http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg
I doubt that this graph is calculated correctly, but let's assume it is. Why does it start at 0 ppm? That hasn't been relevant to the experience on Earth for what, a billion years or so? Why not start it at some recent time, so that it doesn't make the contribution from the increase look so small?
Also, this is the warming from carbon dioxide alone, but I refer you to another current question of yours that points out the importance of water vapor. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation tells us that the equilibrium vapor pressure of water goes up about 7% for each degree Celsius of temperature increase. If we assume 80% relative humidity then maybe we get an increase of 5.5-6% of water vapor for each Celsius degree.
Now go ahead and add THAT into the temperature increases--I bet you get something more substantial. You are correct that if we had no water vapor in the atmosphere then we probably wouldn't have to worry so much about the increase in CO2, but then we'd also be living on a frozen planet. Since we do live in a world with clouds and water vapor, it DOES matter if we increase CO2.
Why do you keep posting this nonsense? If you add more CO2 to the atmosphere the temperature will increase regardless of how much CO2 is already in the atmosphere. Look up an energy balance climate model with no atmospheric layers, 1 atmospheric layer and more and see how the temperature of the surface changes with the addition of each atmospheric layer.
If you are claiming that greenhouse gases, such as water vapour, cause cooling where is the additional 33C coming from? If the CO2 becomes saturated at the surface that energy still needs to get out, as CO2 in upper atmospheric layers increases, the energy will stay in the atmosphere longer not because of the increase near the surface but because of the increase the higher you go.
Though the value of about 1/3 of a degree for a doubling of CO2is a little on the low side; that aside, the graph is essentially correct.
Would it be right to say this is "what AGW people don't want you to know? I thought we all accepted this as true. What we want, if anything, is for people to make sure they understand that which they are critical of.
You know that is a cumulative graph. The total warming caused by 420 PPM would be the sum of all those bars, not just the little bar at the 420 point.
And yes, the added warming is quite small. All the predictions of large effects are the result of secondary effects predicted to be caused by the small amount of warming due to CO2 only.
yes, and it's a cumulative effect. The left hand side is not meaningful, as all that warming is 'baked in'. It's for this reason that we can calculate we are halfway to a doubling, as 40% increase is approximately square root of 2, and with .7C increase in temperatures, we can conclude 1.4C per doubling. With the recent pause, the overall sensitivity would be lower as the CO2 level keeps rising.
That is a straw man argument. Can you find anyone who disputes that the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic. Why do you think the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is expressed as degrees per doubling.
It is ridiculous to think WWWT is a credible source for information since their mission is simply to deny AGW and ignore the truth. It may be the Kano bible but only the weak minded, non science souls among us would believe even one word of it.
sure, that diminishing effect worked so well on Venus. I know you have an alternate theory about Venus, lets hear it again- it was sure entertaining.
What AGW people don't want you to know.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg?w=623&h=392
This how the warming effect of CO2 diminishes
I doubt that this graph is calculated correctly, but let's assume it is. Why does it start at 0 ppm? That hasn't been relevant to the experience on Earth for what, a billion years or so? Why not start it at some recent time, so that it doesn't make the contribution from the increase look so small?
Also, this is the warming from carbon dioxide alone, but I refer you to another current question of yours that points out the importance of water vapor. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation tells us that the equilibrium vapor pressure of water goes up about 7% for each degree Celsius of temperature increase. If we assume 80% relative humidity then maybe we get an increase of 5.5-6% of water vapor for each Celsius degree.
Now go ahead and add THAT into the temperature increases--I bet you get something more substantial. You are correct that if we had no water vapor in the atmosphere then we probably wouldn't have to worry so much about the increase in CO2, but then we'd also be living on a frozen planet. Since we do live in a world with clouds and water vapor, it DOES matter if we increase CO2.
Why do you keep posting this nonsense? If you add more CO2 to the atmosphere the temperature will increase regardless of how much CO2 is already in the atmosphere. Look up an energy balance climate model with no atmospheric layers, 1 atmospheric layer and more and see how the temperature of the surface changes with the addition of each atmospheric layer.
If you are claiming that greenhouse gases, such as water vapour, cause cooling where is the additional 33C coming from? If the CO2 becomes saturated at the surface that energy still needs to get out, as CO2 in upper atmospheric layers increases, the energy will stay in the atmosphere longer not because of the increase near the surface but because of the increase the higher you go.
Though the value of about 1/3 of a degree for a doubling of CO2is a little on the low side; that aside, the graph is essentially correct.
Would it be right to say this is "what AGW people don't want you to know? I thought we all accepted this as true. What we want, if anything, is for people to make sure they understand that which they are critical of.
You know that is a cumulative graph. The total warming caused by 420 PPM would be the sum of all those bars, not just the little bar at the 420 point.
And yes, the added warming is quite small. All the predictions of large effects are the result of secondary effects predicted to be caused by the small amount of warming due to CO2 only.
yes, and it's a cumulative effect. The left hand side is not meaningful, as all that warming is 'baked in'. It's for this reason that we can calculate we are halfway to a doubling, as 40% increase is approximately square root of 2, and with .7C increase in temperatures, we can conclude 1.4C per doubling. With the recent pause, the overall sensitivity would be lower as the CO2 level keeps rising.
That is a straw man argument. Can you find anyone who disputes that the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic. Why do you think the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is expressed as degrees per doubling.
It is ridiculous to think WWWT is a credible source for information since their mission is simply to deny AGW and ignore the truth. It may be the Kano bible but only the weak minded, non science souls among us would believe even one word of it.
sure, that diminishing effect worked so well on Venus. I know you have an alternate theory about Venus, lets hear it again- it was sure entertaining.
What AGW people don't want you to know.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg?w=623&h=392
This how the warming effect of CO2 diminishes
