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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (41797)8/6/2013 12:34:23 AM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) of 86355
 
Hi Thomas; Re that paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. First, here's a better link to the article (which actually shows the journal reference):
arxiv.org

Yes the above paper was published in the peer reviewed literature. Not the most prestigious journal but it did get published. But the paper is not a critique of catastrophic AGW theory. Instead, it's a critique of how global warming is sometimes explained to lay people. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

The calculation for how much the planet would warm with CO2 doubling in the real world is way too complicated for anyone to do. But if you make a bunch of simplifying assumptions you get a number of about 1.1 degrees C. But warming might have other feedback effects such as an increase in another "greenhouse gas" such as water vapor. And there might also be negative feedbacks. My guess is that 1.1 is about right, and that at this level, the warming is beneficial.

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

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News