Ok, nu förstår jag vad du menar. Dock är dina siffror fel.Mysman skrev:Detta är själva orsaken till varför man uppger effekten vid en koldioxid-fördubbling. Uppvärmningen kräver dubbelt så mycket koldioxid för att ge samma uppvärmning. Alltså blir uppvärmningen halverad vid samma utsläppstakt.Teslalink skrev:Dock har du helt fel när du skriver att växthuseffekten mattas och avtar med ökad CO2-halt.
"If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satura ... ediate.htm
Simple as that.
https://skepticalscience.com/exponentia ... arming.htm
"In short, following the 'business as usual' approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100. It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv. This will result in an accelerating rate of global warming, not a linear rate. Under Scenarios A2 and A1F1, the IPCC report projects that the global temperature in 2095 will be 2.0–6.4°C above 1990 levels (2.6-7.0°C above pre-industrial), with a best estimate of 3.4 and 4.0°C warmer (4.0 and 4.6°C above pre-industrial average surface temperatures), respectively. "