tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post7087483707472844871..comments2024-03-18T21:32:04.061-06:00Comments on Clayton Cramer.: Causality Problems With Global WarmingClayton Cramerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-7439062210453438382015-08-05T21:26:43.880-06:002015-08-05T21:26:43.880-06:00Hmmm... that does not agree with the Mauna Loa mea...Hmmm... that does not agree with the Mauna Loa measurements. I read the original article where this appears, but it isn't clear to me what 'background CO2 level' means.<br /><br />The Mauna Loa measurements show a much smoother curve that rises monotonically. I believe those measurements are quite accurate, and Mauna Loa was chosen because it is the least likely place on earth to get local contamination that is also reasonably accessible. It is very high, and way out in the middle of the ocean, so the CO2 it measures is most likely a good proxy for the whole earth.<br /><br />Beyond that, there are solid physical reasons to believe that increasing the CO2 concentration will move the CO2 trajectory upwards from its natural trend. That really is settled science, unlike the various alarmist predictions. The radiative physics of CO2 radiation is well understood in theory, verified by experiment (the one dimensional radiative balance model).<br /><br />That is not the same as saying that climate alarmists are right about the amount of deflection of that curve. It also does not mean that the very complex climate models are right. Those models are (roughly) finite element, parameterized weather models run to simulate a very long time (decades). When forecasting from the corresponding weather models, which I do frequently, we know that they are worthless beyond 10-15 days, and often very wrong just a few days in advance.<br /><br />I suspect the alarmists are off by a substantial factor.StormCchaserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02998174514362089471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-9967981779968638322015-08-05T19:42:32.539-06:002015-08-05T19:42:32.539-06:00I tend to be a "warmist", one who believ...I tend to be a "warmist", one who believes there is some warming going on, and that messing with CO2 levels can't be something that has zero effect, but I need serious convincing before I'll accept that we need to turn off our power plants in order to save the planet. However, I noticed that the charts you present have different X-axis values, and thus cover different periods of time. <br /><br />I'm sending you a graphic that shows the results when the two graphs are adjusted to the same scale (years per inch) and so that the same years overlap.<br />Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09767954910569442805noreply@blogger.com