Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Should we plug in their range? let's see?
2011 range 1.13 Wm-2 to 3.33 Wm-2 or .34 C to .999C
1950 range .29 Wm-2 to .85 Wm-2 or .087 C to .255 C
Same .797 C of 2011 observed warming,
and the same .287 C of pre 1950 warming
We have to compare low to low, and high to high, because it is unlikely the physics of forcing changed in the 61 years between
1950 and 2011.

on the low end, in 2011 we have .797C - .34 C = .454 C of warming that is not from Anthropogenic forcing,
and .287 C - .087 C= .2 C for pre 1950 natural warming, so we have forcing warming of .34 C and natural warming of .2 C,
for a total of .54 C of attributable warming. this leaves, .797 C - .54 C = .257 C of warming from unknown causes.
Of course the low end only represents 2XCO2 forcing of 2.33 Wm-2.

Now for the high end, which if the mid range did not work, neither will the high end, but oh well!
.797 C - .999C = -.202 C of warming that is not from Anthropogenic forcing,
and .287C - .255 C = .032 C of pre 1950 warming, which means that we have - .234 C of warming that is not coming from unknown causes.
So whatever those causes are, they are not causing any warming!

The only way to show any positive feedbacks from the observed data,
would be to lower the 2XCO2 forcing number, but the feedbacks are responding to that CO2 forced warming.
If the warming caused by added CO2 is lower, then we have even less to worry about.

Also my logic has nothing to do with oil companies, and I do not work for one.
I like Physics, and the way the numbers work, the core concept of AGW does not work, as it is currently defined.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)