0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
../ snippedI therefore kindly request you to put my previous comment back up again or else stand accused of deliberate censorship to further your own particular (financial ?) aims here.
I will only discuss this further if you put up my last comment that was incorrectly censored by peppercorn?
Damocles sayshowever these figures (which you can easily check with a google search, which in turn might lead you to read and get a better appreciation of the mainstream literature) henry@damoclesif you will take the time to investigate where these figures come from, you will find out that they "calculate" this from models. Furthermore, the models are based on observations.
When I first realized what had happened I said:you cannot calculate that which has never been measured.The initial value of 1.7 that was used for a long time came originally from the IPCC AR4 2007.When I first studied this, I realized what they had done. 1) make a decision: earth is getting warmer, and man is to blame.everybody agreed.2) scientists then went ahead and made a (proportional) weighting of various factors that changed from 1750-2005 versus the amount of observed warming 1750-2005....the weighting for CO2 increase ended up at 1.7You see what the problem is? You are looking from the wrong end because you have not established exact cause.... It is the worst mistake a scientist can make... and I blame the IPCC and all that signed their names to it.so if you want to impress me and prove to me that these values are real, you have to come up with actual test methods and actual test results.