Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!nntp.terraraq.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Global warming?
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:22:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v04aje$im3s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v01h71$3tf30$1@dont-email.me> <v03slo$g0cj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="69563"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xAPiYjkDMbP8X7lRyWOrQHqP71M=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v03slo$g0cj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3942

On 4/21/2024 3:23 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> https://www.washington.edu/news/2024/04/17/ice-age-climate-analysis-reduces-worst-case-warming-expected-from-rising-co2/
>>
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk9461
>>
>> These climate scientists looked at the carbon dioxide level and 
>> temperature shifts during the last ice age, and they are claiming that 
>> CO2 levels may not produce the temperatures that others are claiming.
> 
> 
> For technical reasons the estimated warming from a given CO2 increase 
> has a very long tail on the positive side.  It's even more skewed than 
> the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (images available by search).
> 
> As a result, when this kind of statistics was first done around the turn 
> of the century, it was impossible to rule out an increase of 10.5 
> degrees for a doubling with 95% confidence.
> 
> Since nobody actually believes that a ten degree warming for a doubling 
> is possible, work began on more complex statistics, generally Baysian, 
> to see if the result held up.  I was a co-author on one of those in 
> which we found the 95% limit to be about six degrees.  Since that time 
> it has fallen further.
> 
> The original naive estimate of 1.5-4.5 from the late 70s still seems to 
> be reasonable.  For that matter the estimates of Svante Arrhenius from 
> the 1890s seem to be good.
> 
> 
>>
>> The last warm interval got warmer than the current interval, but CO2 
>> wasn't the issue.  Under current conditions they think that 
>> temperatures will not get to the levels that have been predicted, so 
>> more ice may not melt than last time
>>
>> Someone should start working on the possiblity that we may delay the 
>> next cold period.  That might melt as much ice as last time, and be 
>> much worse for arctic biology.  There was a group that was predicting 
>> that CO2 could delay and even cause a skipping of the next cold 
>> period  That might be the biggest worry at this time.
> 
> So you didn't read my previous reply?
> 
> William Hyde
> 
>