<p>It looks as if you are assuming a constant percentage increase, compounded annually. There are many reasons why this is not so. It reminds me of many decades ago when I routinely weighed my baby son. On the basis of his rate of growth I calculated that he would weigh 2660 kg by the age of 3! So much for simple extrapolation.
Humans are already using vastly more than the renewable rate of resource consumption, so it is obvious that our population cannot continue to grow at anything like the historic rates. In particular, the rate of carbon emissions is slowing; not by anything like fast enough, but slowing nevertheless. 
Then there are the climate change feedback processes that will kick in sooner or later. Some are probably beginning already. By my estimation there are at least 16 feedback processes, a mix of positive and negative, but mostly positive. None of them are adequately calibrated. In short, future atmospheric <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> levels will be the product of a host of non-linear processes. It would be rash of anyone to try and predict far into the next century. That said, if I was absolutely forced to project so far into the future, I would try to adapt the graph of the last few thousand  years of atmospheric <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> to an error function curve. But then you would be forced into an extrapolation in which the error bounds far exceed the final quasi-equilibrium <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> concentration. In other words, it would be a meaningless exercise. 
We will all be in deep trouble if the <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> reaches even 760 ppm, let alone 7600+ of your estimate! I find it scary enough that we are still on an RCP trajectory that is closer to 8.5 than any of the other 'standard scenarios'. Present reality is alarming enough without speculating on fantastic projections.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T06:47:17.780Z
2020-01-04T19:45:04.507Z
2020-01-04T19:45:04.507Z
Gordon Stanger
<p>A linear correlation can not be done as the atmosphere have not a linear progression. Take a look to this interested <a href="http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">link</a> to these Chicago University Climate Models Webpage. The first one you should check is <a href="http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a>.</p>

<p>First of all, <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> is acting as a Greenhouse Effect Gas because it is absorbing some of the infrared radiation that it is trying to leave the Earth. <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> it is just absorving this radiation and bringing back to the surface (as well as <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{H_2O}$</span>, <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CH_4}$</span>...).</p>

<p>So the natural cooling system of our planet is disturbed by all this gases. But there is a limit for all of them. The gas is not acquiring all the energy, just a range (Band Saturation). So it can absorb just some of the energy.</p>

<p>Let´s see one example: Considering no <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CH_4}$</span> collaboration or <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{H_2O}$</span>... Same point on different latitudes...</p>

<pre><code>| CO2 CONCENTRATION   |        |         |         |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|---------------------|--------|---------|---------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| (Energy in W/m2)    | 0      | 10      | 50      | 100    | 200    | 400    | 800    | 1600   | 3200   | 6400   | 12800  |
|---------------------|--------|---------|---------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Tropical Atmosphere | 339.12 | 325.62  | 317.45  | 313.84 | 310.39 | 306.97 | 303.51 | 299.93 | 296.10 | 291.93 | 287.15 |
| MidLattitude Summer | 328.13 | 315.57  | 307.908 | 304.77 | 301.69 | 298.61 | 295.44 | 292.21 | 288.82 | 285.21 | 281.16 |
| MidLattitude Winter | 264.36 | 254.59  | 248.97  | 246.62 | 244.23 | 241.81 | 239.33 | 236.79 | 234.28 | 231.73 | 229.00 |
| Subartic Summer     | 303.29 | 292.271 | 286.12  | 283.61 | 281.12 | 278.61 | 276.04 | 273.46 | 270.89 | 268.19 | 265.14 |
| Subartic Winter     | 222.38 | 215.53  | 211.48  | 209.82 | 208.15 | 206.39 | 204.57 | 202.75 | 201.02 | 199.36 | 197.69 |
</code></pre>

<p>With this figures, we can see that it is a linear regression: </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/S3H0F.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/S3H0F.png" alt="FIGURES"></a></p>

<p>But as soon as we are absorbing energy, we need more <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> to increase the amount. For example, the preindustrial readings were 280 ppm until the actual 400 ppm, with this amount of energy retained, you have the actual temperature increasing. In order to collect the same amount of energy (so in order to increase the temperature) we need to reach 608 ppm:</p>

<pre><code>| CO2 Increasing      | 200-400 | 400-800 |   | 400-608 |       |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---|---------|-------|
| Tropical Atmosphere | 3,42    | 3,46    |   | 1,76    | 51,0% |
| MidLattitude Summer | 3,08    | 3,17    |   | 1,57    | 50,4% |
| MidLattitude Winter | 2,42    | 2,48    |   | 1,26    | 51,3% |
| Subartic Summer     | 2,51    | 2,57    |   | 1,32    | 52,0% |
| Subartic Winter     | 1,76    | 1,82    |   | 0,91    | 51,0% |
| Average             | 2,77    | 2,83    |   | 1,43    | 51,1% |
</code></pre>

<p>So the concentration is growing linearly, but that is not the case of energy and temperature.</p>

<p>You can not make a simple correlation because the temperature depends of: <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span>, <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{H_2O}$</span>, <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CH_4}$</span>, Ozone, Aerosols, Sun Energy Emission, Clouds, Latitude, Ground colour... So it is not just a number.</p>

<p>The main uncertainty on the Greenhouse Effect are clouds. Check the different models and you will see that a 2X concentration growing can increase the energy on 3-4 <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{W/m^2}$</span>, clouds can reduce/increase from -17 W to +5 W. Considering your figures, with a 3.32 ppm/year growing, in order to get the temperature increasing from preindustrial area until now, you will reach 2079. If we reduce the growing, this period will be extended.</p>

<p>There are some more problems that just <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span>: <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CH_4}$</span>, Permafrost areas, high altitude clouds...</p>

<p>I recommend you this <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7de3/0f30e44a42899effa2e1dda947c2d22f79eb.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reading</a> from David Archer.</p>

<p>Hope it helps</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T05:38:09.433Z
It looks like you might be saying that a 7632 PPM CO2 may not  quite reach 14C global temperature anomaly.  How much do you think it would reach?  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058456
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T06:06:40.493Z
I provide you the links in order to check for yourself. It depends on a lot of conditions: which country? How much CH4 emisions? How many clouds will we get? High clouds or low ones? Ozone will be reinstated?... Try to get your own conclusion. Mine? The temperature will raise, but it is not possible to predict.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T06:57:48.837Z
"The temperature will raise, but it is not possible to predict"  Government policy makers tend to take an answer like that as a good reason to just wait and see what happens. If we actually get 14C then they would believe that would be a good time to allocate funding to address it.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T07:05:26.960Z
@polcott. That is the issue. There are many variables, so you can not ask `"Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years?"`. You can ask... Does extrapolating... on New York, assuming no CH4 increasing, no ozone decreasing, no H20 increasing, no clouds variation, no Sun energy variation, no ground color variation... current CO2 will reach...? If the data is ok, and you take one model, then it will be ok for your data and model. If you change one of the previous items, the extrapolation will change.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T14:23:25.963Z
Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and a global average 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years, when we assume the other variables are unchanged?
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T17:34:05.807Z
Since the preindustrial times until now, by the Wikipedia source, the average temperature of the Earth has increased 0.8° for 280->400 ppm of CO2. Considering that you increase the energy absortion on 1.43W/m2. From 400->7632 ppm the absortion will be around 14W/m2 so the temperature should raise around 10 more times (14/1.43). The problem is that this 0.8° belongs to every factor involved: ozone, CH4, aerosols... So it is difficult. In the worst scenario (so everything is due to CO2) the increasing should be +8°C.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T18:49:51.700Z
I used this formula: 3.0C ± 1.5C for every doubling of CO2 thus log2(7632/280) = 4.77 and selected: 14.31C. 

3.0 * 4.77 = 14.31C
1.5 * 4.77 = 7.15C
4.5 * 4.77 = 21.46C
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T20:18:02.263Z
I mention you that temperature is not linear as energy is not linear. Check the graphics above and the table and you will notice. There is a direct relation between energy and temperature.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T21:00:48.253Z
The formula that I used was non-linear: logarithmic. I could not understand much of what you said in your charts and graphs. I only look at global average temperatures.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T21:09:52.810Z
Check this [link](http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/). Try different CO2 concentrations without changing any other parameters so you will check how much energy can absorv CO2. You can make a correlation between CO2 concentration and energy absorved. That is a nearly logarithmic correlation. Check the energy on the air at 280 ppm, then at 400 ppm and at 7632 ppm. You will get the energy retained by CO2 on the first range, that one explains (theor.) a 0.8°C increasing, then make a correlation on the second range and you will get your increasing, around 8 degrees by average.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T11:09:43.357Z
2020-01-04T19:51:09.433Z
2020-01-04T19:51:09.433Z
David García Bodego
<p>As a thought experiment it may tell us something about why simplistic extrapolation is inadequate for climate change prediction. Climate modelling of extreme scenarios might be compared and contrasted with simple extrapolation, but is more likely to show deficits in such extrapolation than in the modelling. It cannot work as prediction because there are very significant real world factors and constraints - physical, economic, societal - at work that are not included, that mean simple extrapolation will almost certainly be wrong.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T22:49:36.920Z
On the other hand showing the reasonable plausibility of an extinction level event degree of climate change within 200 years if we merely make the single assumption that things continue as they are would tend to get honest people that already decided it is not worth the money to reconsider their position. This guy is not one of these honest people and was paid $650K to produce the report saying it is not worth the money. https://www.lomborg.com/news/affordable-solutions-better-than-exaggerations
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T22:12:12.417Z
2019-11-02T22:12:12.417Z
Ken Fabian
<h1>Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years?</h1>

<p>It looks like simply extrapolating the current trends of increasing atmospheric CO2 would show that totally unmitigated green house gas emissions (for the next 200 years) would result in more drastic climate change than ever seen in the last 600 million years. This period included several very extreme extinction events.</p>

<p>3.32 PPM annual CO2 increase compounded at the 1.9% annual growth rate derives 7632 PPM from the current 410 PPM. </p>

<p>This CO2 increase over preindustrial CO2 levels of 280 PPM derives a 3 * log2(7632 / 280) = 14.3C temperature anomaly over the 14C base temperature. 14C + 14C = 28C hotter than any time in the last 600 million years. </p>

<p>This derivation uses the current standard logarithmic casual relationship between increases in CO2 and global temperature: 3C ± 1.5C per CO2 doubling. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change</a></p>

<p>Below shows the basis of the extrapolated 7632 PPM CO2 calculations and a full table of each annual increment to global CO2 for the next 200 years. </p>

<p><a href="https://www.co2.earth/co2-acceleration#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.co2.earth/co2-acceleration#</a></p>

<pre><code>Oct  31  2019: 409.64 ppm&lt;br&gt;
Oct  31  2018: 406.32 ppm&lt;br&gt;
3.32 CO2 Growth&lt;br&gt;

2014 2.11 ppm&lt;br&gt;
1959 0.73 ppm&lt;br&gt;
  55 2.89 growth factor&lt;br&gt;
1.019 ^ 55 = 2.81 growth factor&lt;br&gt;
</code></pre>

<p><strong>Thus a 1.9% annual acceleration to the current 3.32 PPM CO2 growth rate</strong></p>

<p>Applying accelarating CO2 growth rate to current CO2 levels for 200 years: in 2219 we would have 7632 ppm of CO2. (See table). </p>

<p>3C ± 1.5C per CO2 doubling we derive: <br>
3 * log2(7632 / 280) = 14.3C tempeature anomaly from 14C base.</p>

<p>28C is hotter than any time in the last 600 million years, thus the next 200 years of utterly unmitigated green house gas emissions would cause the most drastic climate change in 600 million years if we merely extrapolate the current trends. </p>

<h1>If I got my {facts, climate science, math} correctly and CO2 continues to increase at its current accelerating rate for 200 years then the world will experience greater climate change than at anytime in the prior 600 million years.</h1>

<p><strong>Apparently we are already emitting much more than the 28GT RPC8.5 levels</strong><br>
<a href="https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/24/is-rcp8-5-an-impossible-scenario/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/24/is-rcp8-5-an-impossible-scenario/</a></p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Z54Wc.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Z54Wc.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<h1>My year 2100 emission projection of 1008 PPM matches RCP8.5</h1>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/pX8tY.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/pX8tY.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><strong>CO2_growth over 200 years at currently accelerating rate</strong></p>

<blockquote>
<pre><code>  1       3.32   409.64
  2       3.38   412.96
  3       3.45   416.34
  4       3.51   419.79
  5       3.58   423.30
  6       3.65   426.88
  7       3.72   430.53
  8       3.79   434.25
  9       3.86   438.03
 10       3.93   441.89
 11       4.01   445.83
 12       4.08   449.83
 13       4.16   453.92
 14       4.24   458.08
 15       4.32   462.32
 16       4.40   466.64
 17       4.49   471.04
 18       4.57   475.53
 19       4.66   480.10
 20       4.75   484.76
 21       4.84   489.51
 22       4.93   494.35
 23       5.02   499.28
 24       5.12   504.30
 25       5.22   509.42
 26       5.31   514.63
 27       5.42   519.95
 28       5.52   525.36
 29       5.62   530.88
 30       5.73   536.51
 31       5.84   542.24
 32       5.95   548.08
 33       6.06   554.03
 34       6.18   560.09
 35       6.30   566.27
 36       6.42   572.56
 37       6.54   578.98
 38       6.66   585.52
 39       6.79   592.18
 40       6.92   598.97
 41       7.05   605.88
 42       7.18   612.93
 43       7.32   620.12
 44       7.46   627.43
 45       7.60   634.89
 46       7.74   642.49
 47       7.89   650.24
 48       8.04   658.13
 49       8.19   666.17
 50       8.35   674.36
 51       8.51   682.71
 52       8.67   691.22
 53       8.83   699.89
 54       9.00   708.73
 55       9.17   717.73
 56       9.35   726.90
 57       9.53   736.25
 58       9.71   745.78
 59       9.89   755.48
 60      10.08   765.37
 61      10.27   775.45
 62      10.47   785.72
 63      10.66   796.19
 64      10.87   806.85
 65      11.07   817.72
 66      11.28   828.79
 67      11.50   840.08
 68      11.72   851.58
 69      11.94   863.29
 70      12.17   875.23
 71      12.40   887.40
 72      12.63   899.80
 73      12.87   912.43
 74      13.12   925.30
 75      13.37   938.42
 76      13.62   951.79
 77      13.88   965.41
 78      14.14   979.29
 79      14.41   993.43
 80      14.69   1007.84
 81      14.96   1022.53
 82      15.25   1037.49
 83      15.54   1052.74
 84      15.83   1068.28
 85      16.14   1084.11
 86      16.44   1100.25
 87      16.75   1116.69
 88      17.07   1133.45
 89      17.40   1150.52
 90      17.73   1167.91
 91      18.06   1185.64
 92      18.41   1203.71
 93      18.76   1222.11
 94      19.11   1240.87
 95      19.48   1259.98
 96      19.85   1279.46
 97      20.22   1299.31
 98      20.61   1319.53
 99      21.00   1340.14
100      21.40   1361.14
101      21.81   1382.54
102      22.22   1404.34
103      22.64   1426.56
104      23.07   1449.20
105      23.51   1472.27
106      23.96   1495.78
107      24.41   1519.74
108      24.88   1544.15
109      25.35   1569.03
110      25.83   1594.38
111      26.32   1620.21
112      26.82   1646.53
113      27.33   1673.35
114      27.85   1700.68
115      28.38   1728.53
116      28.92   1756.91
117      29.47   1785.82
118      30.03   1815.29
119      30.60   1845.32
120      31.18   1875.92
121      31.77   1907.10
122      32.38   1938.87
123      32.99   1971.24
124      33.62   2004.23
125      34.26   2037.85
126      34.91   2072.11
127      35.57   2107.01
128      36.25   2142.58
129      36.93   2178.83
130      37.64   2215.77
131      38.35   2253.40
132      39.08   2291.75
133      39.82   2330.83
134      40.58   2370.66
135      41.35   2411.24
136      42.14   2452.59
137      42.94   2494.72
138      43.75   2537.66
139      44.58   2581.41
140      45.43   2625.99
141      46.29   2671.42
142      47.17   2717.72
143      48.07   2764.89
144      48.98   2812.96
145      49.91   2861.94
146      50.86   2911.86
147      51.83   2962.72
148      52.81   3014.55
149      53.82   3067.36
150      54.84   3121.18
151      55.88   3176.02
152      56.94   3231.90
153      58.02   3288.84
154      59.13   3346.87
155      60.25   3405.99
156      61.40   3466.25
157      62.56   3527.64
158      63.75   3590.20
159      64.96   3653.95
160      66.20   3718.92
161      67.45   3785.11
162      68.74   3852.57
163      70.04   3921.30
164      71.37   3991.34
165      72.73   4062.72
166      74.11   4135.44
167      75.52   4209.55
168      76.95   4285.07
169      78.42   4362.03
170      79.91   4440.44
171      81.42   4520.35
172      82.97   4601.77
173      84.55   4684.74
174      86.15   4769.29
175      87.79   4855.44
176      89.46   4943.23
177      91.16   5032.69
178      92.89   5123.85
179      94.65   5216.74
180      96.45   5311.39
181      98.29   5407.85
182     100.15   5506.13
183     102.06   5606.28
184     104.00   5708.34
185     105.97   5812.34
186     107.98   5918.31
187     110.04   6026.29
188     112.13   6136.33
189     114.26   6248.46
190     116.43   6362.71
191     118.64   6479.14
192     120.89   6597.78
193     123.19   6718.68
194     125.53   6841.87
195     127.92   6967.40
196     130.35   7095.32
197     132.82   7225.67
198     135.35   7358.49
199     137.92   7493.84
200     140.54   7631.76
</code></pre>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T21:01:04.360Z
Regarding the question itself, you are assuming growth according to current trends. There is little basis for this in how economics and the energy market work.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T21:14:54.090Z
@Gimelist I am not asking whether or not my extrapolation accurately predicts the future. I am asking whether or not the extrapolation itself is based on correct facts, climate science and math. The only facts pertain to the 410 PPM current CO2 levels the 3.32 annual increase in CO2 levels and the 1.9% annual growth rate of the increase in CO2 levels. The only climate science is the 3C ± 1.5C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. I am not looking to show a plausible prediction. I am ONLY looking to show a plausible WORST CASE SCENARIO.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T21:23:30.580Z
@polcott wouldn’t RCP8.5 from IPCC cover this worst case scenario?
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T21:34:30.630Z
@Gimelist Apparently not. For one thing they only go out 80 years. My own extrapolation only shows 1007 PPM in 80 years.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T21:45:12.580Z
@polcott these projections are based on climate models that take weeks to months to run on a supercomputer. There is little value in running the models for longer given the limited computing power and high uncertainties at ~100 year timescales.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T21:49:35.097Z
@Gimelist That is why my "just see what happens if we keep going as we are going" can provide such a succinct  worse case scenario. Human extinction in 200 years: "if we keep going as we are going". That kind of a worst case scenario seems to very sharply address the "can't we just save some money and ignore it" crowd.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T16:52:33.850Z
One obvious problem is that you have not determined whether there are enough known/hypothesized deposits of coal, oil, and so on to keep on with that increase.  The less obvious problem is that since responses to CO2 & warming are not linear (e.g. methane clathrates, CO2 releases from warming oceans, &c), humans are likely to become non-technical, and then extinct, long before atmospheric CO2 gets anywhere near 7500 ppm.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T18:41:26.103Z
@jamesqf I am trying to prove this statement: 
Anthropogenic global heating is proven to be a sufficiently serious problem deserving whatever resources are needed to drastically reduce GHG emissions ASAP.

And thus utterly refute this statement:

https://www.lomborg.com/news/affordable-solutions-better-than-exaggerations
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T04:39:16.407Z
@polcott: But there is plenty of evidence already.  (And which statement: there are several at that link.)
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T05:25:50.607Z
@jamesqf Not enough evidence for 33% of the population when we have these disinformation teams: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR3LKWdspmYCjmraBuzoJ7iR9Ay2ozrnsD_sRQV7c_TM3Vu2PcyhFJefCd4#wY7WYmkPZEcvpDPe.01
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T17:28:00.427Z
@polcott: The problem is that you're hoping to counter a fixed belief with evidence, and with a certain portion of people - about 33% - that simply doesn't work.  We could see the polar ice completely melted, tropical temperatures high enough to shut down photosynthesis, clouds of hydrogen sulfide spewing from anoxic oceans... and the same fraction of the handful of surviving humans would STILL claim that it's not happening.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T17:40:11.473Z
@jamesqf We only have to deprogram 90% of the 33% that have been programmed by the professional disinformation specialists. The remaining professional liars and psychos are not needed to for the 95% consensus. 

This 90% do have very limited sensitivity to extremely compelling very succinct arguments based on easily verifiable facts. 

Reaching them is very similar to deprogramming the victims of religious cults, difficult yet not impossible.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T17:40:45.670Z
@jamesqf 

Reaching them is very similar to deprogramming the victims of religious cults, difficult yet not impossible. 

https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=_facebook&fbclid=IwAR297pHchmyj8cLtc-R1USFOtLRxYCTUjYOp4CMuRL0m_XILPlqZGpGluRg
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T17:35:09.963Z
@polcott: This is more of a question for a psychology site, but first, I don't think your "disinformation specialists" are all that much of a factor.  Rather, it's that these people don't WANT to face facts, because their religion/philosophy of life says otherwise.  Second, AFAIK facts don't work in deprogramming.  Just consider the prevalence of various forms of "intelligent design".
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T20:48:54.300Z
@jamesqf 
How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God

https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=_facebook&fbclid=IwAR297pHchmyj8cLtc-R1USFOtLRxYCTUjYOp4CMuRL0m_XILPlqZGpGluRg
polcott
<climate-change>
Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years?
polcott
# Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-02)

# Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years?

It looks like simply extrapolating the current trends of increasing atmospheric CO2 would show that totally unmitigated green house gas emissions (for the next 200 years) would result in more drastic climate change than ever seen in the last 600 million years. This period included several very extreme extinction events.

3.32 PPM annual CO2 increase compounded at the 1.9% annual growth rate derives 7632 PPM from the current 410 PPM.

This CO2 increase over preindustrial CO2 levels of 280 PPM derives a 3 \* log2(7632 / 280) = 14.3C temperature anomaly over the 14C base temperature. 14C + 14C = 28C hotter than any time in the last 600 million years.

This derivation uses the current standard logarithmic casual relationship between increases in CO2 and global temperature: 3C ± 1.5C per CO2 doubling. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change>

Below shows the basis of the extrapolated 7632 PPM CO2 calculations and a full table of each annual increment to global CO2 for the next 200 years.

<https://www.co2.earth/co2-acceleration#>

```
Oct  31  2019: 409.64 ppm<br>
Oct  31  2018: 406.32 ppm<br>
3.32 CO2 Growth<br>

2014 2.11 ppm<br>
1959 0.73 ppm<br>
  55 2.89 growth factor<br>
1.019 ^ 55 = 2.81 growth factor<br>

```

**Thus a 1.9% annual acceleration to the current 3.32 PPM CO2 growth rate**

Applying accelarating CO2 growth rate to current CO2 levels for 200 years: in 2219 we would have 7632 ppm of CO2. (See table).

3C ± 1.5C per CO2 doubling we derive:   
3 \* log2(7632 / 280) = 14.3C tempeature anomaly from 14C base.

28C is hotter than any time in the last 600 million years, thus the next 200 years of utterly unmitigated green house gas emissions would cause the most drastic climate change in 600 million years if we merely extrapolate the current trends.

# If I got my {facts, climate science, math} correctly and CO2 continues to increase at its current accelerating rate for 200 years then the world will experience greater climate change than at anytime in the prior 600 million years.

**Apparently we are already emitting much more than the 28GT RPC8.5 levels**  
<https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/24/is-rcp8-5-an-impossible-scenario/>

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Z54Wc.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Z54Wc.jpg)

# My year 2100 emission projection of 1008 PPM matches RCP8.5

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/pX8tY.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/pX8tY.jpg)

**CO2\_growth over 200 years at currently accelerating rate**

> ```
>   1       3.32   409.64
>   2       3.38   412.96
>   3       3.45   416.34
>   4       3.51   419.79
>   5       3.58   423.30
>   6       3.65   426.88
>   7       3.72   430.53
>   8       3.79   434.25
>   9       3.86   438.03
>  10       3.93   441.89
>  11       4.01   445.83
>  12       4.08   449.83
>  13       4.16   453.92
>  14       4.24   458.08
>  15       4.32   462.32
>  16       4.40   466.64
>  17       4.49   471.04
>  18       4.57   475.53
>  19       4.66   480.10
>  20       4.75   484.76
>  21       4.84   489.51
>  22       4.93   494.35
>  23       5.02   499.28
>  24       5.12   504.30
>  25       5.22   509.42
>  26       5.31   514.63
>  27       5.42   519.95
>  28       5.52   525.36
>  29       5.62   530.88
>  30       5.73   536.51
>  31       5.84   542.24
>  32       5.95   548.08
>  33       6.06   554.03
>  34       6.18   560.09
>  35       6.30   566.27
>  36       6.42   572.56
>  37       6.54   578.98
>  38       6.66   585.52
>  39       6.79   592.18
>  40       6.92   598.97
>  41       7.05   605.88
>  42       7.18   612.93
>  43       7.32   620.12
>  44       7.46   627.43
>  45       7.60   634.89
>  46       7.74   642.49
>  47       7.89   650.24
>  48       8.04   658.13
>  49       8.19   666.17
>  50       8.35   674.36
>  51       8.51   682.71
>  52       8.67   691.22
>  53       8.83   699.89
>  54       9.00   708.73
>  55       9.17   717.73
>  56       9.35   726.90
>  57       9.53   736.25
>  58       9.71   745.78
>  59       9.89   755.48
>  60      10.08   765.37
>  61      10.27   775.45
>  62      10.47   785.72
>  63      10.66   796.19
>  64      10.87   806.85
>  65      11.07   817.72
>  66      11.28   828.79
>  67      11.50   840.08
>  68      11.72   851.58
>  69      11.94   863.29
>  70      12.17   875.23
>  71      12.40   887.40
>  72      12.63   899.80
>  73      12.87   912.43
>  74      13.12   925.30
>  75      13.37   938.42
>  76      13.62   951.79
>  77      13.88   965.41
>  78      14.14   979.29
>  79      14.41   993.43
>  80      14.69   1007.84
>  81      14.96   1022.53
>  82      15.25   1037.49
>  83      15.54   1052.74
>  84      15.83   1068.28
>  85      16.14   1084.11
>  86      16.44   1100.25
>  87      16.75   1116.69
>  88      17.07   1133.45
>  89      17.40   1150.52
>  90      17.73   1167.91
>  91      18.06   1185.64
>  92      18.41   1203.71
>  93      18.76   1222.11
>  94      19.11   1240.87
>  95      19.48   1259.98
>  96      19.85   1279.46
>  97      20.22   1299.31
>  98      20.61   1319.53
>  99      21.00   1340.14
> 100      21.40   1361.14
> 101      21.81   1382.54
> 102      22.22   1404.34
> 103      22.64   1426.56
> 104      23.07   1449.20
> 105      23.51   1472.27
> 106      23.96   1495.78
> 107      24.41   1519.74
> 108      24.88   1544.15
> 109      25.35   1569.03
> 110      25.83   1594.38
> 111      26.32   1620.21
> 112      26.82   1646.53
> 113      27.33   1673.35
> 114      27.85   1700.68
> 115      28.38   1728.53
> 116      28.92   1756.91
> 117      29.47   1785.82
> 118      30.03   1815.29
> 119      30.60   1845.32
> 120      31.18   1875.92
> 121      31.77   1907.10
> 122      32.38   1938.87
> 123      32.99   1971.24
> 124      33.62   2004.23
> 125      34.26   2037.85
> 126      34.91   2072.11
> 127      35.57   2107.01
> 128      36.25   2142.58
> 129      36.93   2178.83
> 130      37.64   2215.77
> 131      38.35   2253.40
> 132      39.08   2291.75
> 133      39.82   2330.83
> 134      40.58   2370.66
> 135      41.35   2411.24
> 136      42.14   2452.59
> 137      42.94   2494.72
> 138      43.75   2537.66
> 139      44.58   2581.41
> 140      45.43   2625.99
> 141      46.29   2671.42
> 142      47.17   2717.72
> 143      48.07   2764.89
> 144      48.98   2812.96
> 145      49.91   2861.94
> 146      50.86   2911.86
> 147      51.83   2962.72
> 148      52.81   3014.55
> 149      53.82   3067.36
> 150      54.84   3121.18
> 151      55.88   3176.02
> 152      56.94   3231.90
> 153      58.02   3288.84
> 154      59.13   3346.87
> 155      60.25   3405.99
> 156      61.40   3466.25
> 157      62.56   3527.64
> 158      63.75   3590.20
> 159      64.96   3653.95
> 160      66.20   3718.92
> 161      67.45   3785.11
> 162      68.74   3852.57
> 163      70.04   3921.30
> 164      71.37   3991.34
> 165      72.73   4062.72
> 166      74.11   4135.44
> 167      75.52   4209.55
> 168      76.95   4285.07
> 169      78.42   4362.03
> 170      79.91   4440.44
> 171      81.42   4520.35
> 172      82.97   4601.77
> 173      84.55   4684.74
> 174      86.15   4769.29
> 175      87.79   4855.44
> 176      89.46   4943.23
> 177      91.16   5032.69
> 178      92.89   5123.85
> 179      94.65   5216.74
> 180      96.45   5311.39
> 181      98.29   5407.85
> 182     100.15   5506.13
> 183     102.06   5606.28
> 184     104.00   5708.34
> 185     105.97   5812.34
> 186     107.98   5918.31
> 187     110.04   6026.29
> 188     112.13   6136.33
> 189     114.26   6248.46
> 190     116.43   6362.71
> 191     118.64   6479.14
> 192     120.89   6597.78
> 193     123.19   6718.68
> 194     125.53   6841.87
> 195     127.92   6967.40
> 196     130.35   7095.32
> 197     132.82   7225.67
> 198     135.35   7358.49
> 199     137.92   7493.84
> 200     140.54   7631.76
>
> ```

**Tags:** climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Regarding the question itself, you are assuming growth according to current trends. There is little basis for this in how economics and the energy market work.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I am not asking whether or not my extrapolation accurately predicts the future. I am asking whether or not the extrapolation itself is based on correct facts, climate science and math. The only facts pertain to the 410 PPM current CO2 levels the 3.32 annual increase in CO2 levels and the 1.9% annual growth rate of the increase in CO2 levels. The only climate science is the 3C ± 1.5C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. I am not looking to show a plausible prediction. I am ONLY looking to show a plausible WORST CASE SCENARIO.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 wouldn’t RCP8.5 from IPCC cover this worst case scenario?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Apparently not. For one thing they only go out 80 years. My own extrapolation only shows 1007 PPM in 80 years.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 these projections are based on climate models that take weeks to months to run on a supercomputer. There is little value in running the models for longer given the limited computing power and high uncertainties at ~100 year timescales.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 That is why my "just see what happens if we keep going as we are going" can provide such a succinct  worse case scenario. Human extinction in 200 years: "if we keep going as we are going". That kind of a worst case scenario seems to very sharply address the "can't we just save some money and ignore it" crowd.  
> **username_2**: One obvious problem is that you have not determined whether there are enough known/hypothesized deposits of coal, oil, and so on to keep on with that increase.  The less obvious problem is that since responses to CO2 & warming are not linear (e.g. methane clathrates, CO2 releases from warming oceans, &c), humans are likely to become non-technical, and then extinct, long before atmospheric CO2 gets anywhere near 7500 ppm.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I am trying to prove this statement:  Anthropogenic global heating is proven to be a sufficiently serious problem deserving whatever resources are needed to drastically reduce GHG emissions ASAP.  And thus utterly refute this statement:  https://www.lomborg.com/news/affordable-solutions-better-than-exaggerations  
> **username_2**: @username_0: But there is plenty of evidence already.  (And which statement: there are several at that link.)  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Not enough evidence for 33% of the population when we have these disinformation teams: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR3LKWdspmYCjmraBuzoJ7iR9Ay2ozrnsD_sRQV7c_TM3Vu2PcyhFJefCd4#wY7WYmkPZEcvpDPe.01  
> **username_2**: @username_0: The problem is that you're hoping to counter a fixed belief with evidence, and with a certain portion of people - about 33% - that simply doesn't work.  We could see the polar ice completely melted, tropical temperatures high enough to shut down photosynthesis, clouds of hydrogen sulfide spewing from anoxic oceans... and the same fraction of the handful of surviving humans would STILL claim that it's not happening.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 We only have to deprogram 90% of the 33% that have been programmed by the professional disinformation specialists. The remaining professional liars and psychos are not needed to for the 95% consensus.   This 90% do have very limited sensitivity to extremely compelling very succinct arguments based on easily verifiable facts.   Reaching them is very similar to deprogramming the victims of religious cults, difficult yet not impossible.  
> **username_0**: @username_2   Reaching them is very similar to deprogramming the victims of religious cults, difficult yet not impossible.   https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=_facebook&fbclid=IwAR297pHchmyj8cLtc-R1USFOtLRxYCTUjYOp4CMuRL0m_XILPlqZGpGluRg  
> **username_2**: @username_0: This is more of a question for a psychology site, but first, I don't think your "disinformation specialists" are all that much of a factor.  Rather, it's that these people don't WANT to face facts, because their religion/philosophy of life says otherwise.  Second, AFAIK facts don't work in deprogramming.  Just consider the prevalence of various forms of "intelligent design".  
> **username_0**: @username_2  How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God  https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=_facebook&fbclid=IwAR297pHchmyj8cLtc-R1USFOtLRxYCTUjYOp4CMuRL0m_XILPlqZGpGluRg  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-11-03. Score: 2

It looks as if you are assuming a constant percentage increase, compounded annually. There are many reasons why this is not so. It reminds me of many decades ago when I routinely weighed my baby son. On the basis of his rate of growth I calculated that he would weigh 2660 kg by the age of 3! So much for simple extrapolation.
Humans are already using vastly more than the renewable rate of resource consumption, so it is obvious that our population cannot continue to grow at anything like the historic rates. In particular, the rate of carbon emissions is slowing; not by anything like fast enough, but slowing nevertheless.
Then there are the climate change feedback processes that will kick in sooner or later. Some are probably beginning already. By my estimation there are at least 16 feedback processes, a mix of positive and negative, but mostly positive. None of them are adequately calibrated. In short, future atmospheric $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ levels will be the product of a host of non-linear processes. It would be rash of anyone to try and predict far into the next century. That said, if I was absolutely forced to project so far into the future, I would try to adapt the graph of the last few thousand years of atmospheric $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ to an error function curve. But then you would be forced into an extrapolation in which the error bounds far exceed the final quasi-equilibrium $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ concentration. In other words, it would be a meaningless exercise.
We will all be in deep trouble if the $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ reaches even 760 ppm, let alone 7600+ of your estimate! I find it scary enough that we are still on an RCP trajectory that is closer to 8.5 than any of the other 'standard scenarios'. Present reality is alarming enough without speculating on fantastic projections.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-11-03. Score: 1

A linear correlation can not be done as the atmosphere have not a linear progression. Take a look to this interested [link](http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/) to these Chicago University Climate Models Webpage. The first one you should check is [this](http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/).

First of all, $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ is acting as a Greenhouse Effect Gas because it is absorbing some of the infrared radiation that it is trying to leave the Earth. $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ it is just absorving this radiation and bringing back to the surface (as well as $\small\mathsf{H\_2O}$, $\small\mathsf{CH\_4}$...).

So the natural cooling system of our planet is disturbed by all this gases. But there is a limit for all of them. The gas is not acquiring all the energy, just a range (Band Saturation). So it can absorb just some of the energy.

Let´s see one example: Considering no $\small\mathsf{CH\_4}$ collaboration or $\small\mathsf{H\_2O}$... Same point on different latitudes...

```
| CO2 CONCENTRATION   |        |         |         |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|---------------------|--------|---------|---------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| (Energy in W/m2)    | 0      | 10      | 50      | 100    | 200    | 400    | 800    | 1600   | 3200   | 6400   | 12800  |
|---------------------|--------|---------|---------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Tropical Atmosphere | 339.12 | 325.62  | 317.45  | 313.84 | 310.39 | 306.97 | 303.51 | 299.93 | 296.10 | 291.93 | 287.15 |
| MidLattitude Summer | 328.13 | 315.57  | 307.908 | 304.77 | 301.69 | 298.61 | 295.44 | 292.21 | 288.82 | 285.21 | 281.16 |
| MidLattitude Winter | 264.36 | 254.59  | 248.97  | 246.62 | 244.23 | 241.81 | 239.33 | 236.79 | 234.28 | 231.73 | 229.00 |
| Subartic Summer     | 303.29 | 292.271 | 286.12  | 283.61 | 281.12 | 278.61 | 276.04 | 273.46 | 270.89 | 268.19 | 265.14 |
| Subartic Winter     | 222.38 | 215.53  | 211.48  | 209.82 | 208.15 | 206.39 | 204.57 | 202.75 | 201.02 | 199.36 | 197.69 |

```

With this figures, we can see that it is a linear regression:

[![FIGURES](https://i.sstatic.net/S3H0F.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/S3H0F.png)

But as soon as we are absorbing energy, we need more $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ to increase the amount. For example, the preindustrial readings were 280 ppm until the actual 400 ppm, with this amount of energy retained, you have the actual temperature increasing. In order to collect the same amount of energy (so in order to increase the temperature) we need to reach 608 ppm:

```
| CO2 Increasing      | 200-400 | 400-800 |   | 400-608 |       |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---|---------|-------|
| Tropical Atmosphere | 3,42    | 3,46    |   | 1,76    | 51,0% |
| MidLattitude Summer | 3,08    | 3,17    |   | 1,57    | 50,4% |
| MidLattitude Winter | 2,42    | 2,48    |   | 1,26    | 51,3% |
| Subartic Summer     | 2,51    | 2,57    |   | 1,32    | 52,0% |
| Subartic Winter     | 1,76    | 1,82    |   | 0,91    | 51,0% |
| Average             | 2,77    | 2,83    |   | 1,43    | 51,1% |

```

So the concentration is growing linearly, but that is not the case of energy and temperature.

You can not make a simple correlation because the temperature depends of: $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$, $\small\mathsf{H\_2O}$, $\small\mathsf{CH\_4}$, Ozone, Aerosols, Sun Energy Emission, Clouds, Latitude, Ground colour... So it is not just a number.

The main uncertainty on the Greenhouse Effect are clouds. Check the different models and you will see that a 2X concentration growing can increase the energy on 3-4 $\small\mathsf{W/m^2}$, clouds can reduce/increase from -17 W to +5 W. Considering your figures, with a 3.32 ppm/year growing, in order to get the temperature increasing from preindustrial area until now, you will reach 2079. If we reduce the growing, this period will be extended.

There are some more problems that just $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$: $\small\mathsf{CH\_4}$, Permafrost areas, high altitude clouds...

I recommend you this [reading](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7de3/0f30e44a42899effa2e1dda947c2d22f79eb.pdf) from username_4 Archer.

Hope it helps

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It looks like you might be saying that a 7632 PPM CO2 may not  quite reach 14C global temperature anomaly.  How much do you think it would reach?  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058456  
> **username_4**: I provide you the links in order to check for yourself. It depends on a lot of conditions: which country? How much CH4 emisions? How many clouds will we get? High clouds or low ones? Ozone will be reinstated?... Try to get your own conclusion. Mine? The temperature will raise, but it is not possible to predict.  
> **username_0**: "The temperature will raise, but it is not possible to predict"  Government policy makers tend to take an answer like that as a good reason to just wait and see what happens. If we actually get 14C then they would believe that would be a good time to allocate funding to address it.  
> **username_4**: @username_0. That is the issue. There are many variables, so you can not ask `"Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years?"`. You can ask... Does extrapolating... on New York, assuming no CH4 increasing, no ozone decreasing, no H20 increasing, no clouds variation, no Sun energy variation, no ground color variation... current CO2 will reach...? If the data is ok, and you take one model, then it will be ok for your data and model. If you change one of the previous items, the extrapolation will change.  
> **username_0**: Does extrapolating current CO2 trends indicate 7632 PPM CO2 and a global average 14C temperature anomaly within 200 years, when we assume the other variables are unchanged?  
> **username_4**: Since the preindustrial times until now, by the Wikipedia source, the average temperature of the Earth has increased 0.8° for 280->400 ppm of CO2. Considering that you increase the energy absortion on 1.43W/m2. From 400->7632 ppm the absortion will be around 14W/m2 so the temperature should raise around 10 more times (14/1.43). The problem is that this 0.8° belongs to every factor involved: ozone, CH4, aerosols... So it is difficult. In the worst scenario (so everything is due to CO2) the increasing should be +8°C.  
> **username_0**: I used this formula: 3.0C ± 1.5C for every doubling of CO2 thus log2(7632/280) = 4.77 and selected: 14.31C.   3.0 * 4.77 = 14.31C 1.5 * 4.77 = 7.15C 4.5 * 4.77 = 21.46C  
> **username_4**: I mention you that temperature is not linear as energy is not linear. Check the graphics above and the table and you will notice. There is a direct relation between energy and temperature.  
> **username_0**: The formula that I used was non-linear: logarithmic. I could not understand much of what you said in your charts and graphs. I only look at global average temperatures.  
> **username_4**: Check this [link](http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/). Try different CO2 concentrations without changing any other parameters so you will check how much energy can absorv CO2. You can make a correlation between CO2 concentration and energy absorved. That is a nearly logarithmic correlation. Check the energy on the air at 280 ppm, then at 400 ppm and at 7632 ppm. You will get the energy retained by CO2 on the first range, that one explains (theor.) a 0.8°C increasing, then make a correlation on the second range and you will get your increasing, around 8 degrees by average.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-11-02. Score: 1

As a thought experiment it may tell us something about why simplistic extrapolation is inadequate for climate change prediction. Climate modelling of extreme scenarios might be compared and contrasted with simple extrapolation, but is more likely to show deficits in such extrapolation than in the modelling. It cannot work as prediction because there are very significant real world factors and constraints - physical, economic, societal - at work that are not included, that mean simple extrapolation will almost certainly be wrong.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: On the other hand showing the reasonable plausibility of an extinction level event degree of climate change within 200 years if we merely make the single assumption that things continue as they are would tend to get honest people that already decided it is not worth the money to reconsider their position. This guy is not one of these honest people and was paid $650K to produce the report saying it is not worth the money. https://www.lomborg.com/news/affordable-solutions-better-than-exaggerations  

---

