I'll assume the following:
Between AD 1000 and 1800 CO2 atmospheric levels were around 280, and from 1800 to 2000 they rose to 400, let's assume all 120 was manmade (past 10,000 years levels have been very slowly going up so it makes sense to believe it was mostly manmade).
We have enough fossil fuels to burn to raise earth atmosphere levels by 1000 ppm including idk 200 from melting ice. I haven't been able to find how much co2 would melting all ice release (what a surprise) and neither a good estimate of how much burning all reserves would do (you'd think they would bother looking at this if their lives were threatened). But considering 6.66 times what we emitted already since 1800 I think is fair.
Earth's atmosphere contains 3,200,000,000,000 (3.2 trillion) tonnes of CO2 (0.04%). Earth mass = 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg.
The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. No atmosphere there (10 metric tonnes...). Moon mass = 7.347 x 10²² kg (1.23% earth).
Water is earth bigger warming contributor. When CO2 goes up, plants may be able to take more H20 in, also NASA has observed earth and it is greener. So, when CO2 goes up, water, the top global warming gaz , gets sucked up from the atmosphere. No idea how big of a difference this makes.
Mercury 700 degrees Kelvin in the day, minus 93 K at night. Average temperature of 440 K.
Mars 213 deg K or 218K???
Moon 379°K at day, 90°K at night.
1- Considering there is a direct correlation between CO2 quantity & temperature.
a- Compared to Mars
Mars is 11% the size of earth, and 95% of its atmosphere is CO2. There is 23,750,000,000,000 (23.75 trillion) tonnes.
+6 degrees assuming all of those 6 degrees are cause by CO2, means an increase of 0.25263°K per trillion tonne of CO2. Also we assume earth has the same correlation.
So say you increase earth CO2 up to 1400 ppm . The quantity of CO2 goes from 3.2 trillion tonnes to 11.2, or 8*10^12 tonnes are added.
==> +2°K/°C or + 3.6°F.
An increase of 120 ppm using this formula would cause + 0.2425°C or 0.4365°F. Since industrial age temperature went up 0.7°C if I recall. So it seems plausible that a third of it was due to human activity (and 2/3 because of natural activities). Not sure how much it went up since the end of the little ice age in 1850.
Mercury has +4 degrees. What if we assume Mars has the same? And so then CO2 only amounts to + 2 degrees?
+ 1000 ppm in earth atmosphere ==> +0.666°K/°C or + 1.2°F
Since the industrial age ==> +0.08°K/°C or 0.144°F
Which seems plausible and reasonable.
b- Compared to Venus
Venus has ridiculously high levels of CO2. +503 degrees (K/C) for 460 million trillion tonnes of CO2. H20 is too small to be relevant here.
So same, we just assume direct correlation. For every trillion tonne of CO2 added, temperature goes up 1,093478e-6 (0,000001093478) °K.
+ 1000 ppm ==> +8 trillion tonnes = 0,00000875 degrees
Since the industrial age ==> + ~ 0,000001 degrees
2- And I won't go further but we could include planet size, atm pressure, other factors...
For example, since mars is much smaller than earth, one could assume that 1 tonne of CO2 has a greater effect on Mars than on Earth.
3- What about comparing to earth? If we assume all warming since the little ice age was man made?
First I doubt this is true. Temperatures were in the low area of support historically. And it started going up before emissions.
But say we assume 0.8°K were the cause of human activities. In the 1950/1960 to 2000 period, when harmful chemicals were being released in the atmosphere (CFCs etc), temperature went up about 0.65°K. So outside of this we got a +0.2°K in 100 years? And temperature has flattened or barely went up since 2000.
Well that depends how "adjusted" your data is. So without CFCs what? +0.25°K for a 120 ppm increase? It's all speculation, this is so unscientific.
So at most +2.08°K for a 1000 ppm increase. This is consistent with the estimate using mars.
For me, the absolute max, if all of earth warming was manmade is 2 degrees for an increase of 1000 ppm (8.33 what man has emitted until now).
How much can CO2 concentrations go up realistically?
Between 2000 and 2020 the level went up from 370 to 410, so +40.
Between 1980 and 2000 the level went up from 340 to 370, so +30.
Between 1960 and 1980 the level went up from 320 to 340, so +20.
USA emissions have peaked in 2000 or the early 2000s and is declining. China peaked if I recall. Europe peaked. Then the big ones are India and Africa.
Well anyway, let's say it keeps going up a bit then peaks at double what is is now, 80 every 20 years. Let's say for the next 100 years this is what we get.
5 * 80 = 400 ppm . This would lead to an increase of 400 ppm . Maybe a bit more with ice melting, but this won't be hundreds. We probably will get at most half of the 1000 I used in my examples.
So if I were to bet money, I would not bet on an average of more than 1 Kelvin for the next 100 years. At the very most, but probably under that.
The effect of CO2 on °K has to be more complex than a simple linear correlation, and there has to be diminishing returns.
It is a shame we don't have historical water contents, not that I know of.
All I know is that CO2 and H20 were super high billions of years ago when life appeared.
But anyway, that 0.00014% to 33% of the rise in temperatures since the end of the little ice age can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 seems reasonable. 1 to 10% seems the most reasonable but this isn't a fact.
Also there is the small detail that earth temperature went up sharply exactly as Chlorofluorocarbons levels went up, and after their levels topped in 1990, earth temperature topped... Tiny irrelevant detail I know.
Here are all the greenhouse gases concentrations (except water):
Methane is pretty annoying I don't see how we could stop this one without all starving. Red meat is a big problem, and for some reason people are obssessed with red meat. We can't increase methane levels tremendously forever.
I'm not too worried about CO2, we'll run up of fossil fuels eventually, and raising the levels a bit helps plants grow, I just don't see how bad it can be.
CFCs and other crap (Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), PFC-14 (CF4)) have thousands of times the global warming potential CO2 has even according to "the establishment" that hates CO2, and stay in the atmosphere for millenias. BUT we finally stopped trolling and polluting the planet with this crap. That was really insane.
Methane thought... that one could be a big nuisance. Agriculture is releasing levels so huge. It disappears fast but does it just turn to CO2? If it peaks at a few thousands parts per billion, that's only a few ppm , and this disappears in 25 years, it would not add much CO2. A constant methane level that does some warming and then a tiny increase of CO2 level, maybe that's not that scary. Over the long term thought what would happen?
All of this also agrees with the global warming going on Mars. With all the crazies that think they are going to die you'd think we'd know more on the subject...
You also got Pluto that is warming while it distances itself from the sun.
But it could be a coincidence, that thing alarmists deny exists. Correlation does not imply causation, unless it fits your agenda.
Also, there could be a snowball effect with CO2 increasing water level in the atmosphere, but if this was the case we can all be absolutely certain we would know about it. We would not hear the end of it. There is either no increase in water levels, or they are even diminishing. If it never gets mentionned there is zero data than it is that it does not fit their agenda.
Ok I found something about humidity:
Surface humidity stayed flat. It's tiring to have to fight throught tons of idiotic nonsense and fear mongering and half truths to get any crumbs of data.
High up it has been flat or slightly downtrending. Actually went up a little when temperature did not. And down or flat when temperature went up.
I figured CFCs caused the big uptrend in earth temperature from 1950 to 2000 but I actually found a paper claiming CFCs caused global warming?
Weird I never heard of this... Censorship I guess.
Haven't read it yet.
So I guess the trend will continue, at least small:
Slight cooling for the next decades as cancer chemicals in the air levels decline or maybe the warming trend overtakes the cooling one in any case I don't expect any major move, better farmland yields with more CO2, better living conditions as long as fossil fuel reserves are high.
I also expect more "data adjustments", temperature charts with extreme isolated points rather than year averages, still no answer as to why ocean temperature went up, and more 12 year ultimatums lmao pathetic liers.
Well that's enough thinking for now.
All I know is I won't invest in renewable companies for now. Electric cars? Never.
Biofuels are good but it's 50-100 years early. I really love the idea of hydroplants also.
Short companies that sell air conditioning?
Here is a nice article on volcanic activity, they predict the global warming period is over.
I like their predictive chart:
This is what I think will happen.
Georgia Guidestones is the worldwide mandate.