Quote:
Originally Posted by Parihaka
it is after all an imprecise science as illustrated by Sheks numbers (he's not my 'cohort' by the way, we're not your enemy  at least I don't regard myself as such). |
All sciences have inherent imprecision in them; the study of climate is no better. As many have pointed out, there are a multitude of complex interactions going on in the study of this question, and I do not dispute that.
Sorry about the implication of "cohort" implying I am an enemy. I never knew that that term had that implication. Perhaps the term "comrade" (excluding the socialistic implication, of course) would be better?
But, after reading many of the posts in other links, and with all due respect, I would suspect that you and I do not necessarily share many of the same opinions on the science aspect of this topic. Politically perhaps we agree more, but not necessarily on the science of this topic.
Quote:
|
The 9 -25% of the greenhouse effect is IIRC are the calculations used for the IPCC models excluding water vapour?
|
I believe that that is the range used for the most of the models used in this field, not just those used for the IPCC models. Of course, many models assume larger delta CO2 over this over time; mainly due to forecasts of CO2 rise and/or inability of CO2 sinks to compensate for introduction of anthro CO2 into the system. The estimates used in these for these future CO2 contributions may have to be adjusted, since, of course, they are just estimates. The same goes for the CO2 sinks as well.
Hard to make predictions for systems that have variable inputs, right?
Quote:
|
Edit: and the total figure for all CO2?
|
The 9-25-ish % is the "greenhouse %" for all atmospheric CO2. This may be subject to revision in light of changes to the CO2 levels, of course.