Sivad wrote:CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2.
If I may try to improve the sentence, then ---
CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% [which is] {+0.6 °C (1.08 °F)} of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. I added the [which is] and the {...}. I hope this is what you intended.
Part 1 ---
I'll use my engineering training to try to estimate what is going on here.
1] If 0.6°C (1.08 °F) of heating is 75% of what increasing ppm of CO
2 from 275 to 550ppm; then a simple linear relationship means that ________. [I could not create equations to solve the sentence.]
2] If Z equals the temp. that 550ppm will make the air reach and 0.6°C is 0.75 times Z, then Z (the temp. the air will reach with 550ppm) is just 0.8°C higher than the temp. in 1800 AD.
3] This figure of just a 0.8°C increase in temp. is ridiculous. The actual figure after enough time has passed to reach the new equilibrium is more like a 5°C increase, not 0.8°C.
4] Therefore, your source is just dumb.
Part 2 ---
Like Crantag said, you failed to provide a link to a source. Therefore we can't really tell what the terms in this sentence mean. Therefore, we get to decide what they mean, within reason.
1] Start with "pre-industrial". Some videos I've seen go with this meaning 1750, others 1800, others 1850,and some even the average of 1850 and 1900. If we go with the literal meaning of the words then either 1750 or 1800 make the most sense.
2] If we go with 1800, THEN 0.6°C (1.08 °F) of warming is way TOO LITTLE.
. . My sources would put this at 1.2°C, about double the figure you asserted.
3] OK, I'll accept another of your numbers, so the increase from 275ppm to 412ppm now, is about 30% more CO
2 in the air. [However, you have ignored the additional CO
2 in the oceans and the heating of the oceans. But, I'll let you slide on this because I don't know their effects either.]
4] In another thread you asserted that it is BS to use "thermal inertia" as the reason that the full amount of atmospheric heating has not been seen yet.
. . So, you think that if you put a skillet with 1.5 inches of water (under a lid) in it onto a stove burner and set the heat to 'pretty hot', that the water will reach the temp. that the fire under it will finally heat it to in a 'short' time.
. . Yes, the pan of water is much smaller than all the air in/around the world; and the stove burner is hotter or cooler than the heat that is forcing the temp. of the air to rise. Therefore, it is hard for me to say how fast the air should rise in temp. compared to the water in the pan.
. . It seems plain to me that gradually turning up the heat of the stove burner is a better simulation of gradually adding CO
2 to the air.
. . So, I assert that it is not BS to talk about "thermal inertia".
So, Sivad, you quoted a figure of about half the heating we have seen and then called BS on an actual real effect that any cook can explain to you. I deduce that the source you used leaves a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy. In other words it is biased. IStM.
[BTW, I agree with you that the sentence doesn't mean what Crantag thought it means, but I agree with Crantag that the sentence is confusing because I also read it the way he did. I just assumed that I had gotten confused by it and didn't attack you or the sentence. The info in the sentence is plainly wrong and so confused that I could not make equations to solve it.]