Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"If we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees."
"If we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees."
I would check this guy's figures if I were you...He claims that the temperature increase since pre-industrial days is only .5 degrees C, when in fact it is .85 degrees C (1.53F)...That makes his calculations useless. Who is this guy anyway....Not a scientist I'll bet.
I would check this guy's figures if I were you...He claims that the temperature increase since pre-industrial days is only .5 degrees C, when in fact it is .85 degrees C (1.53F)...That makes his calculations useless. Who is this guy anyway....Not a scientist I'll bet.
Actually the number he uses is 0.6 and that "over the last century" what I see is about 0.7 from 1900, but that's using GHCN v3 and we all know that's horse ****.
"If the rough estimates of CO2 doubling = 3.7 watts per square meter = 1 degree plus 2 more from water vapour were correct, we would have seen a temperature increase over the last century of 2.1 degrees, but we’ve only seen 0.6 degrees."
"If we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees."
Try to get your information about climate science from peer-reviewed scientific journals, not random websites.
Yeah because peer review is NEVER biased or corrupted and driven by activism, right?
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Phil Jones professor- Instrumental climate change, paleoclimatology
University of East Anglia
Ha! Great comeback! So true! Anyone who disagrees with the dogma is either not a real scientist or one that is in the pocket of big oil.
That's because generally it's true. If denialists can claim that real scientists fudge their data so they can get grant money then it stands to reason that scientists being funded by big oil fudge their data so they can get money from the oil companies.
The difference here is that the oil company guys really don't collect any data. They just try to critique the findings of those who do.
Meanwhile some random unidentified blogger demonstrates that he took Trig somewhere along the way and that now "evidence" .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
