> Bill Ward wrote:

>> Phil Hays wrote:

>

>>> Bill Ward wrote:

>

>>>> Phil Hays wrote:

>

>>>>> Bill Ward wrote:

>

>>>>>> Phil Hays wrote:

>

>>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote:

>

>>>>>>>> Phil Hays wrote:

>

>>>>>>>> [...]

>

>>>>>>>>> The "band saturation of CO2" doesn't seem to limit the temperature
>>>>>>>>> of Venus much. And 6X CO2 isn't that far in the future, under
>>>>>>>>> "business as usual". Houston isn't going to move very far. Inland
>>>>>>>>> a ways, of course, as the oceans rise.

>

>>>>>>>>> You can explain how Venus is cool, with lot of very reflective
>>>>>>>>> clouds, and "saturated bands of CO2", too bad Venus is very hot.
>>>>>>>>> Facts are such stubborn things.

>

>>>>>>>> Yes they are.  For example the relative concentration of CO2 in
>>>>>>>> Earth's and Venus's atmospheres, and the difference in surface
>>>>>>>> pressure and temperature.  Do you even know what band saturation
>>>>>>>> means?

>

>>>>>>>> [...]

>

>>>>>>> Long term readers are chuckling. You snipped the context for this
>>>>>>> comment, something you whine about when others do it. Amusing.

>

>>>>>> I think "long term readers" can see the context is sufficient.  You
>>>>>> could have reposted it if you really thought any more was necessary.
>>>>>> I snipped for length because I answered the other issues in another
>>>>>> post. Long term readers will probably agree that if anything, I'm
>>>>>> more often guilty of undersnipping than oversnipping.

>

>>>>> Context that you think is sufficient others might not. And you have
>>>>> complained bitterly about others trimming context, so this is amusing.

>

>>>>>>> Key context. The temperature of the Earth can get hotter because it
>>>>>>> has been hotter. That was the context snipped, as. "Band saturation"
>>>>>>> was invoked to suggest that the Earth can't get hotter. Venus is
>>>>>>> another good demonstration to show that hotter is really possible.

>

>>>>>>> Below "band saturation", the effect of adding a greenhouse gas is
>>>>>>> linear. Above "band saturation", the effect is logarithmic. In other
>>>>>>> words, a similar warming for each doubling of the gas.

>

>>>>>> And on Earth, combining WV and CO2, the IR bands are well into the
>>>>>> log region.  The surface of Venus is ~750K, vs ~300K for Earth, so to
>>>>>> get to Venus temps, the earth would have to warm ~450K.  At
>>>>>> 1.5K/octave, that would require 450K/1.5K = 300 octave increase of
>>>>>> CO2 from 400ppm. That gives 2e85%% CO2, which is Coppockian in
>>>>>> magnitude, ie totally unreasonable.

>

>>>>> Yet Venus doesn't have 2e85 %% CO2. Best check your assumptions.

>

>>>>>> Even at 7K/octave, it would be 64 octaves or 2e15%%, which is still a
>>>>>> whole lot of CO2.  I may be off by a few orders of magnitude, but I
>>>>>> think the point is clear.

>

>>>>> The point is clear, you didn't check your assumptions. Venus has about
>>>>> 1e4%% CO2.

>

>>>> IIRC, thats IPCC's assumption range, not mine.  My point is it's
>>>> ridiculous to compare Earth to Venus, as you did above.  Unless, of
>>>> course, you meant Houston, Venus.

>

>>> Same physics both places. But yes, it was ridiculous how you compared
>>> Earth to Venus. That was your point, right?

>

>> Nope.  You invoked Venus.  Archived. (Also in the first line of this
>> post.)

>
> Venus has the same physics as the Earth. However, to take the results of
> modeling the Earth's climate and directly apply them to Venus is
> ridiculous.
>
>
>
>
>

>>>>>> IOW, band saturation makes it unlikely CO2 will turn the Earth into
>>>>>> Venus.

>

>>>>> Which is your strawman, not my point.

>

>>>>>> Find something more plausible to scare us with.

>

>>>>> Like Houston, under 6X CO2, for example. Houston is pretty nasty in
>>>>> summertime (outside of air-conditioning), 10 C warmer would make it
>>>>> lethal. Plenty scary enough. Well within our reach to do, as well.

>

>>>> Riight.  Six times 400ppm would be 2400 ppm, or a 2000ppm increase. At
>>>> 2ppm/yr, that's 1000 years worth.  Wasn't it Laugh-in with the line,
>>>> "Veerrry interestink............., but schtupid"?

>

>>> You said it.

>

>>> For something less "schtupid", consider that the growth rate of fossil
>>> fuel usage isn't zero. Also, consider that even sub-lethal climate
>>> change might not be desirable.

>

>> Happens all the time.  Doesn't matter whether we like it or not.

>

>> Deal with it.

>
> Past 8,000 years were very stable. We have been lucky.

>
> Causing climate change isn't smart.
>
> --
> Phil Hays- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -