3 ms·
It's plain common-sense that a big increase in one of the inputs to the climate has a good chance of causing disruptive change. It is rarely noted (but undispu
by mhartl 17y ago
It's plain common-sense that a big increase in one of the inputs to the climate has a good chance of causing disruptive change.
It is rarely noted (but undisputed) that the baseline climate response is logarithmic in carbon dioxide concentration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_eff...). Since, absent feedback effects, exponential increases in CO2 levels lead to linear temperature changes, it's likely that common sense is not a reliable guide.
- anthonyb 17y agoSo what's the response in temperature when CO2 increases like this? http://www.economist.com/images/mt_blog/democracyinamerica/chart5a.jpg http://www.economist.com/images/mt_blog/democracyinamerica/c... Is that geometric? Or worse?
- yummyfajitas 17y agoAssuming that graph is an exponential increase in CO2, then there will be a linear (not geometric) increase temperature. So it's considerably better, not worse. A little calculus goes a long way.
- anthonyb 17y agoI meant worse as in faster growth than geometric. It's quite possible, particularly with feedback taken into account.
- acronymble 17y agoHah, not that I'm saying that this guy's other views have anything to do with his ideas on climatology, but the paragraph after the one you linked is titled "Racial Biology." It doesn't end well: "...and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany." Don't nobody jump down my throat or anything, the juxtaposition just made me laugh.