In Reply to: The observation most definitely DOES NOT fit the model, sorry to inform you posted by Victor Khomenko on January 18, 2007 at 12:31:34:
The point is that the average temperature rise was uniform and very widespread. Whether it was 5C or 4 or 3 isn't the determinant of whether it fits the model.But as I pointed out, when one includes the effects of polar amplification due to albedo changes, even 5C fits. The current thinking incorporates a steep initial temperature rise due to reflectivity changes as the polar ice melts, followed by a generally lower slope as the threshold effects are incorporated. This means that half the ultimate rise (remember that 11C) could be achieved in less than half the time. Since the various limits and rates are all fairly imprecise at this time, there is no way to rule the observation out of bounds due to improbability.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The specific temperature is not the determinant. - GliderGuider 01/18/0712:48:10 01/18/07 (10)
- LOL! You are a slippery bastard! - Victor Khomenko 13:02:09 01/18/07 (9)
- Re: LOL! You are a slippery bastard! - GliderGuider 13:29:58 01/18/07 (8)
- "at least as far as virtually all climate scientists are concerned." Incorrect again - Victor Khomenko 14:02:05 01/18/07 (7)
- Would 98.5% count as "virtually all"? - GliderGuider 14:18:31 01/18/07 (6)
- At some point there was one Galileo - Victor Khomenko 14:39:14 01/18/07 (5)
- The Oreskes study - GliderGuider 14:46:46 01/18/07 (4)
- I already told you the consensus doesn't matter... why continue beating dead scientist? - Victor Khomenko 14:49:53 01/18/07 (3)
- You suggested Oreskes' study had been discredited - GliderGuider 15:00:33 01/18/07 (2)
- Forgot to add - consensus is nothing but an opinion... science is supposed to be about facts - Victor Khomenko 15:52:00 01/18/07 (0)
- Lemme now say it in Russian - the consensus doesn't matter - Victor Khomenko 15:49:38 01/18/07 (0)