Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10745)	2/14/2017 2:16:26 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356435

I'm not sure what your point is. Looks like roughly the same temps for the 102 CMIP-5 models. I think you're just confirming what I previously posted. Importantly, on the graph I posted the most reliable data sources (balloons and satellite data) were roughly the same while these IPCC bullshit data were way off the mark. To make it worse they try to project them out to 2050 which is absurd. But it looks good if you're trying to convince people temperatures are a pending disaster. If you can't predict a few years out with reasonable accuracy, you're not going out 25 or 50 years and do any better. Unless you just fall ass backward into it.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10745)	2/14/2017 2:25:31 AM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By J_F_Shepard Respond to of 356435

"they've been wrong since forever." Forever began in 1896. Arrhenius developed a table showing temperature increases/decreases across the latitudes for the following ratios of future-to-present carbon dioxide levels: 0.67, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 (Table VII, op. cit.). To quote from this table, a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide would produce a temperature increase ranging from a minimum of 4.95oC near the Equator (latitudinal range 0-10o N, or 0-10o S), to a maximum of 6.05oC in the Arctic (latitudinal range 60o-70o N). This latter accomplishment is remarkable since more than one-hundred years later the issue is still the subject of much debate. warming.sdsu.edu In 1908, he wrote On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (?Tx2) As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C." [4] en.wikipedia.org We spiked at 1.51 last Feb, with CO2 up about 41%. If this is linear, that would put the sensitivity at about 3.75 degrees. Arctic Is Heating Up Twice as Quickly as Rest of World Arrhenius really had it together.