The claim that carbon dioxide's ability to retain heat "maxes out" at 400 parts per million (ppm) is a misrepresentation of how greenhouse gases function. While it's true that CO₂ absorption of infrared radiation follows a logarithmic curve -- meaning each additional increase in CO₂ has a slightly smaller warming effect than the previous increase -- it does not mean that CO₂ levels above 400 ppm have no impact.
Here's why...
Logarithmic Effect: The warming effect of CO₂ diminishes incrementally as concentrations rise, but it never completely "maxes out." Even small increases in CO₂ beyond 400 ppm continue to trap more heat, contributing to global warming.
Broader Climate Impact: Higher CO₂ levels amplify feedback loops, such as melting ice and increased water vapor (another potent greenhouse gas), which further exacerbate warming.
Scientific Consensus: Research from institutions like MIT and Columbia University confirms that rising CO₂ levels, even beyond 400 ppm, continue to influence Earth's energy balance and climate2.
The Heartland Institute often promotes views that challenge mainstream climate science, so it’s important to cross-check such claims with peer-reviewed research and expert consensus.
I couldn’t find any evidence supporting the claim that researchers from MIT or Princeton have stated that CO₂ levels at 800 ppm would have little perceptible impact on warming. In fact, research from both institutions aligns with the scientific consensus that rising CO₂ levels, even beyond 400 ppm, continue to contribute to global warming, albeit with diminishing incremental effects due to the logarithmic relationship between CO₂ and heat retention.
Copilot, in regards to the graph...
The graph and its title reflect a real concept in climate science: the logarithmic relationship between CO₂ concentration and its warming effect. This means that the first increases in CO₂ (e.g., from 0 to 20 ppm) have the most significant impact on trapping heat, while subsequent increases have a diminishing effect. However, this does not mean that higher CO₂ levels, such as those above 400 ppm, have no impact -- they still contribute to warming, just at a slower rate.
The way the graph is presented, with the first bar towering over the others, might be intended to emphasize this diminishing effect. However, it's important to note that even small additional warming from higher CO₂ levels can have significant consequences when combined with feedback loops (like melting ice or increased water vapor).
Minus: Good thing thing that the ambipolar field doesn't lift heavy molecules like CO2 very high into he atmosphere.
Copilot: The blog author might believe the fact that CO₂ molecules don’t rise very high into the atmosphere due to the ambipolar field is "a good thing" because they misunderstand how global warming works. Perhaps they think that if CO₂ doesn’t reach the upper atmosphere, it limits its impact on climate -- however, this isn’t accurate. CO₂'s role in trapping heat happens in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), where most of Earth’s weather and climate processes occur. The ambipolar field doesn’t influence the greenhouse effect in any meaningful way.
It’s also possible the author is trying to downplay concerns about CO₂ by presenting unrelated or tangential information in a way that seems reassuring, without addressing the actual science.
Mystere: The more CO² we have, the better it is for plants to thrive and release oxygen for us to breathe...
Or that Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud's altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates.
Changes in cloud type: Changes in cloud type (e.g., more high clouds) could lead to a warming effect. Thinning of clouds: Some models suggest that increased CO2 levels could lead to the thinning of clouds, which could result in more solar radiation reaching the surface and increased warming.
And above the Mesosphere's highest clouds, the atmosphere separates out by weight of molecules in the Thermosphere. “Meso” means middle, and this is the highest layer of the atmosphere in which the gases are all mixed up rather than being layered by their mass... and this is due to the strength of the Earth's ambipolar field.
Maybe you should spend a few years working in Earth Sciences (but mostly Heliophysics) at NASA, Derv. Then you wouldn't need Copilot to answer questions for you.
See the bottom graph where the CO2 concentrations start to fall off dramatically around 85km? That graph was made by the AIRS Instrument on the Aqua Satellite. I helped build that satellite.
17 comments:
The more CO² we have, the better it is for plants to thrive and release oxygen for us to breathe, and for plants to produce more food for us.
Good thing thing that the ambipolar field doesn't lift heavy molecules like CO2 very high into he atmosphere...
Copilot, in regards to the video...
The claim that carbon dioxide's ability to retain heat "maxes out" at 400 parts per million (ppm) is a misrepresentation of how greenhouse gases function. While it's true that CO₂ absorption of infrared radiation follows a logarithmic curve -- meaning each additional increase in CO₂ has a slightly smaller warming effect than the previous increase -- it does not mean that CO₂ levels above 400 ppm have no impact.
Here's why...
Logarithmic Effect: The warming effect of CO₂ diminishes incrementally as concentrations rise, but it never completely "maxes out." Even small increases in CO₂ beyond 400 ppm continue to trap more heat, contributing to global warming.
Broader Climate Impact: Higher CO₂ levels amplify feedback loops, such as melting ice and increased water vapor (another potent greenhouse gas), which further exacerbate warming.
Scientific Consensus: Research from institutions like MIT and Columbia University confirms that rising CO₂ levels, even beyond 400 ppm, continue to influence Earth's energy balance and climate2.
The Heartland Institute often promotes views that challenge mainstream climate science, so it’s important to cross-check such claims with peer-reviewed research and expert consensus.
I couldn’t find any evidence supporting the claim that researchers from MIT or Princeton have stated that CO₂ levels at 800 ppm would have little perceptible impact on warming. In fact, research from both institutions aligns with the scientific consensus that rising CO₂ levels, even beyond 400 ppm, continue to contribute to global warming, albeit with diminishing incremental effects due to the logarithmic relationship between CO₂ and heat retention.
Copilot, in regards to the graph...
The graph and its title reflect a real concept in climate science: the logarithmic relationship between CO₂ concentration and its warming effect. This means that the first increases in CO₂ (e.g., from 0 to 20 ppm) have the most significant impact on trapping heat, while subsequent increases have a diminishing effect. However, this does not mean that higher CO₂ levels, such as those above 400 ppm, have no impact -- they still contribute to warming, just at a slower rate.
The way the graph is presented, with the first bar towering over the others, might be intended to emphasize this diminishing effect. However, it's important to note that even small additional warming from higher CO₂ levels can have significant consequences when combined with feedback loops (like melting ice or increased water vapor).
Minus: Good thing thing that the ambipolar field doesn't lift heavy molecules like CO2 very high into he atmosphere.
Copilot: The blog author might believe the fact that CO₂ molecules don’t rise very high into the atmosphere due to the ambipolar field is "a good thing" because they misunderstand how global warming works. Perhaps they think that if CO₂ doesn’t reach the upper atmosphere, it limits its impact on climate -- however, this isn’t accurate. CO₂'s role in trapping heat happens in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), where most of Earth’s weather and climate processes occur. The ambipolar field doesn’t influence the greenhouse effect in any meaningful way.
It’s also possible the author is trying to downplay concerns about CO₂ by presenting unrelated or tangential information in a way that seems reassuring, without addressing the actual science.
Mystere: The more CO² we have, the better it is for plants to thrive and release oxygen for us to breathe...
BS.
Semantics. "No impact"=false "Little and decreasing impact" = true.
LOL! Perhaps the volume of trapped heat DOESN'T matter?
Or that Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud's altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates.
What volume of heat do you want to trap?
Changes in cloud type: Changes in cloud type (e.g., more high clouds) could lead to a warming effect.
Thinning of clouds: Some models suggest that increased CO2 levels could lead to the thinning of clouds, which could result in more solar radiation reaching the surface and increased warming.
And above the Mesosphere's highest clouds, the atmosphere separates out by weight of molecules in the Thermosphere. “Meso” means middle, and this is the highest layer of the atmosphere in which the gases are all mixed up rather than being layered by their mass... and this is due to the strength of the Earth's ambipolar field.
Maybe you should spend a few years working in Earth Sciences (but mostly Heliophysics) at NASA, Derv. Then you wouldn't need Copilot to answer questions for you.
See the bottom graph where the CO2 concentrations start to fall off dramatically around 85km? That graph was made by the AIRS Instrument on the Aqua Satellite. I helped build that satellite.
...and I used to work with Glyn...
"What I cannot create, I do not understand"
-Richard Feynman
Did you create CoPilot, Derv?
...or do you simply "Trust the Science"?
As Aristophanes would say, we should worship the wisdom of The Clouds!...
After all, how many of the global jet-setting elite WEF Davos-men are on-board with simply flying lower?
I know...why should the rich have to bear the "burden" of bumpier flights?
Reframing the climate change arguments so as not to privilege certain 'preferred' solutions put forth by the wealthy elites.
Post a Comment