The real question concerning C02?

a reply to: Phage

So. What model or study has been the most accurate to date?

a reply to: neutronflux
You decide.
See my third post in this thread.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux
You decide.
See my third post in this thread.

If you got something to say, don’t play games.

Just for you:

9 Effective Communication Skills

www.habitsforwellbeing.com...

Up to you if you want to be open and honest.

Or just smug.

a reply to: neutronflux

You can lead a horse to water.

a reply to: Phage

So again, in the spirit of effective communication, what is concerned the modt accurate model or study concerning temperature change?

a reply to: Phage

Whatever dude, again. Up to you if you want to or part of the flow of ideas. Or a check valve up on your own pedestal.

Hope you have a good new year.

a reply to: neutronflux

"Most accurate?" Hard to say. Why pick one? But as previously posted, CIMP3 seems to be doing quite well.

They all show a warming trend, due primarily to increasing CO2 emissions. But that's a big problem, predicting emission levels. Non of them show a decline in temperatures though. Because CO2 doesn't just go away.

Just a little question here. The CO2 reading from the past. We get them from ice cores, correct?

Why isn't out gassing, compression, or solidification/liquification taken into account in the core samples?

Because I am pretty sure that in all of the past CO2 levels are far under-reported in the ice cores because of diffusion and outgassing is completely neglected. Then there is the compression of CO2 into other compounds due to pressure, removing or vastly compressing the CO2 bubbles, leading to under-representation. Then there is the liquification through dissolution into water... which it is surrounded by.

There is so much about the sources of information of what the atmosphere used to be composed of, that is based on flawed assumptions, that no study I have ever read actually takes into account when looking at them as a source for atmospheric CO2 in the past.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

"Most accurate?" Hard to say. Why pick one? But as previously posted, CIMP3 seems to be doing quite well.

They all show a warming trend, due primarily to increasing CO2 emissions. But that's a big problem, predicting emission levels. Non of them show a decline in temperatures though. Because CO2 doesn't just go away.

...except for time periods when there are large amounts of green growth, where CO2 is fixed into the ground in the growing stage of plants. As Old growth is a net neutral, and only new growth of plants have a non-negligible effect on CO2 in the atmosphere.

So if CO2 really is an actual problem, the most efficient way to fix CO2 rise would be to start chopping down all of the forests and growing new ones, while throwing all of the chopped down trees into landfills. Or through industrialized farming...

Gore shows a chart where the more CO2 the higher the temperature and vice versa.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Phage

And I thank you for providing the studies.

Again, the simple question I asked was
“
So, was the study accurate in their predictions?

”

And again,”I actual posted this thread in earnest. With hope somebody would “school” on the subject. It’s up to you if want to be open and free flowing with information. ’


Let’s go with a starting 270 ppm with a doubling being 540 ppm. We are at 400 pm now. We have a CO2 change that is roughly 24 percent of doubling. I think the one stud claimed a doubling of the CO2 should result in a 3.6 degree temperature increase. (Or was the 70’s study referencing a 60’s study?)

24 percent of a 3.6 degree change, just going for a quick linear thumb rule, wound be .894 percent vs .8. So, I would say the study was about 89 percent accurate compared to current cited measurements.

What model is that? Is it based on experiments?

Arrhenius is wrong. CO2 is not logarithmic. The first few (3 or 4) ppm CO2 absorb 99 percent of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. Beyond the first few ppm CO2 further increases are negligible and irrelevant. So Arrhenius is wrong. CO2 is not logarithmic. Never was. Never will be.