All the global warming experienced to date could have been caused by about a 3% decrease in cloud cover. You'd think cloud cover would be easy to measure from satellite photos, but low clouds have a different effect from high clouds and the number are controversial. Cosmic rays affect cloud cover. Point is that climate models have major uncertainties.