- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,215
- 2,566
- 315
And here's why you didn't link/context it.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.
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.
`
Last edited: