- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 8,315
- Reaction score
- 4,121
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Well gee, you really should inform President Johnson's staff about that :roll: A 1965 a report by the US President's Science Advisory Committee summarized the risks implied by and limitations to contemporary understanding of CO2 emissions:
The possibility of climatic change resulting from changes in the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide was proposed independently by the American geologist, T. C. Chamberlain (1899) and the Swedish chemist, S. Arrhenius (1903), at the beginning of this century. Since their time, many scientists have dealt with one or another aspect of this question, but until very recently there was little quantitative information about what has actually happened. Even today, we cannot make a useful prediction concerning the magnitude or nature of the possible climatic effects. But we are able to say a good deal more than formerly. . . .
One of the most recent discussions of these effects is given by Moller (1963). He consisders the radiation balance at the earth's surface with an average initial temperature of 15°C (59°F), a relative humidity of 75 percent, and 50% cloudiness. We may compute from his data that with a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C (1.1°F to 7°F), depending on the behaviour of atmospheric water vapour content. . . . A doubling of CO2 in the air, which would happen if a little more than half the reserves of fossil fuels were consumed, would have about three times the effect of a twenty-five percent increase.
As Moller himself emphasized, he was unable to take into account.... In consequence, Moller's computations probably over-estimate the effects on atmospheric temperature of a CO2 increase.
One of the most recent discussions of these effects is given by Moller (1963). He consisders the radiation balance at the earth's surface with an average initial temperature of 15°C (59°F), a relative humidity of 75 percent, and 50% cloudiness. We may compute from his data that with a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C (1.1°F to 7°F), depending on the behaviour of atmospheric water vapour content. . . . A doubling of CO2 in the air, which would happen if a little more than half the reserves of fossil fuels were consumed, would have about three times the effect of a twenty-five percent increase.
As Moller himself emphasized, he was unable to take into account.... In consequence, Moller's computations probably over-estimate the effects on atmospheric temperature of a CO2 increase.
2015 is 2015.0 not 2015.99. I'm sure I've pointed this out to you in the past, when you tried to make a big deal out of some 'problem' you discovered thinking that 1998.10 should be October 98.
The simple fact which you seem utterly desperate to avoid acknowledging is that the rate of warming over the twenty years from 1978 is entirely consistent with
A) The warming from El Nino to El Nino (1998-2016), which Karl & co did not have access to, and
B) The warming if that's pushed back to neither start nor end with an El Nino (1995-2014 or 1996-2014) and
C) The warming if the start were merely pulled forwards to avoid the El Nino (1999-2014)
Karl et al instead chose to follow a similar base period and 15-year modern trends as the IPCC, but either way the consistency of results is the same. You can certainly cherry-pick some brief period which merely begins with a strong El Nino which has a lower 'best estimate' warming rate - as Karl et al clearly show in their Figure 1 - but that 'slowdown' is not statistically robust. Even the 1978-98 rate of warming lies well within their 90% confidence interval for the 1998-2012 trend.
Last edited:
