It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux
"Most accurate?" Hard to say. Why pick one? But as previously posted, CIMP3 seems to be doing quite well.
They all show a warming trend, due primarily to increasing CO2 emissions. But that's a big problem, predicting emission levels. Non of them show a decline in temperatures though. Because CO2 doesn't just go away.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Phage
And I thank you for providing the studies.
Again, the simple question I asked was
So, was the study accurate in their predictions?
And again,”I actual posted this thread in earnest. With hope somebody would “school” on the subject. It’s up to you if want to be open and free flowing with information. ’
Let’s go with a starting 270 ppm with a doubling being 540 ppm. We are at 400 pm now. We have a CO2 change that is roughly 24 percent of doubling. I think the one stud claimed a doubling of the CO2 should result in a 3.6 degree temperature increase. (Or was the 70’s study referencing a 60’s study?)
24 percent of a 3.6 degree change, just going for a quick linear thumb rule, wound be .894 percent vs .8. So, I would say the study was about 89 percent accurate compared to current cited measurements.