Our first official +1.5C year. Well done everyone! It's amazing how good we are at f@$king everything up.

Originally posted by Scott th Ratbag: ↑

"they need to tweak the sensitivity of the models to increased [CO2] in order to" test for different scenarios is the reason. to see if there was no commitment to reduce GHG emissions, then with commitment but no govt plan to encourage businesses to reduce emissions (the Morrison plan), and also to test increased efforts by Govt and business working together (the Albanese plan as I take it) and lastly the ultimate ultimatum to force businesses to reduce emissions.

people have been reducing emissions for over a decade now. we have one of the world best uptake of renewable energy. what does this tell you?

"How do you know the logarithm doesn't apply in vivo?". ..... 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. turbulences are the matter. take a look at the picture of Jupiter. all the gases form concentrations separate to other gases in such violent turbulence. this means lower concentrations of Co2 in some places. and so more Co2 uptake for heating.

besides this apparent limiting effect..... do you really think it would be ok for the planet to warm enough.... to 4^o or 6^ohotter than our established global average. we're already at 1.5^o. imo at the rate of rising temperature and nations only just waking up to the facts that emissions reductions must be achieved urgently, we're very likely to be at 4^o over the average by the 2050.

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

Expand

"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.