Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Uncharted Territory, rapid warming greatly exceeds models' forecasts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sjastro" data-source="post: 77661991" data-attributes="member: 352921"><p>This argument employs the personal incredulity fallacy, you don’t understand the effects of CO₂ at low concentrations so therefore AGW associated with CO₂ must be wrong!!</p><p>The concentration of CO₂ is 0.04% = 400 ppm, by comparison the concentration of the O₃ (ozone) layer in the stratosphere is only 10 ppm and 0.3 ppm in the earth’s atmosphere overall.</p><p>Yet at this “ridiculously” low concentration it inverts the temperature altitude profile in the stratosphere and filters out high energy UV radiation from sterilizing life forms on earth out of existence.</p><p></p><p>Even at low concentrations in our atmosphere these gases have a considerable effect.</p><p></p><p>Did you try to comprehend this article because it clearly contradicts your requirement of needing high concentrations of CO₂ to have an effect.</p><p>It refers to CO₂ saturation where it is possible that further addition of the gas to the atmosphere will not result in further temperature increases.</p><p>At least the authors understand you don’t need high concentrations of CO₂ in order to have a saturation effect.</p><p></p><p>The problem however is when you add CO₂ to the atmosphere through fossil burning you are not simply mixing the gas in the atmosphere but displacing atmospheric gasses in the process.</p><p>This amounts to the CO₂ envelope thickness around the earth increasing or adding further layers of CO₂ in the model for lower stratospheric cooling.</p><p>In others words CO₂ saturation will not occur and the temperature will increase the more CO₂ is added.</p><p></p><p>Try reading the IPCC reports instead of concentrating on the doomsday scenarios.</p><p>You will find climate scientists are far more restrained.</p><p></p><p>This is an article over ten years old, couldn’t you find a more up to date conspiracy theory.</p><p></p><p>What is the point you are trying to make with this link which basically states CO₂ is a good thing at equilibrium levels but too much through fossil burning which destroys the equilibrium is bad?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sjastro, post: 77661991, member: 352921"] This argument employs the personal incredulity fallacy, you don’t understand the effects of CO₂ at low concentrations so therefore AGW associated with CO₂ must be wrong!! The concentration of CO₂ is 0.04% = 400 ppm, by comparison the concentration of the O₃ (ozone) layer in the stratosphere is only 10 ppm and 0.3 ppm in the earth’s atmosphere overall. Yet at this “ridiculously” low concentration it inverts the temperature altitude profile in the stratosphere and filters out high energy UV radiation from sterilizing life forms on earth out of existence. Even at low concentrations in our atmosphere these gases have a considerable effect. Did you try to comprehend this article because it clearly contradicts your requirement of needing high concentrations of CO₂ to have an effect. It refers to CO₂ saturation where it is possible that further addition of the gas to the atmosphere will not result in further temperature increases. At least the authors understand you don’t need high concentrations of CO₂ in order to have a saturation effect. The problem however is when you add CO₂ to the atmosphere through fossil burning you are not simply mixing the gas in the atmosphere but displacing atmospheric gasses in the process. This amounts to the CO₂ envelope thickness around the earth increasing or adding further layers of CO₂ in the model for lower stratospheric cooling. In others words CO₂ saturation will not occur and the temperature will increase the more CO₂ is added. Try reading the IPCC reports instead of concentrating on the doomsday scenarios. You will find climate scientists are far more restrained. This is an article over ten years old, couldn’t you find a more up to date conspiracy theory. What is the point you are trying to make with this link which basically states CO₂ is a good thing at equilibrium levels but too much through fossil burning which destroys the equilibrium is bad? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Uncharted Territory, rapid warming greatly exceeds models' forecasts
Top
Bottom