Less than a billion years....probably a lot less....

[abu afak]

Zhong-Haigh-2013 is a valid citation, dummy, and showed the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 at 400 ppm, 800 ppm and 1600 ppm. It took a doubling of CO2 to get the same incremental response.

And here's why you didn't link/context it.
You just stole it from some other denier, or possibly cherry picked from the study I link below.
You are DISHONESTLY withholding (or Ignorant of) contrary info OF COURSE. (the other two graphs from the sequence: Figures 6b and 6c. which are not logarithmic.)
I realized '6a' was a conspicuously tiny graph from a unlinked/uncontexted larger study.
Red Alert. Just find it.

Zhong-Haig 2013

"..More recently the saturation issue has been resurrected in Attempts to Deny the existence of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Very clear explanations (e.g. by Archer, 2007;Pierrehumbert, 2011) have been given of the basic physics as to why these arguments are flawed. Here we show in detail how, although the very centre of the 15μm band does become saturated, greenhouse trapping by CO2 at other wavelengths is far from saturation and that, as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv1, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic."..."
From Full Study:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/cl...rces/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf
(See contrary graphs 6b, 6c, from the full Fig 6 graphic that ding's 6a was dishonestly poached from).

And THAT is how it's done.
Ding is knowingly DISHONEST and Misleading.
But I am much smarter than he and GUT him every time. Every link/search makes me learn more.
Bl0 me!
EDIT: Note the now CAUGHT Loser below with NO TOPICAL COMEBACK.
Ding will probably keep posting to cover ANOTHER LOSS of His. The usual.
`

 

[abu afak]

We have been thru one this one and I debunked your Spencer try.

• Nov 14, 2023

"...the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2..."

GW 101 - Roy Spencer, PhD.​

But even the Denier Spencer Cutely/Deceptively uses the phrase "if CO2 By Itself," fully knowing it also drives how much Water Vapor it causes.. Causes More he goes on to mention. (unquoted)

Same with Methane as it snowballs it's feedback from and into more warming.
SO CO2 "IF ONLY Viewed by itself" is a DISINGENUOUS TRY.
Those 3 GHGs drive virtually ALL the warming triggered by... CO2.

Deceptive Scvmbag Citation by Ding.
It might work on Fort Fun, but Not Me.
I understand the climate System.
- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -


The above was November 14 and dingo just keeps repeating Misleading and obsolete passages.
Just like his Biggest Lie: "Normal Interglacial."
Ding is a Mentally Ill Conspiracist.

`

 

[ding]

And here's why you didn't link/context it.
You just stole it from some other denier, or possibly cherry picked from the study I link below.
You are DISHONESTLY withholding (or Ignorant of) contrary info OF COURSE. (the other two graphs from the sequence: Figures 6b and 6c. which are not logarithmic.)
I realized '6a' was a conspicuously tiny graph from a unlinked/uncontexted larger study.
Red Alert. Just find it.

Zhong-Haig 2013

"..More recently the saturation issue has been resurrected in Attempts to Deny the existence of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Very clear explanations (e.g. by Archer, 2007;Pierrehumbert, 2011) have been given of the basic physics as to why these arguments are flawed. Here we show in detail how, although the very centre of the 15μm band does become saturated, greenhouse trapping by CO2 at other wavelengths is far from saturation and that, as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv1, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic."..."
From Full Study:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/cl...rces/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf
(See contrary graphs 6b, 6c, from the full Fig 6 graphic that ding's 6a was dishonestly poached from).

And THAT is how it's done.
Ding is knowingly DISHONEST and Misleading.
But I am much smarter than he and GUT him every time. Every link/search makes me learn more.
Bl0 me!
EDIT: Note the now CAUGHT Loser below with NO TOPICAL COMEBACK.
Ding will probably keep posting to cover ANOTHER LOSS of His. The usual.
`

"...They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F)..."

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?

Concentration of carbon dioxide is about 1.4 times what it was before the Industrial Revolution. How much and how fast will Earth warm if carbon dioxide concentrations double the pre-industrial?

www.climate.gov

This is my third citation.

 

[ding]

We have been thru one this one and I debunked your Spencer try.

• Nov 14, 2023

But even the Denier Spencer Cutely/Deceptively uses the phrase "if CO2 By Itself," fully knowing it also drives how much Water Vapor it causes.. Causes More he goes on to mention. (unquoted)

Same with Methane as it snowballs it's feedback from and into more warming.
SO CO2 "IF ONLY Viewed by itself" is a DISINGENUOUS TRY.
Those 3 GHGs drive virtually ALL the warming triggered by... CO2.

Deceptive Scvmbag Citation by Ding.
It might work on Fort Fun, but Not Me.
I understand the climate System.
- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -


The above was November 14 and dingo just keeps repeating Misleading and obsolete passages.
Just like his Biggest Lie: "Normal Interglacial."
Ding is a Mentally Ill Conspiracist.

`

"...Simple physics shows the world will warm by a bit more than 1C once CO2 doubles, if feedbacks are not taken into account..."

Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity

The sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a question that sits at the heart of climate science. Essentially, it dictates how much global temperatures will rise in response to human-caused CO2 emissions, but it is a question that does not yet have a...

www.carbonbrief.org

This is my 4th citation that a doubling of CO2 will result in an increase of 1C of surface temperature if feedbacks are not taken into account.

 

[MarathonMike]

Good argument for solar panels.

It would be if they worked better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Sun is not a static input in our solar system, like all other bodies it is undergoing change moment by moment and probably faster than the other bodies in question. The immensity of our center star allows it to fuse 600 million tons of hydrogen to helium every second of every day. This is what produces the solar winds that offer light, heat and other products to the solar system. The amount of energy that we receive here on earth averages to something like 1300 watts per square meter of our planet's surface.....second by second...it's a rate of delivery. There are several things that mitigate that radiation....our magnetic field, our atmosphere and our ice cover to name a few...I'm sure there are others but those seem to be the major components. There is also another factor that continues to be marginalized. The sun is getting slightly more luminous with each passing moment. Now granted it is a infinitesimally small increase but the Sun.... even in infinitesimal increments is a total beast of an energy source. I have read numerous articles that claim it's not a factor to worry about and yet this seems to defy all that I know about increased energy inputs and on the face of it simply does not make any real physical sense. I do not hold a degree in thermodynamics....however I don't think one is necessary to see the logic here. Simply put the Sun is growing more energetic and we are not moving away from it in any real way at this point soooo the obvious conclusion is that we are recieving more Solar Energy as time goes by regardless of anything anyone wants to produce that says otherwise. Try this at home with your stove top burner and your hand...elecrtric is probabaly more accuate for comparision since radiation is the key factor here not convection or conduction.

Now eventually everyone agrees that the Sun will destroy life on this planet because of this process. A billion years is the estimate....long time from now right? But how do we really know that? It's just a best guess....

So tell me...are you really content to think that something a massive and powerful as the Sun can increase its energy ouput day by day and NOT AFFECT OUR PLANET? You will see bushels of high sounding academic mantra to indicate that this is the case. However I submit to you that even a child knows better.

JO

Thing is, over time our planet has got COOLER....

 

[ding]

Thing is, over time our planet has got COOLER....

View attachment 862619

With glacial cycles increasing in magnitude over the last 1 million years. The only logical explanation is AMOC switch off which disrupts heat to the Arctic from the Atlantic. And it seems to be temperature dependent. Which means it is probably density and salinity related. So I don't believe the planet will get much warmer than another 2C before the AMOC switches off again. Which the planet is naturally warming to just like it has for the past 400,000 years.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

TCR tends to be notably lower than ECS. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report, completed in 2014, gave a likely ECS range of 1.5C to 4.5C of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but a likely TCR of only 1C to 2.5C.

Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity

The sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a question that sits at the heart of climate science. Essentially, it dictates how much global temperatures will rise in response to human-caused CO2 emissions, but it is a question that does not yet have a...

www.carbonbrief.org

This is my 5th citation for the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 which is the only physical process at work. Apu has provided no citations for TCR.

 

[Libby von H]

The Sun is not a static input in our solar system, like all other bodies it is undergoing change moment by moment and probably faster than the other bodies in question. The immensity of our center star allows it to fuse 600 million tons of hydrogen to helium every second of every day. This is what produces the solar winds that offer light, heat and other products to the solar system. The amount of energy that we receive here on earth averages to something like 1300 watts per square meter of our planet's surface.....second by second...it's a rate of delivery. There are several things that mitigate that radiation....our magnetic field, our atmosphere and our ice cover to name a few...I'm sure there are others but those seem to be the major components. There is also another factor that continues to be marginalized. The sun is getting slightly more luminous with each passing moment. Now granted it is a infinitesimally small increase but the Sun.... even in infinitesimal increments is a total beast of an energy source. I have read numerous articles that claim it's not a factor to worry about and yet this seems to defy all that I know about increased energy inputs and on the face of it simply does not make any real physical sense. I do not hold a degree in thermodynamics....however I don't think one is necessary to see the logic here. Simply put the Sun is growing more energetic and we are not moving away from it in any real way at this point soooo the obvious conclusion is that we are recieving more Solar Energy as time goes by regardless of anything anyone wants to produce that says otherwise. Try this at home with your stove top burner and your hand...elecrtric is probabaly more accuate for comparision since radiation is the key factor here not convection or conduction.

Now eventually everyone agrees that the Sun will destroy life on this planet because of this process. A billion years is the estimate....long time from now right? But how do we really know that? It's just a best guess....

So tell me...are you really content to think that something a massive and powerful as the Sun can increase its energy ouput day by day and NOT AFFECT OUR PLANET? You will see bushels of high sounding academic mantra to indicate that this is the case. However I submit to you that even a child knows better.

JO

Bu the sun is NOT all energy it is mass too and there must be variable rates of mass to energy.
Everyone does not agree that eventually the Sun wil destroy life on Earth.

 

[ding]

Thing is, over time our planet has got COOLER....

The planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures because both polar regions are thermally isolated from warm marine currents. It is what is driving the planet's climate.

 

[abu afak]

Bu the sun is NOT all energy it is mass too and there must be variable rates of mass to energy.
Everyone does not agree that eventually the Sun wil destroy life on Earth.

And it is now incumbent on you to back this claim with logic, a credible link, or context to it's true scale/percent of disbelievers.
Saying "Not Everybody" is an empty strawman. (suggesting At Least most do.)
"Not Everybody" believes anything.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2." Dr. Roy Spencer

Yes, we all read your incorrect claim and laughable, discredited denier sources the first 100 times.

Did ya read the IPCC yet?

 

[ding]

Yes, we all read your incorrect claim and laughable, discredited denier sources the first 100 times.

Did ya read the IPCC yet?

Yes, it's in there too, dummy.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report, states the TCR is likely between 1C to 2.5C.

The lower limit of 1C for a doubling of CO2 is based upon the simple physics of the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 otherwise known as the GHG effect. This is not a controversial statement. It is well understood by climate scientists. It is the only value you can a quantitatively attribute to CO2 from simple physics. Everything else is a guess and assumes almost all warming is due to CO2 which is ridiculous given how chaotic the planet's climate system has been since it became bipolar glaciated. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world. To argue that history stops because CO2 is increasing is ridiculous and unsupported by any science.

 

[ding]

Yes, we all read your incorrect claim and laughable, discredited denier sources the first 100 times.

Did ya read the IPCC yet?

And here's another citation.

"...TCR tends to be notably lower than ECS. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report, completed in 2014, gave a likely ECS range of 1.5C to 4.5C of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but a likely TCR of only 1C to 2.5C..."

Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity

The sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a question that sits at the heart of climate science. Essentially, it dictates how much global temperatures will rise in response to human-caused CO2 emissions, but it is a question that does not yet have a...

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[ding]

Yes, we all read your incorrect claim and laughable, discredited denier sources the first 100 times.

Did ya read the IPCC yet?

And here is yet another citation.

"...To understand how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide on time frames of a century or less, scientists also study the transient climate sensitivity. They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F)..."

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?

Concentration of carbon dioxide is about 1.4 times what it was before the Industrial Revolution. How much and how fast will Earth warm if carbon dioxide concentrations double the pre-industrial?

www.climate.gov

 

[ding]

Yes, we all read your incorrect claim and laughable, discredited denier sources the first 100 times.

Did ya read the IPCC yet?

When can I expect you to provide YOUR citations?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Sun is not a static input in our solar system, like all other bodies it is undergoing change moment by moment and probably faster than the other bodies in question. The immensity of our center star allows it to fuse 600 million tons of hydrogen to helium every second of every day. This is what produces the solar winds that offer light, heat and other products to the solar system. The amount of energy that we receive here on earth averages to something like 1300 watts per square meter of our planet's surface.....second by second...it's a rate of delivery. There are several things that mitigate that radiation....our magnetic field, our atmosphere and our ice cover to name a few...I'm sure there are others but those seem to be the major components. There is also another factor that continues to be marginalized. The sun is getting slightly more luminous with each passing moment. Now granted it is a infinitesimally small increase but the Sun.... even in infinitesimal increments is a total beast of an energy source. I have read numerous articles that claim it's not a factor to worry about and yet this seems to defy all that I know about increased energy inputs and on the face of it simply does not make any real physical sense. I do not hold a degree in thermodynamics....however I don't think one is necessary to see the logic here. Simply put the Sun is growing more energetic and we are not moving away from it in any real way at this point soooo the obvious conclusion is that we are recieving more Solar Energy as time goes by regardless of anything anyone wants to produce that says otherwise. Try this at home with your stove top burner and your hand...elecrtric is probabaly more accuate for comparision since radiation is the key factor here not convection or conduction.

Now eventually everyone agrees that the Sun will destroy life on this planet because of this process. A billion years is the estimate....long time from now right? But how do we really know that? It's just a best guess....

So tell me...are you really content to think that something a massive and powerful as the Sun can increase its energy ouput day by day and NOT AFFECT OUR PLANET? You will see bushels of high sounding academic mantra to indicate that this is the case. However I submit to you that even a child knows better.

JO

The AGWCult has determined that CO2 drives climate change through the solar system

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And here is yet another citation.

"...To understand how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide on time frames of a century or less, scientists also study the transient climate sensitivity. They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F)..."

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?

Concentration of carbon dioxide is about 1.4 times what it was before the Industrial Revolution. How much and how fast will Earth warm if carbon dioxide concentrations double the pre-industrial?

www.climate.gov

in any given year temperatures vary by 60F, but now we’re told 62F will kill all life on Earth

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When can I expect you to provide YOUR citations?

Never. I pointed you to the IPCC report, and what it says about doubling the CO2 from the pre industrial levels.

1degC is not even in the range.

So we can ignore your verbose and repeated falsehoods.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

in any given year temperatures vary by 60F, but now we’re told 62F will kill all life on Earth

No we aren't.

Stop making up stupid shit, Frank.