SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (50712)5/6/2014 10:02:47 AM
From: Wharf Rat   of 86356
 
this is what you are trying to figure out...

Message 29518106

As in real life, CO2 isn't the only forcing element in Hansen's models. If you would have read Tamino's article, you would have found out that " GWPF has presented the ultimate simpleton’s viewpoint of the situation. "

Here's another graph, to go along with the one I gave you in that post...
It turns out that methane has increased more slowly than the slowest of the scenarios. If we do like the GWPF did and account for only one climate forcing, but use methane instead of CO2, then temperature should have increased less than the slowest of the scenarios

When you look at all the forcings in his model, you'll find that C has come within a gnat's whisker of the observed data.

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News