17 Nobel Laureates Sign Memorandum Re: Climate Change

Methane breaks down after 25 years.Methane is measured in the atmosphere in parts per Billion.Co2 is parts per Million.
So how much Co2 can Methane break down into?
Like Co2, Methanes effect on warming is also not linear .

 

One molecule of CO2 for every molecule of Methane (probably CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O) . It doesn't matter how much is there currently, what matters is how much is being added. p.s. Co2 would be two atoms of Cobalt.

Then what is it? There are a lot or relationships that could exist, linear is one of the more hopeful ones. Exponential would be horrific.

 

What's being added is 1/1000 less significant.
I gather its refered to as logarithmic.

 

Citation.

Icarus

 

Wikipedia"One part per million (ppm) denotes one part per 1,000,000 parts, one part in 10 6 , and a value of 1 × 10 −6 . This is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into 50 liters (roughly the fuel tank capacity of a compact car), or about thirty seconds out of a year.

One part per billion (ppb) denotes one part per 1,000,000,000 parts, one part in 10 9 , and a value of 1 × 10 −9 . This is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into 250 chemical drums (50 m 3 ), or about three seconds out of a century."

 

No. You are conflating things here. The relationship I am looking for is between amount of CO2 (or Methane) and warming. As the amount of CO2 increases there is a cooresponding change in warming. If Warming = 1/1000 * CO2 then that is a LINEAR relationship. A lograrithmic relationship would be Warming = ln (CO2).

If, as seems likely, you are referring to the relationship between CO2 and Methane existing in the atmosphere, (1/1000), that is merely the current ratio, NOT a relationship. The only relationship is the 1:1 conversion of Methane to CO2 eventually.

Since you don't seem to understand chemical formulas or mathematical relations, I despair of getting an explanation of your claim that it is not linear, and return to my previous assumptions.

 

I think he asking for a citation for your claim that was not logarithmic, not a random wikipedia article describing what parts per million means.

 

Five years ago at a Rotary meeting we had a coast guard officer from an arctic icebreaker talking. After his talk I asked him what was coast guard's opinion of global warming. All he said was " There is no new ice and the old ice is melting"! That is someone who is there.

 

I also say whether you believe in global warming or not, air is not supposed to be orange!
People who drive Prui are helping to make a change.

 

"Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. "

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide | Watts Up With That?

 

That assertion was demolished in 2007:
RealClimate: My model, used for deception

Next.

 

Actually that article substantiated Mojo's claim that many climate models use a log factor of CO2 and it is non-linear. Mojo's article and yours only disagreed on the factor, not the relationship. As I tried to do in my previous post, most models also have terms with greater heating causing other ghg such as methane will be released that will accelerate warming. Models disagree with the factors and the amount of positive feedback and at what temperature. Just about all of them have higher factors than those quoted in the post mojo made. There is also a time delay from when gases are released into the atmosphere and the corresponding rise in temperatures which neither post addressed. This time delay must be used if correct factors are to be tested in these models.

btw: the half life of ch4 (methane) is 7-10 years in the atmosphere. As it is degraded to CO2 it only warms as much as CO2 does, but this still gives it the impact of 25x that of CO2 averaged over a hundred year period.

 

He doesnt agree with the calculations .
So what?
Hes not disputing that CO2 warming is logarithmic.Which is what I was asked to provide a citation of.

 

Citing Anthony Watts as an authority on anything, much less climate science is a bit of a stretch. Because one has a blog, doesn't make one an expert,, on anything.


"Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]"

From source watch.

 

or hypocrite

 

Or oil company executive, or in the pocket of said executive.

 

how is it different from hypocrite?

 

The real problem from that pov, is mojo is absolutely correct on the issue. That Watts poster said his climate model used the log of CO2 concentration, which is the correct position before feedback. Here is your likely favored source explaining why mojo is right.

RealClimate: Part II: What Ã…ngström didn’t know

Now the only issue is the coefficient, which has to do with feedback. According to Linzden doubling of CO2 without feedback will raise temperatures 0.3 - 1.3 degrees C depending on temperature distribution. Here feedback which is non-linear and a function of temperature comes into effect. Pass a point and sea ice melts and its reflection is removed, the methane release is also non-linear with temperature, so it must be with CO2. People try to encapsulate these complex interactions into a single coefficient, but a complete model is needed to really account for these feedback mechanisms. IPCC only includes models with positive feedback and these have coefficients between 1 and 5 for doubling. There are also negative feedback mechanisms, and here is where coefficients much lower than 1 need to be considered by any serious scientific investigation. Many on realclimate want to just average the models and choose 3 as the number, but this is a dangerous simplification, and ranges and probabilities should be used.

Well sure but let us look at the post which says big trouble over 2 degrees C. According to IPCC, a carbon level of 450 ppm will make temperatures rise more than 2 degrees in half their models. We are already over 390 ppm so it is already too lake to stop this temperature, if ipcc models are correct.