[Bored chemist]

This is what you actually said.

Not according to Believers, who think that adding more blankets reduces your heat loss  linearly with thickness or density of the blanket.

And it's a straw man, isn't it?
Because nobody said it was linear, did they?

[alancalverd]

Have you met anyone who proposed a supralinear process?

[Bored chemist]

Have you met anyone who proposed a supralinear process?

Yes, thank you for asking.
Now please answer the question.

This is what you actually said.

Not according to Believers, who think that adding more blankets reduces your heat loss  linearly with thickness or density of the blanket.

And it's a straw man, isn't it?
Because nobody said it was linear, did they?

And, don't forget , we are talking "generalities" here.
When you say "Believers, who think that.." it implies that the majority of "believers" thing that.
Finding one who does isn't going to cut it.

[alancalverd]

Perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten me on the hypothetical supralinear process.

Because nobody said it was linear, did they?

Here's a fairly typical educational website
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/introduction/the-greenhouse-effect
It would be difficult to see anything other than a linear correlation, from the graph given. If you have time to read the text, you may spot an absurdity or two, but I think it reflects  what we are told to believe.

[Bored chemist]

There's two sets of data given there, one's verbal, the other graphical.
First there's the graph.
It shows that CO2 and temperature sort of both go up with time.
That's not really evidence of linearity, is it?
At best you could say that it looks like it's linear over that rather small range. But, of course, most things do.

Let's look at the text.
"If we had no atmosphere, as on the moon, the average temperature on the Earth's surface would be about -18?C. However, a natural background level of 270 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere absorbs outgoing radiation, thereby keeping this energy in the atmosphere and warming the Earth. The atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to be about 15?C"
...
"effective" CO2 levels will double by 2030, causing global warming of 1~4?C."

OK, so they say the first 270ppm raised the temperature from -15 to +18C
 A change of 33 degrees.
And adding another 270 ppm (i.e doubling it) raises it by just  1 to 4 degrees.

In what reality is that linear?

[Bored chemist]

Perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten me on the hypothetical supralinear process.

What would be the point?
You didn't pay attention when someone did it before.

What about large areas of frozen land in arctic areas (eg Greenland & Canada). As the permafrost melts to a greater depth, microbes will become more active in the soil, producing CO2 and methane from stored carbon...
- That will further increase CO2, producing more melting.... (positive feedback)

That was in response to you saying "I haven't seen (a hypothesis) that seriously suggests a positive feedback mechanism driven by CO2."

Obviously a positive feedback link would give "faster than linear" heating.

[Bored chemist]

Now please answer the question.



Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:09:40
This is what you actually said.
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 14:25:46
Not according to Believers, who think that adding more blankets reduces your heat loss  linearly with thickness or density of the blanket.

And it's a straw man, isn't it?
Because nobody said it was linear, did they?

And, don't forget , we are talking "generalities" here.
When you say "Believers, who think that.." it implies that the majority of "believers" thing that.
Finding one who does isn't going to cut it.

[alancalverd]

a natural background level of 270 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere absorbs outgoing radiation, thereby keeping this energy in the atmosphere and warming the Earth. The atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to be about 15?C"
...
"effective" CO2 levels will double by 2030, causing global warming of 1~4?C."

"natural background" has no meaning. The CO2 level has varied cyclically from 170 to 290 ppm in the last 500,000 years, and was a lot higher at various times previously.

Here's a conundrum I've mentioned previously. The atmosphere of Mars contains 100 times the density of CO2 of Earth's, and Mars receives about 25% of Earth's solar input, so if CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and its effect is linear with concentration, what is the expected surface temperature of Mars?

[Bored chemist]

"natural background" has no meaning.

Then you cited the wrong paper.

[Bored chemist]

its effect is linear with concentration

You need to stop pretending that global warming assumes the effect is linear.
It's a straw man and it's dishonest.