Share
47,120 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 649
clock Created with Sketch.
14/02/24
13:59
Share
Originally posted by Quatrojos:
↑
"they need to tweak the sensitivity of the models to increased [CO2] in order to" test for different scenarios is the reason. None of the 'scenarios' are based in reality. It''s not the concentration they tweak, it's the sensitivity of the system to a standard rising concentration.because it was created in laboratory experiments. such studies involve completely controlled environments to rule out variables and identify the exact measurement of the increased Co2 at various concentrations. they do this so they can better understand the 'clinical' effect and they can then load this data into the models. with all the other variables in play they can then see the difference . Yes, it's standard procedure to omit other variables. What I'm pointing out is that there is no plausible mechanism, none at all, by which the system could become sensitised in vivo, let alone by orders of magnitude higher than the observed, repeatable, level of sensitivity. In other words, they have to artificially adjust the sensitivity of the system to CO2 by orders of magnitude to see any response in their models.besides this apparent limiting effect..... I presume you're talking about the logarithm being the limiting effect. I can't discount the limiting effect of the logarithm and the insensitivity of the system to increased [CO2]. No one should because to assume sensitivity of the system which is orders of magnitude above what is observed in the lab and in the atmosphere is unscientific. finally the natural cycle is quite irrelevant as the charts show the past stable patter of the natural cycle has been exceeded since the 80's We don't know what the many climate modes are doing; we haven't studied them for long enough. Therefore, we don't know how to measure natural variation. We know the system is chaotic.
Expand
take a glass of tapwater and add a spoonful of sugar. most will sit on the bottom of the glass. add the same quantity to a glass of hot water and most will dissolve quickly. stir the hot water to make it all dissolve. these are the scenarios for testing the logarithmic function it proves the in vivo difference: warmer more agitated air will absorb far more Co2 than in vitro testing shows. and the hotter the air the more GHG increase the temperature. you seem to be getting quite agitated yourself. perhaps your log function is also in overload and getting hotter. therefore I'm inclined to limit this discussion before you get angry. I hope your trading day goes well Q bye