Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Is this part of the article true?

"The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as its concentration increases. The consequence of this logarithmic diminution mean that all further CO2 induced temperature increases can now only be absolutely marginal and that there is no chance of any further Catastrophic Global warming, whether effected by Man-kind or not."

ETA: The IPCC https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/reporting.html says this:

"Equilibrium GCM 2 x CO2 experiments commonly assume a radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2 concentration (for example from 300 ppmv to 600 ppmv). In fact the absolute concentrations are not especially important, as the temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic - a doubling from 500 to 1000 ppmv would have approximately the same climatic effect."

This post is garbage denialism science, so I'd say not. The molecule works by blocking the escape of infrared radiation aka heat. The more molecules, the more trapping, I'd need to see a source on this claim.

I think this is the fundamental issue scientists should address. Make intuitive sense to me that the Greenhouse effect of CO2 increases logarithmically and that at the current .04% level, it has done 87% of the warming at can do. Surprisingly few papers around on this fundamental topic to the debate. Astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon seems to be an expert on this and supports this - he's very convincing and has many extremely interesting talks on YouTube.

No. If that was true then Venus would not be so hot.

I would encourage folks to do some research on Anthony Watts; he is not communicating in good faith on this topic.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact