The additional atmospheric heating effect of CO2 emissions is a function of the quantity of CO2 already in the atmosphere, and not a simple linear dependence, is what they're saying.

"Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the impact of any given increase in CO2 by about 25%, owing to changes induced in the climatological base state."

CO2 equivalent pound-for-pound of additional CO2 has become 1.25. That's major. And this effect has been somewhat validated by field measurement, it's not all modeling and simulation.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq6872

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:53:17 AM UTC-8, a a wrote:
> On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 18:21:24 UTC+1, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > The additional atmospheric heating effect of CO2 emissions is a function of the quantity of CO2 already in the atmosphere, and not a simple linear dependence, is what they're saying.
> >
> > "Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the impact of any given increase in CO2 by about 25%, owing to changes induced in the climatological base state."
> >
> > CO2 equivalent pound-for-pound of additional CO2 has become 1.25. That's major. And this effect has been somewhat validated by field measurement, it's not all modeling and simulation.
> >
> > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq6872

> Fake and Hoax
>
> CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which matters
Yes, that is certainly fake information. It doesn't contain truth, only truthiness.

> H2O vapor is the only greenhouse gas, which controls Earth's climate
Yes, that is certainly a hoax.

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 4:21:24 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> The additional atmospheric heating effect of CO2 emissions is a function of the quantity of CO2 already in the atmosphere, and not a simple linear dependence, is what they're saying.
>
> "Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the impact of any given increase in CO2 by about 25%, owing to changes induced in the climatological base state."
>
> CO2 equivalent pound-for-pound of additional CO2 has become 1.25. That's major. And this effect has been somewhat validated by field measurement, it's not all modeling and simulation.
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq6872

Nobody has ever said that global warming was a linear function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere,and that's not what the article is about, either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 4:53:17 AM UTC+11, a a wrote:
> On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 18:21:24 UTC+1, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> Fake and Hoax
>
> CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which matters
>
> H2O vapor is the only greenhouse gas, which controls Earth's climate
>
> Stop publishing delusional ideas and fake science from the past, promoted by lobbysts

A trifle ironic, granting that a a hasn't got a clue what he is talking about.

> H2O vapor as No.1 greenhouse gas has been awarded in 2021with Nobel Prize in Physics

It wasn't. The guy who got it, got it for climate modelling not for promoting a daft misconception which seems to reflect a a's own failure of understanding
> CO2 is an old fake and hoax by Al Gore, prof. Mann and Intergov Panel from Swiss, having no scientific merits.

It's no kind of fake and goes back to Svante Ahrrneius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

who died in 1927.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 10:14:22 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 4:21:24 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > The additional atmospheric heating effect of CO2 emissions is a function of the quantity of CO2 already in the atmosphere, and not a simple linear dependence, is what they're saying.
> >
> > "Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the impact of any given increase in CO2 by about 25%, owing to changes induced in the climatological base state."
> >
> > CO2 equivalent pound-for-pound of additional CO2 has become 1.25. That's major. And this effect has been somewhat validated by field measurement, it's not all modeling and simulation.
> >
> > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq6872
> Nobody has ever said that global warming was a linear function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere,and that's not what the article is about, either.

The paper is about the CO2 state dependence of global warming effect, and its quantification. The effect has been and is used to model the warming effect due to CO2, indirectly, and not as directly as this analysis. The 25% increase in effect with a doubling of CO2 concentration was an eye opener for the people who work in this field. The summary finding was a 'disproportionate' warming effect results from 'proportionate' increase in CO2 concentration. The alarmist description would be that it's a self-fueling, runaway exponential dependence.

Whatever else it's about, we'll never know by hearing your wacky interpretation.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney