[Origin]

Please evail yourself with evaporative cooling.

Do you think that has something to do with this discussion?

[Deecart]

CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.

Who ever said that it was?

GIEC say that,.and every climato-realist.
Here the calculation (every cave man can understand this sophisticated formula) :

ΔC=ΔT×20=ΔS

where ∆C is the +/− change in CO2 in ppm, with a corresponding ∆T in degrees Celsius, and ∆S being sea level in meters. This becomes very analytical with the (before 1950) historically stable, assumed “zero values” of So = 0 m, Co of 290 ppm, and To = 15˚C from Hansen’s Figure 10, we find that putting those ∆ values

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=107789
 
It is very usefull when you need to show to everyone in some graph (without strange scale) that CO2 follow temperature (i know you have already seen many of them).

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Please evail yourself with evaporative cooling.

Do you think that has something to do with this discussion?

You seem to be avoiding the point.

I said less water will mean temperatures are higher. This is because of evaporation cooling . I also said this can be seen as an example when it rains the environment cools down.

You said this is not that difficult. high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.

I am unsure what you are trying to say but you seem to be avoiding the fact that evaporation cools the environment. Rain cools things down, undeniable. There is even disagreement on how to phrase it.

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/rain-will-cool-the-temperature-down.1862414/

[Bored chemist]

GIEC say that,.and every climato-realist.
Here the calculation (every cave man can understand this sophisticated formula) :

You seem to have mistaken a coefficient for linearity.

[Bored chemist]

It is by no means established that what we have seen  in the last 100 years is outside the noise amplitude of  a natural process.

Please evince that.
What part of the historical record shows a roughly 1/3 increasing in CO2 over a few decades?

[alancalverd]

My thesis is that the increase in CO2 is, historically, an effect, not a cause. The evidence is that the CO2 curve historically has followed rather than led the temperature curve, and there has been no evidence of a geological rather than biological mechanism that could account for the recorded increases of 100 ppm in 1000 years, nor the sharp spikes and dips in that process.

The obvious extrapolation from the evidence is that

(1) changes in CO2 level above about 200 ppm were not responsible for temperature change and   

(2) upward changes in global temperature invoke a powerful positive feedback mechanism  and

(3) the cycle is in some way self-limiting with a temperature range of about 12 degrees 

That said, it would be worthwhile investigating (1) by rapidly and substantially reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as I  have been proposing for the last 17 years. That is science. Stating, in the face of the evidence, that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature, is not science.

Moving on from science to engineering, i.e. how do we do it, what happens if we don't, and what happens if my hypothesis is correct, it is clear that an increasing human population with increasing aspirations to eat meat and enjoy the benefits of environmental temperature control, personal transport,sewage, medicine, etc. means that we will need to make substantial changes to social norms and aspirations, and/or be prepared to tolerate mass human starvation or migration.

Sadly, I see little enthusiasm for the experiment, and a growing acceptance of the inevitability of disaster. Which rather suggests that the majority agree with my hypothesis and our descendants are doomed.

[Deecart]

You seem to have mistaken a coefficient for linearity.

I dont understand what you say.

ΔC=ΔT×20 mean ΔC/ΔT=20 so the slope is 20 (constant) and ΔC is linked linearly with ΔT (every time T increase by 1 unit (or decrease) then C increase (or decrease) linearly by 20 units.

But it is not very important.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to have mistaken a coefficient for linearity.

I dont understand what you say.

ΔC=ΔT×20 mean ΔC/ΔT=20 so the slope is 20 (constant) and ΔC is linked linearly with ΔT (every time T increase by 1 unit (or decrease) then C increase (or decrease) linearly by 20 units.

But it is not very important.

Here's a curve

quadratic.JPG (26.77 kB . 511x430 - viewed 1665 times)

It always has a gradient; you can calculate the rate of change of y with a change in x for any value of x.
But it isn't linear.

[Deecart]

My thesis is that the increase in CO2 is, historically, an effect, not a cause

I agree that this hypothesis could be actualy PARTIALY accepted.
Surely the CO2 humankind is releasing in the atmosphere has some effect, but the % of this cause is unsure relativ to other causes we also well know (per example the sun activity or sun irradiance due to some trajectory variation).

The recent measurement of ppm CO2 tend to say that humankind is whole responsible, according to GIEC experts.

Now, what do they really measure ?

If you take a look at Mauna Loa's observatory results since 1950, you need to agree that CO2 ppm in atmosphere increase at a steady rate.
Also, some other measurement of the "mean" global temperature states that it is increasing at a steady rate too (due to some "cause").

Could there be some link between temperature and CO2 quantity within some volume of air ?

Yes of course:
If temperature increase, more water is in the air.
And when they do some measurement at Mauna Loa observatory.... they take this into account (should they ??!!)
Believe or not, but the measurment protocol (due to his inventor Mr Kelling) states that we have to standardize the raw measurement of the air (the reality) to reflect the "normal" state of the earth (because every observatory will give you an other result due to many cause).
So what they do ?
Try not to laught....They dry the air before measuring it !!!

So if there is more water in the air (real air reflecting real state), they dry it  and the water is replaced by ... CO2 of course (that is my opinion, but you can verify it by yourself)
So yes, if temperature increase, the measure will give you an increase of CO2 even if there is no increase of CO2 in the real world.

I dont understand what they also do with the temperature and pressure so as to standardise it, or not (as if CO2 at sea level would be representative of the earth, not to say of of temperature normalizing, so i hope they dont...)

You have the protocol here if you want to verify yourself :
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

[Deecart]

It always has a gradient; you can calculate the rate of change of y with a change in x for any value of x.
But it isn't linear.

Of course it is not linear, because the slope is not CONSTANT
I still dont understand why you dont accept that some "ax + by +c = 0" formula is linear.

[Bored chemist]

I still dont understand why you dont accept

Obviously, I do accept that.

But what is obviously wrong is that the change in temperature will be a linear function of CO2 concentration.
I think the biggest source of non-linearity is the "saturation" of absorption.
If you have enough CO2 to absorb practically all the radiation at some wavelength then doubling CO2 will not double the amount of radiation absorbed at that wavelength.

The change will be approximately linear over a sufficiently small range, but that is not the same as saying it is actually linear.

[Origin]

You seem to be avoiding the point.

I am not.

I said less water will mean temperatures are higher. This is because of evaporation cooling . I also said this can be seen as an example when it rains the environment cools down.

Yes, evaporative cooling is a real thing.

You said this is not that difficult. high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.

That is absolutely 100% true.

I am unsure what you are trying to say

Please refer to the answer directly above.

but you seem to be avoiding the fact that evaporation cools the environment. Rain cools things down, undeniable.

I am not avoiding this obvious fact.

I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.

[Deecart]

I still dont understand why you dont accept

Obviously, I do accept that.

But what is obviously wrong is that the change in temperature will be a linear function of CO2 concentration.
I think the biggest source of non-linearity is the "saturation" of absorption.
If you have enough CO2 to absorb practically all the radiation at some wavelength then doubling CO2 will not double the amount of radiation absorbed at that wavelength.

The change will be approximately linear over a sufficiently small range, but that is not the same as saying it is actually linear.

This is exactly what i say.
I even heard that when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz.

But why do the graphics published by the experts dont take this in account ?

[Bored chemist]

But why do the graphics published by the experts dont take this in account ?

The change will be approximately linear over a sufficiently small range

If you think  that "when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz." then you don't think the effect is linear.
Why were you saying it was?

[Bored chemist]

You seem to be avoiding the point.

I am not.

I said less water will mean temperatures are higher. This is because of evaporation cooling . I also said this can be seen as an example when it rains the environment cools down.

Yes, evaporative cooling is a real thing.

You said this is not that difficult. high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.

That is absolutely 100% true.

I am unsure what you are trying to say

Please refer to the answer directly above.

but you seem to be avoiding the fact that evaporation cools the environment. Rain cools things down, undeniable.

I am not avoiding this obvious fact.

I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.

Would someone tell petrochem that the Antarctic is largely a desert.

[Deecart]

I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.

I agree.
What matters is the possibility to condensate.
So the possibility depend on the flow of air around the earth and how it collapse with cooler places.
At some places, like at the tropics, it is sufficient to have some temerature decrease due to the arrival of night (helped (condensation need "help", scientifically speaking we talk about "nucleus"...or it will never occur) by the fragments of insects and the pollens of plants).

[Deecart]

Would someone tell petrochem that the Antarctic is largely a desert.

I will not.
It is not a desert because of the lack of water.
It is a desert because of the lack of soil, and because the temperature (decreased by the wind) dont allow primitiv life living outside the sea (so no plants etc)

[Deecart]

If you think  that "when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz." then you don't think the effect is linear.
Why were you saying it was?

I do noy say it is.
I pointed that the "wise men" form the GIEC consortium are saying it is (or many graphs they have published would be senseless). Do you think the link i gave you was of my own ??

What is the difference between a wise man and a scientist ?
A scientist is seeking the truth never knowing if he reached the final answer..
On the opposite, the wise man already know the truth (or at least he believe that it is the truth...).

[evan_au]

I even heard that when CO₂ ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz.

The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO₂, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.

That doesn't sound like the opposite of a greenhouse effect to me (even allowing for the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

[Bored chemist]

I do noy say it is.

And here is where you said it is linear.

ΔC=ΔT×20 mean ΔC/ΔT=20 so the slope is 20 (constant) and ΔC is linked linearly with ΔT (every time T increase by 1 unit (or decrease) then C increase (or decrease) linearly by 20 units.

And here is where you said that all the realists say it's true.

GIEC say that,.and every climato-realist.

are you saying you are not a  climate realist?