Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?

[ding]

scientists do not yet have a clear answer."

They should have asked me. Orbital cycles are just one of the components in climate change. Comparing ice age cycle times during the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world to the ice age cycle times of an icehouse world is comparing apples to oranges and in no way diminishes the influence of orbital cycles or their influence upon climate. Which is why "the theory that [orbital cycles] drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

They aren't dumb enough to question the role orbital cycles play just because the cycle time times for ice ages are different during a transition period and the other side of the transition.

Show me the math ... calculate distance at apsis, then calculate irradiation, then plug into SB ... we're looking for ∆T = 12ºC ... and show your work ... once the Fall rains come, I'll take the time and show you how to calculate all this for the entire orbit ...

Your claims are subjective and biased ... see post #295 ...

You got busted, dude.

 

[ReinyDays]

In an engineer so I’m pretty familiar with thermodynamics and physics. In fact, I know enough about them that I can spot someone who doesn’t.

Pro tip: the next time you try to bluff about knowing thermodynamics and get called on it, don’t start talking about physics and equilibriums.

So far, you've shown absolutely nothing that would make me think you know algebra ... you always shy away from it when I post an equation ...

You claimed there's a tipping point in the climate system ... please describe the physics of this tipping point and please focus on energy ... you say you know the laws, I challenge your engineering skills to show all of them are satisfied ... I can read vector diagrams ... start with equilibrium as an initial state ...

My claim is all available forces are account for ... even a magical sudden change in the equilibrium state will only cause very slow change in the system ... 1st law is covered by climate forcing, 2nd law is covered as we are moving towards the new equilibrium ... I will admit I don't know much about the 3rd law, it rarely comes up in discussions about fluid mediums ... so sue me ...

Tipping points are exactly the same mistake Alarmists make ...

 

[ding]

In an engineer so I’m pretty familiar with thermodynamics and physics. In fact, I know enough about them that I can spot someone who doesn’t.

Pro tip: the next time you try to bluff about knowing thermodynamics and get called on it, don’t start talking about physics and equilibriums.

So far, you've shown absolutely nothing that would make me think you know algebra ... you always shy away from it when I post an equation ...

You claimed there's a tipping point in the climate system ... please describe the physics of this tipping point and please focus on energy ... you say you know the laws, I challenge your engineering skills to show all of them are satisfied ... I can read vector diagrams ... start with equilibrium as an initial state ...

My claim is all available forces are account for ... even a magical sudden change in the equilibrium state will only cause very slow change in the system ... 1st law is covered by climate forcing, 2nd law is covered as we are moving towards the new equilibrium ... I will admit I don't know much about the 3rd law, it rarely comes up in discussions about fluid mediums ... so sue me ...

Tipping points are exactly the same mistake Alarmists make ...

Dude, the associated temperature has literally nothing to do with this question In fact, the premise is that there is an associated temperature of CO2. So I am not avoiding it, dummy. I'm telling you it is irrelevant. Here's the funny thing, it seems you want to accept climate changes with increasing CO2 but don't want to acknowledge climate changes with decreasing CO2. That's weird. Especially since we have concrete examples of CO2 reinforcing climate change. Which is what I have been showing.

I agree that certain sudden changes in the equilibrium - specifically CO2 concentration either up or down - leads to slow changes in the system. Never said it didn't. So I'm still not certain how I have violated the laws of thermodynamics (hint: I haven't). In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that. But what I am discussing is the complex interplay between atmospheric CO2, heat circulation of the oceans and the role they play in glacial cycles which is that of necessary background conditions for glacial cycles. So go fuck yourself.

 

[ding]

Tipping points are exactly the same mistake Alarmists make ...

Yes, but I have 400,000 years of cycles preceded by a transition period. So there literally is something which triggered those cycles. We know this because bipolar glaciation did not occur before that. The exact same orbital forces existed before the transition to a greenhouse world and never produced a bipolar glaciated planet . Why not? Because the background conditions (polar regions isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 level) did not allow for it. So if you eliminate one of the background conditions then you eliminate the glacial cycle. It's not that complicated.

 

[james bond]

Interesting that around 580 ppm CO2 could be reached around 2060.

380 ppm probably means we will be without electricity, cars, and living near poverty levels.

"If the build-up of CO2 continues at current rates, by 2060 it will have passed 560 ppm – more than double the level of pre-industrial times."

Climate change: Sensitive warming forecasts overestimated for 50 years

SENSITIVE climate change models have been dealt a blow as researchers have exposed inconsistencies in global warming trends in the last 50 years.

www.express.co.uk

What an idiot ... is arithmetic that difficult for you? ... Ian Flemming's Jame Bond is the Antichrist ... and you preach his gospel under his name ...

We're discussing atmospheric physics ... religion discussions are down the hall, to the left ... there you go, have fun ...

What math? What physics? I presented an article and you can't read it? I was talking with ding. I wasn't even talking to you nor read many of your posts. You talk a lot of nonsensical things and can't explain it well like an educated person would.

 

[ReinyDays]

Dude, the associated temperature has literally nothing to do with this question In fact, the premise is that there is an associated temperature of CO2. So I am not avoiding it, dummy. I'm telling you it is irrelevant. Here's the funny thing, it seems you want to accept climate changes with increasing CO2 but don't want to acknowledge climate changes with decreasing CO2. That's weird. Especially since we have concrete examples of CO2 reinforcing climate change. Which is what I have been showing.

I agree that certain sudden changes in the equilibrium - specifically CO2 concentration either up or down - leads to slow changes in the system. Never said it didn't. So I'm still not certain how I have violated the laws of thermodynamics (hint: I haven't). In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that. But what I am discussing is the complex interplay between atmospheric CO2, heat circulation of the oceans and the role they play in glacial cycles which is that of necessary background conditions for glacial cycles. So go fuck yourself.

Let us first recall your statement:

Given these background conditions and a triggering event whether it be gulf stream switch off or milankovitch orbital cycles or both affects temperatures (‘insolation’) at 65deg N which is a critical location for triggering Northern Hemisphere glaciation.
[Emphasis mine]

We won't know if you've violated the laws of thermodynamics until you tell us what, exactly, you mean by a triggering event ... or you may simply withdraw your comment and we can move on ... I'd rather not have to ream you about switching the Gulf Stream off ... utter nonsense ...

In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that.

I've been trying to figure out a way to dispute your claim that this current "icehouse" Earth started 400,000 years ago ... and here it is, all pretty with a cute ribbon tied on top ... the Azolla event occurred 49 million years ago ... or so the speculation is generally given ... and since when are hypotheses considered "concrete examples"? ... you're an engineer, you should know better ... or should I be worried about driving over bridges ... you didn't take your PE in Missouri by any chance, did you? ...

The climate system is complex ... many of these factors that effect the system are still completely unknown to science ... I'm appalled the IPCC assumes average cloud cover will remain constant ... for that alone we can throw the whole of their reports in the garbage ... these climate models all ignore convection, even with a rudimentary knowledge base of atmospheric science we should know this is foolishness ... so many falsehoods in the commercial media ...

For the record ... I agree with the President of the United States ... climate change is a hoax ... specifically it's New Speak for global warming ... except global warming isn't scary ... in fact, come December, global warmer will sound like a good thing ...

Sorry, done with the extension ladder this summer ... but I'll try to find another way to fuck myself ... perhaps taking a butane torch to some stubborn natural gas line fittings will do the job ...

 

[ding]

Dude, the associated temperature has literally nothing to do with this question In fact, the premise is that there is an associated temperature of CO2. So I am not avoiding it, dummy. I'm telling you it is irrelevant. Here's the funny thing, it seems you want to accept climate changes with increasing CO2 but don't want to acknowledge climate changes with decreasing CO2. That's weird. Especially since we have concrete examples of CO2 reinforcing climate change. Which is what I have been showing.

I agree that certain sudden changes in the equilibrium - specifically CO2 concentration either up or down - leads to slow changes in the system. Never said it didn't. So I'm still not certain how I have violated the laws of thermodynamics (hint: I haven't). In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that. But what I am discussing is the complex interplay between atmospheric CO2, heat circulation of the oceans and the role they play in glacial cycles which is that of necessary background conditions for glacial cycles. So go fuck yourself.

Let us first recall your statement:

Given these background conditions and a triggering event whether it be gulf stream switch off or milankovitch orbital cycles or both affects temperatures (‘insolation’) at 65deg N which is a critical location for triggering Northern Hemisphere glaciation.
[Emphasis mine]

We won't know if you've violated the laws of thermodynamics until you tell us what, exactly, you mean by a triggering event ... or you may simply withdraw your comment and we can move on ... I'd rather not have to ream you about switching the Gulf Stream off ... utter nonsense ...

In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that.

I've been trying to figure out a way to dispute your claim that this current "icehouse" Earth started 400,000 years ago ... and here it is, all pretty with a cute ribbon tied on top ... the Azolla event occurred 49 million years ago ... or so the speculation is generally given ... and since when are hypotheses considered "concrete examples"? ... you're an engineer, you should know better ... or should I be worried about driving over bridges ... you didn't take your PE in Missouri by any chance, did you? ...

The climate system is complex ... many of these factors that effect the system are still completely unknown to science ... I'm appalled the IPCC assumes average cloud cover will remain constant ... for that alone we can throw the whole of their reports in the garbage ... these climate models all ignore convection, even with a rudimentary knowledge base of atmospheric science we should know this is foolishness ... so many falsehoods in the commercial media ...

For the record ... I agree with the President of the United States ... climate change is a hoax ... specifically it's New Speak for global warming ... except global warming isn't scary ... in fact, come December, global warmer will sound like a good thing ...

Sorry, done with the extension ladder this summer ... but I'll try to find another way to fuck myself ... perhaps taking a butane torch to some stubborn natural gas line fittings will do the job ...

No shit it's complex, Captain Obvious. But it's pretty easy to see the trend and the conditions which led to the trend.

The thing about predictable surprises is that they are completely predictable. Don't underestimate your ability to fuck yourself.

 

[ding]

The answer is still 580 ppm