So much for Gavin’s claim of scenario B. These guys should talk to each other and get their story straight.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Mann Says He Was Correct
- conrad ziefle on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Disillusioned on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Gamecock on Mann Says He Was Correct
- toorightmate on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Robert Denby on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Michael Abbott on “under the Intermediate Scenario”
I note that they talk about grafting data from ice-core samples onto data from direct sampling from the atmosphere. Beats me why they even need to bother; looking at data from 1959 to present shows it is nothing like “super-exponential”.
Nice work if you can get funding for frivolous studies like that.
Hmm, I think this may be a fun time to venture to CA.
Well, the study has already admitted a couple of mistakes, but apparently it isn’t anything more than a Malthusian/Ehrlich scare coupled with CO2………. no kidding.
Super exponential? Whoa…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-Z0SSyUcw
lol 🙂
I did the calculation on CO2 data from 1958.
Linear trend – y = 0.1206x + 308.49
R² = 0.9859
Exponential trend – y = 310.05e0.0003x
R² = 0.9912
With an exponent that low, the trend is equivalent to linear, especially in short time frames. Technically it is exponential, but still equivalent to linear. But super-exponential? I am guessing that drug screens are not part of the peer review process.
So can someone explain to me what exactly super-exponential is? I remember that factorials always eventually outpace exponentials…but what is the definition of super exponential?
Thanks,
-Scott
I’m guessing not either. Yeh, it bothers me when people arguing it isn’t linear………technically…..sure, but to quibble the slope vs. curve is silly to me. But, just what I’ve gleaned from the study, in spite of the linear trend, the paper is insisting that population growth will cause the super-exponential rate increase. They’ve already did an “oops” reality slapped us on the assumptions of pop. growth. A better and more simple approach, in my mind, if one wanted to engage in Malthusian alarmism would be to correlate CO2 per captia change (can’t find my triangle) and then extrapolate that rate with pop growth. But then it is simply a number game where one could put just about anything they wanted anywhere.
I haven’t checked the actual numbers, but something like 4 bil people in 1975, aCO2 = 360ppm? 7-8 bil today. a CO2 = 390? Then put that on a curve. It, of course, would still be wrong, but much more elegant than this tripe. Could even sophisticate it with rate of change of developing nations and developed nations.
Alarmists have a tendency of rewriting the dictionary so that stories sound scarier. The word “slightly” becomes “super”, and so forth.
As explained on another blog (apologies for forgetting where), its the product of two exponential expressions.
Ax * Ay = A(x+y)
But, I had never heard of it before.
But isn’t that exponential, but just with a higher exponent?
A factorial would be a true super-exponential function.
-Scott
I guess this site does not support HTML superscript. That should A to the x and y power.
Scott: I would agree. It does not make sense either, having the same original number (A) on both sides.
I can’t find a good explanation in Google, either.
Which is moot, as the increase in CO2 could be argued to be linear. It is definitely not super exponential.
Exactly…CO2 might be expontential (with a small exponent), but it’s not super exponential.
Still doesn’t keep me from wanting to know what super exponential is…
Oh wait, how’s this for a guess: in the current context, super exponential is defined as:
“a made up term used as a scare tactic”
-Scott
Super-exponential must mean that it is cooling rather than warming! Because that is what seems to be happening in the real world. I never was very smart at math and science like our climate expert friends.
Romm is a con artist, liar, fraud, who can’t do math.
.
I hope he super-exponentially falls off his horse and breaks his neck.
Then he can ask his paymasters, “What ever happened to that unequivocal fetal stem cell science that would fix spinal cord injuries?”
“Oh, you mean that was politically expedient bullshit too?”
But even when faced with naked self interest urging him toward reality, the light or realization will never come on for our friend Joe.
Because he is a squid’s dick.
A human civilization where somebody like Romm becomes one of the most listened-to voices regarding climate change, that civilization is on the precipice indeed.