EpicRandy said:
Locknuts said:
As the second study suggested, 33% is optimistic, but 2C warming based on 450ppm seems overly pessimistic. The article you referenced isn't peer reviewed and is written by a high school teacher. He seems to reference an article though that appears well written, but asserts that the global warming will be catastrophic and that a tax on carbon is the only way to stop it. Are these people scientists or politicians? They should stick with the data and let the policy makers worry about the policies, if and when they're needed.
Here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1375-3?LI=true
Around 2C warming for a doubling of Co2.
And this one suggests it is around .51C for a doubling:
http://iacweb.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-et-al-JGR2007-climate-sens.pdf
I can provide many more below 2C estimates if you'd like, as climate Co2 sensitivity is where I've been doing most of my reading.
|
I really doubt the .51C for a doubling. We are already higher than that. for instance 2015 was at 0.85C and the last 5 year mean wat near 0.70C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Edit : the 660ppm is a doubling from 1983(date of the article) 330ppm concentration. the article you linked that says 2c for a doubling is probably referring to pre-industrial concentration which was around 280.
|
The estimated 2°C rise occurs throughout 1000 years in the first paper.
The second paper briefly mentions in the introduction that a doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an increase in the range of 1.3°C to 2.3°C, but the paper has nothing to do with those numbers. They were referencing another paper that produced those values. I'm not sure where the .51 value originates.
