Frankly, I don’t have a clue why any good parent would allow their kid to go to havard. You get a VERY bad education. No Christian or moral influence at all. Everything there is PC & as liberal as Stalin was.Free speech? Forget it! Fair & balanced profs? Riiiiight... Conservatives? We are the epitome of evil in their eyes. No dialogue at all for anyone or anything that is conservative. In their blinded, biased & “head in the sand” eyes, we are completely despised. It is a bad influence on young minds & we have a crop of these educated fools in our gov’t & on Wall Street simply ramming it to the rest of us. A sad state of “higher” indoctrination. Er...ah...er...I mean education.
The real pity is that they leave so damn ignorant.
The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide
In plain English that means the more that you have of anything, the effect that it causes diminish. It's not proportional.
What's worse is that the IPCC knows it.
Scroll down to the formula. The notation for a natural logarithm is ln.
Regarding the similar hysteria about methane being an even more potent greenhouse gas:
Confidence in radiative transfer models
For global warming applications, the strength of an individual greenhouse gas depends upon the distribution of itself and the temperature, its absorption characteristics, and the concentration itself. For very low concentrations of greenhouse gases, the absorption is approximately linear with mxing ratio in the air, weakening to a square root and then eventually to a logarthmic dependence. This is why methane is often quoted as being a ‘stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.’ It’s not an intrinsic property of the gas, but rather a consequence that methane exists in much lower concentrations and can provide a greater warming potential, molecule-for-molecule, in the current atmosphere.IIRC, Bloomberg made a good part of his fortune in the derivative markets on Wall Street. He should understand the mathematics. If he does, then he's lying about anthropogenic global warming.