View Single Post
Old 20-01-2011, 17:48
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,389
Same thing in effect. You don't think these scientists are as clueless as you do you.
Inputs are "the same thing in effect" as outputs?

Who were you saying is clueless?

Given the known quantitive effect of increasing radiative forcing, assuming everything else remained unchanged, you could work out on the back of a fag packet what temperature response to that was required to meet the observed increase in the temperature record. Seeing as we already know the radiative forcing for increasing CO2 they could see that that was far too small to do it on it's own. That is why, they needed a positive feedback response to increasing radiative forcing and again that response value could be worked out quickly on said fag packet.
You keep droning on, but clearly have no idea of the underlying physics. As I've told you before, you have to calculate the radiative forcing due to increased CO2. It's not just something that you know. And a positive water vapour feedback is inevitable, given that the amount of water vapour increases in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Cloud feedbacks are more complex, but are still modelled based on known physical processes, not just input into the model, as you imagine.

So forget any idealistic thoughts about the purity of scientists, these models are outputting just what they were programmed to do. Just in as complicated a fashion as possible to impress laymen and politicians
I think I can see why you (in your "Alan Millar" incarnation), had so much trouble on Real Climate. Having you insist on telling actual climate modellers how their models work must have been a bit tiresome for them!

But a lot of your posts there seem to have survived censorship. Here's a game anyone can play: go to the RealClimate web site, enter "Alan Millar" in the search box, and see how many of "Maggie's" arguments were previously attempted there, and observe how the patient answers were simply ignored.

Can't you understand simple ideas and do simple maths?

In the next 600 million years the sun will increase its output by about 6%. That is about 80 WM2. They predict CO2 will fall to 50ppm. That is an effect of minus 3 doublings from the current levels. Three doublings of CO2 is 12WM2 approximately.

80 - 12 is a net increase of radiative forcing of 68 WM2 .

Got it! Gosh I bet you feel foolish now, don't you?
No, I don't feel foolish. I feel smug.

You seem to have conflated TSI with global average insolation, and (rather unsurprisingly) ended up with a stupid answer!
njp is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.