[chiralSPO]

"necessarily" is an important qualifier. It is used to signify that there is additional complexity, not a pure cause-effect relationship ("if X then Y" means X necessarily produces Y; while "if X and W and V and U then Y," then X is not necessarily producing Y).

As in: for plants in settings in which they have enough water and light and available nitrogen and reasonable temperatures and pollinators respond positively to increased levels of carbon dioxide. BUT... this does not necessarily mean that increased carbon dioxide levels on a global scale, because it may interfere with the other resources that the plants need (especially water and pollinators).

And this doesn't mean that plants are incapable of thriving in high CO₂ environments... obviously something photosynthetic fixed those fossil fuels.... but that also doesn't mean that the plants that have evolved for our current climate would do well if the weather turned a bit Permian over the next 150 years (within a single lifetime of a tree.)

[Bored chemist]

So the word "necessarily", like "existential", adds nothing to the sentence.

So, you don't understand the word "necessarily" means.

[Bored chemist]

More to the point, is it relevant?

Yes.
If plants die in 100% CO2 then the statement that

It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.

is true and you shouldn't have wasted time trying to pretend that it wasn't.

[alancalverd]

Fact is, that it does. But don't let the facts spoilt a good argument, chaps!

And for those unfamiliar with maths and English, if you start with (an existential) 0.04%, "more" doesn't (necessarily) mean 100%. Crop yields generally peak at around 0.1 - 0.12% CO2.

[Bored chemist]

And for those unfamiliar with maths and English, if you start with (an existential) 0.04%, "more" doesn't (necessarily) mean 100%.

No. For a start, nobody said that it did.
Go on- try to post a quote that says that anyone said that.

You got it the wrong way round- presumably deliberately.
If you start with 400 ppm then 100% is necessarily more.

Crop yields generally peak at around 0.1 - 0.12% CO2.

Did you check on the effect of CO2 on other factors?
If, for example, that extra CO2 made the world hotter, melted the ice and flooded much of the land while leaving the rest too hot for crops, that wouldn't be optimal, would it?

You can't look at just one thing in isolation.

[alancalverd]

It's the magic "if" that needs to be investigated. And maybe not optimal for the present distribution of humans, but Europe wasn't such a bad place before it got cold in the 11th century.

[Bored chemist]

It's the magic "if" that needs to be investigated.

Yes.
And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get  two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.

So, we are left with modeling the Earth.

And the models- from the simplest qualitative one (we put more CO2 in the air and CO2 absorbs IR more than it absorbs visible (and near UV) light), to the most complex quantitative ones- as used by the international panels of scientists- all say the same thing.
More CO2 makes the planet warmer.

And that's consistent with the observation- it's generally getting warmer.

The temperature change  since WWII is already bigger (and, obviously faster) than the "dip" in the 11th C
https://xkcd.com/1732/

There isn't any "if" about it, the question is "how much?".

[MarkPawelek (OP)]

What do you consider the phrase "equation of state" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state

Presumably you left that as a comment at their "Open Peer Review Journal" page.  More likely you never watched the video I linked to nor read their demolition of pseudoscience of the greenhouse gas effect.

You are probably still ignorant now regarding the how and why of greenhouse gas pseudoscience <- I guess you just don't care to learn how earth's climate really works?

[MarkPawelek (OP)]

I proposed the acid test way back. Use the model to back-cast and match it to ice core data, and see if it explains the regular superimposed ripple on the recent Mauna Loa data. You have produced a good test of the validity of underlying assumptions by comparing their predicted tephigram with reality.

Not good enough. To really test a model one needs to try to falsify it, by looking at its all its predictions, under all circumstances. Then comparing model assumptions, projections to reality. Man-made global warming fans never did this. They call people who do it "science deniers".

British science establishment support this demonization of actual skeptical scientists by promoting notion that people interested in testing all aspects of a model are "science deniers".  Beyond mindless leftism, naked careerism, or obsequious conformism, I can't really fathom the motive behind this attitude.

Mauna Loa CO2 atmospheric data has nothing to do with this. If, as we claim, greenhouse gas effect is mere pseudoscience, then it will not matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is just more plant food.

[MarkPawelek (OP)]

And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get  two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.

So, we are left with modeling the Earth.

Using scientists' preferred models which enable them to tweak for worst case scenarios, AKA climate crisis and catastrophe. Many scientists did just that - proposing models with climate sensitivities as high as 10C.

Meanwhile, away from their armchair modeling, ivory tower musings, and computers, the real behaviour of the mid-atmosphere is now known, and the greenhouse gas effect shown to have no influence or what's really going on.

XR, Al Gore, so-called environment journalists do the real job of scaring little children out of their minds, and sometimes out of their lives. But they are just repeating what climate scientists told them - based on the scientist's made up science and prejudice. We really need to praise climate scientists more for originating this anti-human junk which passes for settled science. They should be given their due for spate of suicides among adolescents.

[Bored chemist]

OK, so they are just misusing the phrase in an attempt to sound "sciencey".

Presumably you left that as a comment at their "Open Peer Review Journal" page.  More likely you never watched the video I linked to nor read their demolition of pseudoscience of the greenhouse gas effect.

You are probably still ignorant now regarding the how and why of greenhouse gas pseudoscience <- I guess you just don't care to learn how earth's climate really works?

Well, I'm not likely to find out how the climate works from a bunch of folks who just make up stuff, am I?

[chiralSPO]

And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get  two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.

So, we are left with modeling the Earth.

Using scientists' preferred models which enable them to tweak for worst case scenarios, AKA climate crisis and catastrophe. Many scientists did just that - proposing models with climate sensitivities as high as 10C.

Meanwhile, away from their armchair modeling, ivory tower musings, and computers, the real behaviour of the mid-atmosphere is now known, and the greenhouse gas effect shown to have no influence or what's really going on.

XR, Al Gore, so-called environment journalists do the real job of scaring little children out of their minds, and sometimes out of their lives. But they are just repeating what climate scientists told them - based on the scientist's made up science and prejudice. We really need to praise climate scientists more for originating this anti-human junk which passes for settled science. They should be given their due for spate of suicides among adolescents.

Yeah... I'm sure Al Gore personally coaxes teens into suicide. (\sarcasm)

Or... maybe there are other factors at play. What else has changed in the last decade might cause teens to become despondent?

Maybe the rise of social media, which at worst facilitates cyber bullying (there wasn't even a term for this when I was growing up), and at best allows teens to project an 'amazing' fictionalized version of their lives to their peers, while secretly worrying why all of their peers are having so much fun while they are at home alone doctoring images of themselves.

Maybe (at least in the US), teen students are stressed by the now more than annual occurrence of mass shootings at schools.

Maybe (again in the US), the rise of opiate addiction is disrupting families, while simultaneously providing easy access to lethal dosages of pain-numbing drugs.

Sure, I'll grant that there are probably a lot of teens out there, living in anguish because of their perception of climate change. But my guess is that more suffering is caused them by seeing adults not caring about the plight of their generation with respect to climate change, than the threats of climate change itself.

[chiralSPO]

But this is a science forum, so let's stick to science.

You asked for a citation of a single paper that summarizes theoretical underpinnings of climate change, and also experimentally proves that CO₂ causes climate change, and also experimentally proves that it is as bad as it is predicted to be.

Unfortunately, science doesn't work that way (and I think you already know this). There is a body of scientific literature, in which each paper takes a very small part of this large and complex issues, and dissects it. If you want one document that does all of them look at the IPCC reports: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/  also provides a good summary of where the data come from, and how they are analyzed
~~~

For example, here is a paper that defines the theories used in modeling greenhouse gas influences:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

And here are some papers that establish that carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD094iD06p08533
(also useful: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html)

And here are some papers that establish the source of the carbon dioxide:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusb.v51i2.16269
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/256/5053/74
And here are some papers that aim to predict how increased carbon dioxide will influence ecosystems:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/eaam8328.abstract

And here are some papers that aim to measure the rise of sea levels:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ami_Hassan_Md_Din/publication/295010891_SEA_LEVEL_RISE_QUANTIFICATION_USING_MULTI-MISSION_SATELLITE_ALTIMETER_OVER_MALAYSIAN_SEAS/links/56c6620108ae408dfe4d31d2.pdf

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022

And here are some papers that aim to measure increased global temperatures:

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.5264
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076327

Take your pick!

[chiralSPO]

oh, and btw Mark... I've done my research, and it appears that your name pops up quite frequently on discussions of climate science... if these are all you (and it is a striking coincidence if not), then it seems you have already gotten answers to your "questions" many times, from many people, at many levels, and with may references. I will no longer cut you any slack when you appear to play ignorant...

As a forum mod, let me be clear: don't troll here

[alancalverd]

To really test a model one needs to try to falsify it, by looking at its all its predictions, under all circumstances. Then comparing model assumptions, projections to reality.

Nonsense. You can't test the model under all circumstances because we only have one circumstance - history. Fortunately we have superbly detailed history going back half a million years, which isn't adequately explained by a CO2-forcing model. Little point in comparing a model with future performance because its function is surely to predict the future to allow us to control it, so you need to validate it historically before taking any action. 

Beware: if you paddle in the shallows of science, your sharpest and best-informed critics are often those who agree with your motive.

[MarkPawelek (OP)]

Einstein ... in 1919, showed that if a gas was in thermodynamic equilibrium the rate of adsorption by an infrared gas ... was equal to the rate of emission. In other words, if you increase the amount of infrared active gases in the atmosphere you will increase the rate of absorption but at the exact same time you will increase the rate of emission. So if the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium you won't get a greenhouse effect. It won't store the energy, and what we have shown, by our data, is yes ... the air is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate models have decided to ignore Einstein.

Einstein said ... the infrared active gases will aid the transfer of energy from a hot area to a cold area but it won't store the energy

-- Time: 48:38

[chiralSPO]

So if the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium you won't get a greenhouse effect. It won't store the energy, and what we have shown, by our data, is yes ... the air is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate models have decided to ignore Einstein.

The air is most definitely NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium... at any given time there are local temperature variations (gradients), and temperatures change in any given location throughout the day. Wind, storms, rain, evaporation, and all other aspects of weather are direct results of the atmosphere NOT being in thermodynamic equilibrium.

If we average over enough space and time (looking at climate rather than weather), there is a kind of steady state equilibrium, but this should not be confused with actual thermodynamic equilibrium.

Furthermore, even if we assumed that an actual thermodynamic equilibrium existed at some point, this still doesn't change the fact that the equilibrium point would be different for atmospheres of different compositions. By changing the composition of our atmosphere, we have changed where the equilibrium will be.

Finally, please see my earlier post in this thread (reply 9), where I explain how absorption and reemission of photons of the same energy can slow the rate of radiative heat transfer (radiative cooling).

The surface emits thermal energy with a power roughly proportional to its temperature raised to the 4th power (P = A×T⁴ where A is a constant). Because added carbon dioxide slows down the rate of radiative cooling much, much more than it slows down the rate of incoming radiant energy (mostly visible light), it effectively decreases the constant A, and a higher surface temperature is required to return to the steady state of E_in = E_out.

[alancalverd]

For example, here is a paper that defines the theories used in modeling greenhouse gas influences:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

But it doesn't mention the most important one of all - water. If you ignore the weight of the elephant you can convince yourself that the mahout weighs 5 tons, and start all sorts of ridiculous scare stories.

And here are some papers that aim to measure increased global temperatures:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.5264

...….the time series of global surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies from 1860 to 2014...…

Fascinating. The period begins 40 years before anyone had reached the north pole, let alone made any temperature measurements there, and 50 years before anyone had reached the south pole. As for making representative measurements of the surface temperature of the oceans (which account for about 70% of the surface) or the deserts (20%), there is no reliable data before 1970. The only temperature data of any scientific validity before then, comes from the demands of aviation and is limited to airfields which, from 1910 to 1970, gradually changed from grass to concrete.

So whilst it is entirely conceivable that global mean air temperature has increased rapidly in the last 100 years, that statement is based on "evidence" that would not stand up in a court of law, being mostly assumptions, extrapolations, and interpretation of models based on the very hypotheses they set out to prove.

Back to the acid test. There is no need even to go back to 500,000 year ice cores. A valid model will explain why it was warmer in Canada 500 years ago than it is now. I don't think anthropogenic CO2 fits the bill.

[chiralSPO]

For example, here is a paper that defines the theories used in modeling greenhouse gas influences:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

But it doesn't mention the most important one of all - water. If you ignore the weight of the elephant you can convince yourself that the mahout weighs 5 tons, and start all sorts of ridiculous scare stories.

well... not quite

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/person/Andrew_Dessler

[Bored chemist]

You can't test the model under all circumstances because we only have one circumstance - history.

You can generally test individual aspects of the model- for example, it's easy enough to test the idea that CO2 absorbs IR.

Obviously, for the reason I gave earlier that's not proof that the whole model is true but it is supporting evidence.

And, we can check if the broad conclusion of the model is correct.
Thus, we can predict that more CO2 makes it warmer and we can observe that we have more CO2, and it's warmer.

Einstein ... in 1919, showed that if a gas was in thermodynamic equilibrium

It's not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
The Sun's hot, the Earth's cool.
The Earth's surface is cool, the outer atmosphere is cold.

Now, anyone with any level of competence will know that.
So, the question is were you incompetent (due to ignorance of basic science), in which case you should probably keep out of the discussion on a science forum. or was it a deliberate lie?

But it doesn't mention the most important one of all - water. If you ignore the weight of the elephant you can convince yourself that the mahout weighs 5 tons, and start all sorts of ridiculous scare stories.

That's not much of an analogy; but let's run with it.
I used to measure dust concentrations in air by drawing a known volume of air through a (pre-weighed) filter and re-weighing it.
The mass of the filter was typically about 20 mg. The weight of the dust was typically 0.2 mg.

It is perfectly simple to determine the mass of the dust
BECAUSE THE WEIGHT OF THE FILTER- LIKE THE IR ABSORPTION OF WATER VAPOUR IN THE AIR- DOES NOT CHANGE MUCH.
I thought I'd put that in big letters because you seemed to miss it when I pointed it out earlier.
We haven't added a third as much water again into the atmosphere like we have with CO2.