You have no problem looking foolish making up math problems then omitting 1/2 the necessary values needed to solve it. By your own admissions and corrections, you miss spelled “the nature“ of the equation and failed to give enough values to solve it. Ha ha. Take a dementia test Trump. I had to correct you zercons twice.....
You are an idiot. That's exactly how the equation has always be represented because they work in w/m^2. Can't you do a simple unit conversion from w/m^2 to deg C? Go look it up for yourself. I had no problem using it. See?
I'm a degreed engineer. Been doing engineering for 36 years. What are your qualifications?
Qualifications ?
You have no qualifications. That's obvious.
So that’s a lot of woo woo. What’s your point ? AGW is a Chinese hoax ? Laughable duds.No one made up a math problem, dummy.
See?
Forcing due to atmospheric gas[edit]
For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations might be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, a proposed simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide would be:
{\displaystyle \Delta F=5.35\times \ln {C \over C_{0}}~\mathrm {W} ~\mathrm {m} ^{-2}\,}
where C is the CO
2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[9] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic,[10] at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Some claim that at higher concentrations, however, it becomes supra-logarithmic so that there is no saturation in the absorption of infrared radiation by CO
2.[11]
A different formula might apply for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N
2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that may be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[12] While recently a [13] suggests a significant revision of methane IPCC formula.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
My point is that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.So that’s a lot of woo woo. What’s your point ? AGW is a Chinese hoax ? Laughable duds.No one made up a math problem, dummy.
See?
Forcing due to atmospheric gas[edit]
For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations might be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, a proposed simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide would be:
{\displaystyle \Delta F=5.35\times \ln {C \over C_{0}}~\mathrm {W} ~\mathrm {m} ^{-2}\,}
where C is the CO
2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[9] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic,[10] at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Some claim that at higher concentrations, however, it becomes supra-logarithmic so that there is no saturation in the absorption of infrared radiation by CO
2.[11]
A different formula might apply for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N
2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that may be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[12] While recently a [13] suggests a significant revision of methane IPCC formula.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia
“My point is that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.“My point is that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.So that’s a lot of woo woo. What’s your point ? AGW is a Chinese hoax ? Laughable duds.No one made up a math problem, dummy.
See?
Forcing due to atmospheric gas[edit]
For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations might be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, a proposed simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide would be:
{\displaystyle \Delta F=5.35\times \ln {C \over C_{0}}~\mathrm {W} ~\mathrm {m} ^{-2}\,}
where C is the CO
2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[9] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic,[10] at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Some claim that at higher concentrations, however, it becomes supra-logarithmic so that there is no saturation in the absorption of infrared radiation by CO
2.[11]
A different formula might apply for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N
2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that may be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[12] While recently a [13] suggests a significant revision of methane IPCC formula.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia
And... you are an idiot.
I didn't say that. I said it doesn't drive climate change. It reinforces climate change. You think it drives it. And there is absolutely zero evidence for that. CO2 lags temperature because of CO2 sequestration of the ocean.“My point is that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.“My point is that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.So that’s a lot of woo woo. What’s your point ? AGW is a Chinese hoax ? Laughable duds.No one made up a math problem, dummy.
See?
Forcing due to atmospheric gas[edit]
For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations might be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, a proposed simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide would be:
{\displaystyle \Delta F=5.35\times \ln {C \over C_{0}}~\mathrm {W} ~\mathrm {m} ^{-2}\,}
where C is the CO
2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[9] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic,[10] at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Some claim that at higher concentrations, however, it becomes supra-logarithmic so that there is no saturation in the absorption of infrared radiation by CO
2.[11]
A different formula might apply for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N
2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that may be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[12] While recently a [13] suggests a significant revision of methane IPCC formula.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia
And... you are an idiot.
You’re an engineer and you don’t recognize CO2 as a greenhouse gas ? Geesus, you must be an engineer for toy trains. Take it up with every university.
Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas
In making a case against CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the Galileo Movement relies on irrelevant facts while omitting pertinent oneswww.scientificamerican.com
I'm pretty happy with our exchanges. I can drop down to your level, but you can not rise up to mine.
Be careful. I never pretended to be anything but a humble middle class worker who values education and the American institutions It’s asinine to pretend that science practiced in our institutions is not Responsible for the greatest ideas man has ever had.....
There are many green house gasses in the atmosphere, some more effective then CO2. But, CO2 is the most abundant, it increases with fossil fuel burning and it ACCELERATES the temperature rise. Yes, it drives climate change because “the rate” increase is more affected by CO2 Production then any-other gas.
No they aren’t. Your scale is all off. The rate if change is greater then at any time in the history of mankind dufus.Actually, no. They are extremely relevant. The conditions which existed that created the icehouse world are still present today, dummy.
Look how cold you want it to be.
View attachment 366852
