New answers tagged

1

The "calculation" - 1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 × 1/4 = 0.003 °C is meaningless. Rather than attempt to show that directly my response would be to ask "if the contribution of CO2 to 1 °C of warming really were only 0.003 °C then what caused the other 0.997 °C of warming?" Seems clear that water vapour, even if having 4 times the greenhouse ...


4

tl;dr– This sounds like silliness through-and-through. Addressing it as though it were a real scientific calculation would seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Temperature has raised by 1 °C since 1850. Carbon dioxide has raised by 30%. Carbon dioxide only constitute 4% of the greenhouse gases (the main part consists of water vapor). Carbon dioxide ...


9

This reminds me of using Bjørn Lomborg's book in statistics, as examples how not to do statistics, his calculations never make any sense or just make unfounded leaps to conclusions. Erik seems to have the same problem he just throws numbers together with no rhyme or reason. Let's just break down his calculation. 1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 × 1/4 = 0.003 °C. Why are ...


5

From this he concludes that the temperature raise from carbon dioxide is only 1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 × 1/4 = 0.003° C. His number for the amount of CO2 is high. A better value is 0.027 rather than 0.04. That does not mean that the correct answer is 0.002° C. This argument is completely fallacious. The author of this calculation is playing numerological games. ...


Top 50 recent answers are included