Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
lost_shaman

NOAA busted re-writing temperature History.

461 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Socks Junior
On 6/15/2018 at 4:27 PM, bmk1245 said:

So, delve in it, I'm sure Doug will be pleased with your help. No sarcasm here. If you can, help him.

It does sound fun!

On 6/17/2018 at 2:26 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Doesn't help that the university takes half for "overhead" charges.

Yeah, they talk about "keeping the lights on". I suppose all the middle management salaries have to come from somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Doug1o29
On 6/17/2018 at 11:25 AM, lost_shaman said:

I'm the OP of the thread on it here as you well know Doug! Are you trying to libel me here too? Try to practice intellectual honesty sometime soon before I really lose respect for you and go after your nonsense in a much more direct way. Last chance. 

That's quite a debating technique you have:  if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, use vague threats.  The last time I had that tactic used on me, I was in the sixth grade.  What grade did you say you were in?  At least be specific.  Exactly what is it you're threatening me with?

You know, you could always just block me.  That would solve the problem for you.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
On 6/17/2018 at 12:12 PM, Doug1o29 said:

"...over-estimated absorption on purpose!"  Guess that says it.

Yes that does say it! If you read the abstract he states the goal was to simplify the Math in order to determine CO2s maximum contribution to heating the atmosphere at different concentrations. The simple way to do this is to over estimate this heating in the equations as opposed to attempting to model the exact contribution which complex algorithms and super computers attempt to do. 

I'm not a Physicist either, but what Rhienhardt shows with his equations is that CO2s major contribution to atmospheric heating comes from excited CO2 molecules which have absorbed an IR photon colliding with other atmospheric molecular species as opposed to re-emission of an IR photon to return to its non-excited state in the troposphere. This is where Rhienhardt is able to show that the ICPP models are overestimating atmospheric heating by CO2 simply because they assume CO2 molecules are re-emitting most of the IR photons they absorb in all directions leading to increased IR failing to escape the atmosphere and causing increased IR radiation heating the Earth's surface.  

In layman's terms what he is showing is that a small concentration of CO2 (~150 ppmv my estimate) does almost all of the heating in the lower atmosphere that CO2 causes, and that if we double or quadruple this CO2 concentration the heating CO2 causes falls off logarithmically. That basically means you just end up with more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that are not in an excited state and are not absorbing and re-emitting IR black body radiation and thus not contributing to heating the atmosphere. (That's hardly layman's terms is it? I tried.)

Rhienhardt says in his Paper that if he ignored collisions in his equations that his equations would almost fall in line with ICPP estimates for heating of the atmosphere by additional CO2 concentrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's quite a debating technique you have:  if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, use vague threats.  The last time I had that tactic used on me, I was in the sixth grade.  What grade did you say you were in?  At least be specific.  Exactly what is it you're threatening me with?

You know, you could always just block me.  That would solve the problem for you.

Good grief man, I just meant I'd spend more of my precious free time wiping your nonsense away! Kinda like dusting the house, not something I like to do but it's more necessary the dustier the house gets.  

Did someone in sixth grade also question your intellectual honesty? LOL Too bad there wasn't a "safe space" for you back then! 

I don't block UM members. I haven't done so except possibly once in my 12 years here on UM and I don't even remember if I actually ever did block that one person. My tactics are to either strengthen my position until I overcome a fallacious opinion or either move on or admit my own fallacy once I discover one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
10 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes that does say it! If you read the abstract he states the goal was to simplify the Math in order to determine CO2s maximum contribution to heating the atmosphere at different concentrations. The simple way to do this is to over estimate this heating in the equations as opposed to attempting to model the exact contribution which complex algorithms and super computers attempt to do. 

I'm not a Physicist either, but what Rhienhardt shows with his equations is that CO2s major contribution to atmospheric heating comes from excited CO2 molecules which have absorbed an IR photon colliding with other atmospheric molecular species as opposed to re-emission of an IR photon to return to its non-excited state in the troposphere. This is where Rhienhardt is able to show that the ICPP models are overestimating atmospheric heating by CO2 simply because they assume CO2 molecules are re-emitting most of the IR photons they absorb in all directions leading to increased IR failing to escape the atmosphere and causing increased IR radiation heating the Earth's surface.  

In layman's terms what he is showing is that a small concentration of CO2 (~150 ppmv my estimate) does almost all of the heating in the lower atmosphere that CO2 causes, and that if we double or quadruple this CO2 concentration the heating CO2 causes falls off logarithmically. That basically means you just end up with more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that are not in an excited state and are not absorbing and re-emitting IR black body radiation and thus not contributing to heating the atmosphere. (That's hardly layman's terms is it? I tried.)

Rhienhardt says in his Paper that if he ignored collisions in his equations that his equations would almost fall in line with ICPP estimates for heating of the atmosphere by additional CO2 concentrations.

So far, the increase in CO2 has not caused any fall-off in global warming.  That being said, we have had a number of volcanic eruptions lately that have the potential to introduce a period of cooling - maybe six or eight years of it, and the next solar minimum will occur in 2020:  we are going into that situation right now.  So we'll probably see a little cooling over the next few years.  The test of Rheinhardt's theory will come after the solar minimum.  If temps start going up again about 2025, there will be reason to question his results.

On the other hand, we are increasing CO2 pollution at any accelerating rate.  That will cancel out any benefit from Rheinhardt's theory.

So maybe Rheinhardt is right and maybe not, But I still have to wonder why he didn't put his ideas in front of his colleagues.  He put a lot of work into that paper and then squandered it by self-publishing.

Note that other people (including I) have looked at the correlation between temps and [CO2] and concluded that CO2 directly contributes about 3% of warming.  The rest is coming indirectly from feedback loops involving the albedo effect and possibly other causes (like the increased insulating capabilities of increasing cloud cover).  A lot of warming is coming from those sources, but they are driven by increasing CO2 levels.  So CO2 gets the blame anyway.

 

Another though:  CO2 is doing a lot more than just warming things up.  It is acidifying the oceans and messing with the food chain.  It is altering storm paths and intensities.  It is affecting ocean circulation and may be the cause of our "Beast from the East."  It is being blamed for our three major hurricanes last year.  The list goes on...  So we still have lots of reasons to get CO2 under control.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So far, the increase in CO2 has not caused any fall-off in global warming.

Correlation is not causation! Have you not understood this simple fact after all these years? You seem to imply here that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause Earth to start cooling IF we show that increased CO2 concentrations lead to less CO2 caused warming. That is niave and not the case. The Earth is slighly warming but you Alarmist seem to attribute all of this warming to CO2 when that just is not the case. Land use changes by humans and resulting Albedo changes contribute to more warming than CO2 increases but you Alarmists that advocate for carbon taxes willfully ignore this fact! 

You know that farming and cattle raising began around 10,000 years ago. Humans grazing cattle are the cause of the de-greening of North Africa creating the Sahara desert for example. There was deforestation in Europe for farming as well. Later after the discovery of the Americas diseases from Europe killed off about 50 million people in south America alone, where their Farmland was abandoned and forest over grew the old farmland which increased Albedo and also altered the hydro-logical cycle in that area.  Not much later there is the deforestation of North America East of the Mississippi river, again altering the Albedo and hydro-logical cycle in that area. It is said, for example, that a squirrel could go from the east coast to the Mississippi river without ever needing to touch the ground. 

You Alarmist ignore all these things in order to LASER focus solely on CO2. Before the industrial revolution the Vikings colonized Greenland, it gets it name from them because it was warmer and lush with forest, it had to be abandoned in large part because it froze up and was no longer as habitable as it was when first colonized. 

Climate Science today is a Joke because you Alarmists ignore the true impact Humans have had on the Climate to solely focus on CO2 which is just a complex way to get more people who don't understand what is going on to fall in line with the old anti- "Big Oil" lobby started by the Sierrea Club and Green Peace.

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

On the other hand, we are increasing CO2 pollution at any accelerating rate.  That will cancel out any benefit from Rheinhardt's theory.

You clearly do not understand what Rheinhardt's Paper says. For one thing CO2 is vital to life on Earth! It is not a pollutant, saying that it is is just a propaganda talking point you Alarmists employ. He says that increasing CO2 will simply have less and less effect as concentrations rise. 

 

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So maybe Rheinhardt is right and maybe not, But I still have to wonder why he didn't put his ideas in front of his colleagues.  He put a lot of work into that paper and then squandered it by self-publishing.

You are so wrong on this point. Self publishing is going to be the future and Peer review will occur out in the open for all to see just as we discuss these topics here on UM. 

 

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Note that other people (including I) have looked at the correlation between temps and [CO2] and concluded that CO2 directly contributes about 3% of warming.  The rest is coming indirectly from feedback loops involving the albedo effect and possibly other causes (like the increased insulating capabilities of increasing cloud cover).  A lot of warming is coming from those sources, but they are driven by increasing CO2 levels.  So CO2 gets the blame anyway.

Rheinhardt says CO2 attributes ~3 degrees C of atmospheric heat. See my discussion of Albedo and land use above. We almost agree with one another until you go back to your LASER like focus on CO2! Albedo and hydrological responses DWARF CO2 not the other way around as you seem to religiously believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Correlation is not causation! Have you not understood this simple fact after all these years? You seem to imply here that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause Earth to start cooling IF we show that increased CO2 concentrations lead to less CO2 caused warming. That is niave and not the case.

WRONG!  All I have to do is look at a graph of temperatures over time.  Warming is accelerating!  Establishing a correlation between time and temperature says nothing about CO2.  HOWEVER:  There is a correlation between temperatures and CO2.

The slight drop-off in temps since 2014 is not statistically significant.  When that line starts to turn down, we can say that we are getting a handle on the problem.  But it will be several years before any downturn in CO2 can be detected statistically.

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

The Earth is slighly warming but you Alarmist seem to attribute all of this warming to CO2 when that just is not the case. Land use changes by humans and resulting Albedo changes contribute to more warming than CO2 increases but you Alarmists that advocate for carbon taxes willfully ignore this fact! 

WRONG AGAIN.  Warming also correlates with sunspot activity (a convenient measure of solar activity).  And methane and CFC concentrations have an affect.

Land use changes affect the amount of carbon in the soil.  When a forest is cleared, for example, the carbon oxidizes to become CO2 which is then discharged to the air.  So once again, the culprit is CO2.  Carbon can be sequestered by planting trees, or grasses or curbing over-grazing.  Yes.  Land use affects climate, but it does so by affecting [CO2].

And about albedo:  the warmer it gets, the more water that evaporates from exposed water sources.  That increases cloudiness, which should cool the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space.  But it also warms the earth's surface by insulating it.  So surface thermometers show warming, while atmospheric measurements show cooling.  That initial warming is caused by - you guessed it - CO2.

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You know that farming and cattle raising began around 10,000 years ago. Humans grazing cattle are the cause of the de-greening of North Africa creating the Sahara desert for example. There was deforestation in Europe for farming as well. Later after the discovery of the Americas diseases from Europe killed off about 50 million people in south America alone, where their Farmland was abandoned and forest over grew the old farmland which increased Albedo and also altered the hydro-logical cycle in that area.  Not much later there is the deforestation of North America East of the Mississippi river, again altering the Albedo and hydro-logical cycle in that area. It is said, for example, that a squirrel could go from the east coast to the Mississippi river without ever needing to touch the ground. 

Ruddiman, W. F.  2005.  How did humans first affect global climate?  Scientific American (March 2005) 292, 46-53.  doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0305-46.

Human farming activities started detectably affecting atmospheric CO2 about 8000 years ago.  That was at the height of the Altithermal, at which time the Sahara was a vast grassland.  Overgrazing with resultant desertification and a drying climate brought on by the Milankovitch Cycles changed it to a desert.  Desertification releases CO2 to the atmosphere, so CO2 played a significant, if small, part in that process.

Most of Europe was deforested in the eighteenth century.  America followed suit a hundred years later.  Warming was already well along before deforestation became an issue.  All deforestation did was accelerate the process.  And while deforestation does alter the albedo, it also releases CO2 into the air.  Example:  a Douglas-fir forest may contain up to three million kg of carbon per hectare, more than half of which is either in the form of dead wood, or buried in the soil.  When that forest is cleared, there is about 2 gm of carbon per square decimeter of soil in the top 10 centimeters.  That's about 200 kg per hectare:  1/75,000 what it had before.  Where did that carbon go?  To the atmosphere as CO2.

It is debatable, but there still might be places where a squirrel could go from the Atlantic to the Mississippi without touching the ground.  You could check it out on Google Earth.  Might be a fun exercise.  And worth a public-interest article in some nature magazine.

I am running out of time.  Maybe I can get back to you later.  In the meantime:  you wouldn't make so many stupid mistakes if you spent some time reading up on climate change.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

WRONG!  All I have to do is look at a graph of temperatures over time.  Warming is accelerating! 

Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean CO2 is the cause. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

There is a correlation between temperatures and CO2.

A very weak one. That is what Rheinhardt is saying. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

The slight drop-off in temps since 2014 is not statistically significant.  When that line starts to turn down, we can say that we are getting a handle on the problem.  But it will be several years before any downturn in CO2 can be detected statistically.

We don't need a "downturn" in CO2! It's not a problem.

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

WRONG AGAIN.  Warming also correlates with sunspot activity (a convenient measure of solar activity).  And methane and CFC concentrations have an affect.

Save Solar activity for another thread. I watch that issue very closely. As for CFC's they have been increasing and no-one is sure where they are coming from right now.

 

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Land use changes affect the amount of carbon in the soil.  When a forest is cleared, for example, the carbon oxidizes to become CO2 which is then discharged to the air.  So once again, the culprit is CO2.  Carbon can be sequestered by planting trees, or grasses or curbing over-grazing.  Yes.  Land use affects climate, but it does so by affecting [CO2].

Look here is a perfect example of your LASER like focus on CO2. Yes land use changes can effect the amount of carbon in the soil, but Albedo and hydrological changes from land use changes DWARF anything CO2 contributes. 

 

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

And about albedo:  the warmer it gets, the more water that evaporates from exposed water sources.  That increases cloudiness, which should cool the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space.  But it also warms the earth's surface by insulating it.  So surface thermometers show warming, while atmospheric measurements show cooling.  That initial warming is caused by - you guessed it - CO2.

Again, listening to you one might think CO2 is a religion. For you it may be? However, natural variability does cause the temperature to fluctuate and always has. The Roman warm period was arguably warmer than today and water vapor and clouds didn't cause a catastrophe then. CO2 didn't cause that warming and the climate didn't runaway out of control did it Doug? 

 

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Human farming activities started detectably affecting atmospheric CO2 about 8000 years ago.  That was at the height of the Altithermal, at which time the Sahara was a vast grassland.  Overgrazing with resultant desertification and a drying climate brought on by the Milankovitch Cycles changed it to a desert.  Desertification releases CO2 to the atmosphere, so CO2 played a significant, if small, part in that process.

Again, you are close to the truth but just can not accept that CO2 is not the main driver of climate! CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and it simply does not drive the Climate. CO2 is itself a feedback not a DRIVER of the climate. If you open your eyes maybe you can see this for yourself before you retire, but you are so indoctrinated that I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean CO2 is the cause. 

Didn't say it was.  There are lots of "causes."  Including Milankovitch Cycles, solar activity, natural CO2 discharge and human-caused CO2 discharge.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

A very weak one. That is what Rheinhardt is saying. 

The correlation between temperatures and CO2 concentration is 89.6% using a straight-line model.  You can't beat that with a stick.  Not many correlations in the natural sciences are this strong (100% is a perfect fit.).  You and Rheinhardt better take another look at the data.

I think what you are trying to say is that the EFFECT of CO2 is a weak one; that's the coefficient, not the correlation.  Rheinhardt says CO2 accounts for about three degrees of warming.  Since there has only been about two degrees of greenhouse warming, he is saying that CO2 is producing about 50% more warming than his model predicts.  That needs some explaining.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

We don't need a "downturn" in CO2! It's not a problem.

We need temperature over time to begin showing a downturn before we can assume we are getting anywhere with all our wind turbines and such.  As of now, that hasn't happened.  If temps continue to rise, then your statement that CO2 is not the cause may be correct.  Until that happens, your claim is (pardon the pun) a lot of hot air.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

As for CFC's they have been increasing and no-one is sure where they are coming from right now.

True that.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Look here is a perfect example of your LASER like focus on CO2. Yes land use changes can effect the amount of carbon in the soil, but Albedo and hydrological changes from land use changes DWARF anything CO2 contributes. 

That's probably part of the equation, too.  But in order to support that claim, you need data that you can model and albedo data is hard to get.  We do have sky-cover estimates going back into the 1820s.  Maybe we can develop a model that incorporates them.  I really don't know if anybody has tried it.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Again, listening to you one might think CO2 is a religion. For you it may be? However, natural variability does cause the temperature to fluctuate and always has. The Roman warm period was arguably warmer than today and water vapor and clouds didn't cause a catastrophe then. CO2 didn't cause that warming and the climate didn't runaway out of control did it Doug? 

"Natural variability" is measurable using a standard error.  The standard error for the straight-line model above is 0.0892 degrees.  Specify the CO2 concentration in ppm and the model spits out the temp in hundredths of a degree C.  That's about two year's warming at the current rate.

The Roman Period was the last peak of the Bond Cycle.  We are now in another one.  But this time, temps are higher.  What's different?  CO2.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Again, you are close to the truth but just can not accept that CO2 is not the main driver of climate! CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and it simply does not drive the Climate. CO2 is itself a feedback not a DRIVER of the climate. If you open your eyes maybe you can see this for yourself before you retire, but you are so indoctrinated that I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on that! 

You decry the opinion of the vast majority of scientists, but offer no evidence to the contrary.  Nobody is going to believe you until tou produce some evidence.  Right now, all you have is a wild, unsupported idea.  Science is evidence-based.  So put up some evidence.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
On 6/20/2018 at 3:07 PM, Doug1o29 said:

The correlation between temperatures and CO2 concentration is 89.6% using a straight-line model.  You can't beat that with a stick.  Not many correlations in the natural sciences are this strong (100% is a perfect fit.).  You and Rheinhardt better take another look at the data.

Just as meaningless as if you correlate the rise in CO2 in ppmv over time via Mauna loa data. The straight line model there is something like 98%, but it simply shows CO2 has risen over time. Why is that meaningless? It's because we know that time has progressed steadily since Mauna loa data has been tracked and also that CO2 has risen almost as steadily over that short amount of time. The amount of time is really short and the rise in CO2 per year over that short amount of time was steady. That is all this type of linear regression tells us. If we had a much longer data set for CO2 rise/fall the linear regression would show a much lower correlation. 

Now we also know temperature has been slowly rising over time although with more fluctuation than CO2 or time. So I suspect you've simply substituted Temperature rise for time in the same simple linear type straight line regression and you'll end up with a high correlation but one that is equally meaningless! You could take any two variables that are steadily progressing (over time) and end up with straight line regression model that shows a high correlation! This is why such a correlation is meaningless! Thus the axiom Correlation does not equate to Causation!

On 6/20/2018 at 3:07 PM, Doug1o29 said:

I think what you are trying to say is that the EFFECT of CO2 is a weak one; that's the coefficient, not the correlation.  Rheinhardt says CO2 accounts for about three degrees of warming.  Since there has only been about two degrees of greenhouse warming, he is saying that CO2 is producing about 50% more warming than his model predicts.  That needs some explaining.

Now you are just obfuscating, or haven't read the Paper! CO2 accounts for about 3 degrees of warming at pre-industrial to current levels. Rheinhardt agrees with this, he is calculating how much more warming CO2 will contribute at higher levels such as a doubling of current levels and on up to 4,000 ppmv levels. He says that Temperatures have risen around 1 degree since pre-industrial times and that doubling of those CO2 levels will account for around 0.26 of a degree.  He only calculates CO2s contribution at different levels. He shows mathematically that CO2s contribution to atmospheric temperature falls off logarithmically. 

You are either creating a Strawman argument here or deliberately obfuscating the facts. Either way you are being intellectually dishonest.

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Just as meaningless as if you correlate the rise in CO2 in ppmv over time via Mauna loa data. The straight line model there is something like 98%, but it simply shows CO2 has risen over time. Why is that meaningless? It's because we know that time has progressed steadily since Mauna loa data has been tracked and also that CO2 has risen almost as steadily over that short amount of time. The amount of time is really short and the rise in CO2 per year over that short amount of time was steady. That is all this type of linear regression tells us. If we had a much longer data set for CO2 rise/fall the linear regression would show a much lower correlation. 

Now we also know temperature has been slowly rising over time although with more fluctuation than CO2 or time. So I suspect you've simply substituted Temperature rise for time in the same simple linear type straight line regression and you'll end up with a high correlation but one that is equally meaningless! You could take any two variables that are steadily progressing (over time) and end up with straight line regression model that shows a high correlation! This is why such a correlation is meaningless! Thus the axiom Correlation does not equate to Causation!

We have 50 years of CO2 data from Mauna Loa.  That is enough to render the finite population correction effectively zero.  And if you somehow got 98% out of that data, I'd surely like to know what you did.

The exponential model yields an r2 value of 24.2%, leaving a lot more to unexplained events and random noise.  But from a glance at Mauna Loa's CO2 curve, it is immediately obviously that the correct model is an exponential curve, so something's wrong with the way the regression was set up.  Maybe CO2 should have its own coefficient?

As CO2 rises by one unit, temps rise by one unit.  But in the next interval, CO2 rises by one unit, but temps go up by more than one unit.  This is true across the entire range of Mauna Loa data.  So the rise in CO2 is NOT steady: IT IS ACCELERATING.

Awhile back you posted a list of CO2 concentrations taken from ice cores.  That list contained records going back 115 centuries, 11,500 years.  That's into the last ice age.  At that time, glacial ice stood between Erie, Pennsylvania and Buffalo, New York.  Lake Erie's northeast shore was a glacier and the rest of the Great Lakes were still buried in ice.  Is that a long enough dataset for you, or would you like something longer?  There are ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years.  So why don't we do a linear regression and find out what the correlation is?  The hard part is translating that data into an EXCEL or SAS file.  The regression is a piece of cake.

It is true that correlation does not equal causation, but without correlation, you can't establish causation.  Correlation is a necessary condition of causation.  So what do you think is the causing both CO2 and temps to rise on concert?

 

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Now you are just obfuscating, or haven't read the Paper! CO2 accounts for about 3 degrees of warming at pre-industrial to current levels. Rheinhardt agrees with this, he is calculating how much more warming CO2 will contribute at higher levels such as a doubling of current levels and on up to 4,000 ppmv levels. He says that Temperatures have risen around 1 degree since pre-industrial times and that doubling of those CO2 levels will account for around 0.26 of a degree.  He only calculates CO2s contribution at different levels. He shows mathematically that CO2s contribution to atmospheric temperature falls off logarithmically.

I misremembered what he said.

"Pre-industrial" is an arbitrary term.  Pick a year and base your calculations on that.  4000ppmbv is nearly ten times current CO2 levels.  NOBODY is talking about that level ever being reached.  We are anticipating perhaps a doubling of current CO2 levels.  Beyond that?  Who knows?  That is beyond our current horizon.

BTW:  temps have risen about 1.6 to 1.7 degrees since 1828.  Temperature rise in the continental Arctic is now about 4 degrees while in Brazil, there hasn't been any change.

So even if he's right and CO2 does drop off logarithnically, it only becomes significant at levels we don't expect it ever to reach.  So this article, even if right, is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Doug

P.S.:  We have been talking about time curves.  Standard statistical methods don't apply.  Be careful to correct for this.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.