5 ms·
It would mean that a lower fraction of the heating effect we're observing is from CO2. However, if we've correctly estimated the impact of CO2, then that just m
by ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
It would mean that a lower fraction of the heating effect we're observing is from CO2. However, if we've correctly estimated the impact of CO2, then that just means that there will be more absolute heating than we had otherwise predicted.
- mrfusion 7y agoWe’re both on the same side and I don’t want to seem like arguing within the team. But those two sentences seem to be contradictory?
- aldoushuxley001 7y agoI appreciate your civility, but it’s mildly disturbing hearing climate change advocacy being referred to as a team. I understand what you mean, but there shouldn’t be teams so much as many independent inquirers who come to the same conclusions
- WhompingWindows 7y agoThey aren't contradictory sentences. Methane is increasing faster than we expected it to. So, going forward, a higher % of warming will be due to methane than we expected before our recent methane measurements. This likely means more warming, as methane (CH4) is a much more potent warmer than CO2.
- MiroF 7y agoThis is a confusing comment and not particularly responsive.
- ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y agoMy statement is intended to be an isomorph of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21026594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21026594 with a different emphasis. I'm sorry you found it confusing, but it is absolutely responsive, and I resent your accusation that it isn't. If you want to be helpful in the future, you could explain what about it you find confusing, and maybe the person you're responding to could clarify whatever point was previously unclear.