Timeline for What is technically wrong with Wijngaarden & Happer's paper claiming to show that CO2's contribution to surface warming is saturated?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5 at 17:02 | comment | added | Dave Burton | It is not true that "their own data show that doubling CO2 would cause an additional increase of 3.74 W/m²." Per their Table 2 (p.19), they show an additional 3.0 W/m² (not 3.74) from a doubling of CO2, an additional 1.1 W/m² (not 1.99) from a doubling N2O, and an additional 0.7 W/m² (not 1.12) from a doubling of CH4. Whether you consider those numbers negligible or not is a matter of perspective, but they certainly are not worrisome. We've already had about log2(420/280) = 58% of a doubling from CO2, plus about half that from other GHGs, yet only 1.15±0.13 °C of warming from it. | |
| Sep 9, 2023 at 22:14 | comment | added | njuffa | It would be helpful if the answer could include a sentence on how close models generally are expected to match reality in this field. In my personal work experience in other fields (which is admittedly dated by now), a particular predictive model matching to within 10% of the current reality on a particular metric can be acceptable, and matching to within 5% would be excellent. As a consequence, one may look towards the use of ensemble modelling. | |
| S Jun 23, 2023 at 2:40 | review | First answers | |||
| Jun 23, 2023 at 11:55 | |||||
| S Jun 23, 2023 at 2:40 | history | edited | Fred | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Superscripts & subscripts
|
| Jun 22, 2023 at 22:41 | history | edited | Zim Sherman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 158 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2023 at 22:35 | history | edited | Zim Sherman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 575 characters in body
|
| S Jun 22, 2023 at 22:24 | review | First answers | |||
| Jun 23, 2023 at 2:21 | |||||
| S Jun 22, 2023 at 22:24 | history | answered | Zim Sherman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |