Re: Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <%gMRl.144$Cc1.65@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Arthur wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <QEIRl.148$9L2.97@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Arthur wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
On May 22, 12:36 pm, John Larkin wrote:
It seems that the weaker the science (evolution, climate) the more
rigid the orthodoxy around it and the less dissent is tolerated.

Maybe they secretly know how weak their "science" is.

John
I have noticed a strong correlation between those opposed to teaching
evolution and those opposed to the theory of anthropogenic sources of
global warming.
That suggests a fun analogy...

The AGW models presume temp rise as a linear function of CO2.
I have seen more in terms of temp. rise per doubling of CO2 than anything claiming it is linear for more than small changes - sounds more like log being used as an approximation.

So, the evolution computer-model--given a cat with 5 toes one year and
a 6-toed cat 1,000 years later--would predict kilo-toe cats within a
million years, right?
- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
You might be right. I saw the climate sensitivity input spec'd as
"temp. rise for a doubling of current CO2 levels." That could either
be linear or exponential. It was a while ago that I looked, so I wouldn't swear either way.

So, possibly an exponentially-toed cat? That would be even worse :-)

I meant log, opposite of exponential.

Best credible estimate I have seen is doubling of CO2, say from 280 to 560 PPMV, adds 3.7 watts of radiation forcing (where what we have now or had recently was total of incoming radiation reaching surface from sunlight, clouds and greenhouse gases being 492 watts per square meter).

Increasing from 560 to 1120 PPMV would add another 3.7 or so watts per square meter.

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)


I re-checked a few model specs[1] (it'd been a while since I
read 'em). They aren't consistent, but they generally spec.
sensitivity as "temp. rise expected for CO2 of twice today's
level."

Here they explain how the CCSM-2 model is verified:
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/CCSM/accuracy.html

Basically, after tweaking their equations to fit the data,
they plug the data into the equations...kewl.

They claim to predict El Niño too.

Y[Climate]MV.

Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation.php
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.
    ... The AGW models presume temp rise as a linear function of CO2. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.
    ... The AGW models presume temp rise as a linear function of CO2. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded.
    ... CO2 per year into the atmosphere is an insignificant amount - ... That's a rise of 31% over pre- Industrial ... The "cost" in human life of not addressing the issue ... Bjorn Lomborg calculated that, even if the doomsday forecasters' worst scenario came to pass, we would still be far better off spending the money on preparing for the effects of any future global warming than squandering huge chunks of GDP on futile political gestures. ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Global Warming
    ... The sun has increased by about 30% (most of surface temp ... for lithospheric heating and vulcanism- increase in lunar ... powerful than CO2, it acts in both positive and negative ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Climate skeptics win debate
    ... done to solve the problem - it isn't Al Gore or any scientist, ... For example, that CO2 and temperature ... then some 100's of years later CO2 rises. ... are all the very upper limit of predictions of ocean level rise. ...
    (rec.backcountry)
Quantcast