[jaybrendansmith]

You can put your head in the sand, but it will not save you. You must take the world on from first principles, and dive deep into the details if you want truth. Simply countering that nobody can predict what will happen is not an argument, it's a plea to stay ignorant.

[nemo44x]

Open your mind until your brain falls out. How many bromides should we exchange? Saying “there’s no proof” is better than believing everything that comes your way with 0 critical analysis. But it’s nice to feel smart.

[jaybrendansmith]

Jesus, what does that even mean? Simple physics says carbon dioxide traps heat. Chemistry 10th grade. Did you take it? This is not hard. Only an absolute ignoramus would pretend it's not happening at this point.

[karmakurtisaani]

No worried, HN has plenty of cranks who don't have real arguments or references to actual studies. I suppose it's just comforting to pretend it's business as usual.

[nemo44x]

Or we understand geometry and how the volume of carbon has to geometrically increase by a square per degree and it’s not even possible for us to put that much in the atmosphere.

[karmakurtisaani]

Yeah feel free to link to a study or summary.

[nemo44x]

It’s logarithmic. Just google it or ask any LLM to explain this basic fact to you.

[jaybrendansmith]

Show your work, please. At this point the burden of proof is on you to disprove it, not the other way around. It hasn't snowed here in years.

[nemo44x]

The fact you don’t even understand this basic fact and yet are so certain should concern you.

1. Logarithmic effect of CO₂ • The warming effect of carbon dioxide grows logarithmically with concentration, not linearly. • This means the first 100 ppm of CO₂ caused a much larger temperature impact than, say, an increase from 400 → 500 ppm. • Each additional molecule of CO₂ contributes less extra warming because much of the infrared spectrum it absorbs is already saturated.

2. Geometry of “forcing” • Scientists describe this as radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. • Roughly, each doubling of CO₂ concentration produces about +3.7 W/m² of forcing, which translates (with climate sensitivity) to ~1.5–4.5°C warming. • So it takes geometrically more CO₂ to achieve each additional degree of warming. For example: • Going from 280 → 400 ppm may give ~1°C warming. • Going from 400 → 560 ppm (another 160 ppm) gives another ~1°C. • Going from 560 → 840 ppm (280 ppm more) gives another ~1°C. • And so on — the increments needed get larger each time.

[nemo44x]

Fully aware. At least in a lab. Regardless we know it’s an inverse square law thing and to even get to any sort of “runaway” or even conditions in this article would take such an enormous gain in carbon release (not considering what’s falling back) that it’s not even possible. It’s fantastical.

If it was linear I’d be concerned. But it’s not. So yeah let’s solve other more realistic problems.