Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.....I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
That would put me several grade levels above you.You must still be in high school.Not in math, iggy. You misspell a math term, you’re fked.Spelling and calculating are two different things.
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?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.....I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
Fly away pigeons.
I'm a degreed engineer. Been doing engineering for 36 years. What are your qualifications?That would put me several grade levels above you.You must still be in high school.Not in math, iggy. You misspell a math term, you’re fked.Spelling and calculating are two different things.
there's missing.
Ha ha, I noticed you spent two posts adding values that “weren’t missing.” You asked me to solve an equation with 4 values unknown and only one given, and you didn’t even tell me which value it was ?.....what a dufus.I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's nothing missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
Do you want to be informed ? There are a plethora of websites. Facts are free. You don’t have to make up extraneous shit up. Would you like some help ?No one mentioned the Chinese but you.So, 3400 universities and all govt agencies fell for a Chinese hoax just to what ?When it leads to taxing carbon... absolutely.You think making up shit will get you more money ?
What do you think atmospheric CO2 will be in the year 2100?
How much will the sea level rise by the year 2100?
I want to get a feel for how informed you are.
No one made up a math problem, dummy.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.....I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
Fly away pigeons.
Qualifications ?I'm a degreed engineer. Been doing engineering for 36 years. What are your qualifications?
There's nothing missing, dummy.there's missing.Ha ha, I noticed you spent two posts adding values that “weren’t missing.” You asked me to solve an equation with 4 values unknown and only one given, and you didn’t even tell me which value it was ?.....what a dufus.I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's nothing missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
You have no qualifications. That's obvious.Qualifications ?I'm a degreed engineer. Been doing engineering for 36 years. What are your qualifications?
This is the internet. I could be just a high school grad or a brain surgeon....I’ll give you a discount for my services.
You’re a fking piss poor teacher.
So, where did you get your degree from ? Why don’t you check their Climate Change cred.
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.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.....I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
Fly away pigeons.
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.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.....I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
Fly away pigeons.
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
Sure, you spent two posts adding material you never included because you’re a retarded engineer with too much free time in his hands.There's nothing missing, dummy.
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.“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.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.....I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
Fly away pigeons.
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.
www.scientificamerican.com
And what does that make you if you can’t even make a point with a HS grad without embarrassing yourself.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.“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.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.....I had no problem using it. Other than needing the conversion factor for w/m^2 to deg C, there's missing. You're an idiot.Oh, so you conveniently omitted a pair of necessary values to do what, have me check your spelling again.415 is the current concentration. So you can input 300 ppm as the inital and 415 as the final to see what the change was. Or you can input 415 as the initial and say 580 as the final to see what the change will be.Ah, yes. But all you’ll get is an expressionBet your asteroid I do.∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...
Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?
I know MORE about logarithmic functions then you, guaranteed ...you misspelled LOGARITHMIC.
Then can you solve for k @ 415 ppm? ...
That’s a silly question. You still have two other unknowns and you didn’t say if 415 ppm was the initial or final concentration of CO2.
At least if you’re going to pretend to know math, pretend with more Information ....faker.
But be careful about your units because that equation does not give the answer in deg C.
Another mistake on your part. You need both pairs of values to make two natural log equations because you still have two unknowns, delta t and the constant K. So far, you’re 0-3 in making yourself look smart.
Fly away pigeons.
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 CO 2 as a greenhouse gas, the Galileo Movement relies on irrelevant facts while omitting pertinent ones
I'm pretty happy with our exchanges. I can drop down to your level, but you can not rise up to mine.And what does that make you if you can’t even make a point with a HS grad without embarrassing yourself.And... you are an idiot.
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.....I'm pretty happy with our exchanges. I can drop down to your level, but you can not rise up to mine.And what does that make you if you can’t even make a point with a HS grad without embarrassing yourself.And... you are an idiot.
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.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.
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.Your little charts are irrelevant ......dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.
This is all you need to know. According to Smithsonian
Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Highest Point in Human History
Last Friday, carbon concentrations at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory topped 415 ppm
Look how cold you want it to be.
View attachment 366852
