Comments on: Don’t Worry About the First Ten Years http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5207 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: BRIANMFLYNN http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5207&cpage=1#comment-13847 BRIANMFLYNN Mon, 11 May 2009 17:10:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5207#comment-13847 Using MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, a climate model simulator developed by NCAR scientists (reportedly by Dr. Tom Wigley, primarily), Paul “Chip” Knappenberger over at ***http://masterresource.org/?p=2355*** (May 6 and May 7) and ***http://www.worldclimatereport.com/*** (April 30 and May 6) concludes that even if the US, by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths (3/1000) of a ºC per year. I understand that the result is furthermore based upon an assumption of a linear (rather than logarithmic) relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature, and that a logarithmic assumption would produce an even more meaningless reduction in global warming. Does not appear worth the economic displacement affecting only the US, and more legislators should know this. Using MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, a climate model simulator developed by NCAR scientists (reportedly by Dr. Tom Wigley, primarily), Paul “Chip” Knappenberger over at ***http://masterresource.org/?p=2355*** (May 6 and May 7) and ***http://www.worldclimatereport.com/*** (April 30 and May 6) concludes that even if the US, by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths (3/1000) of a ºC per year. I understand that the result is furthermore based upon an assumption of a linear (rather than logarithmic) relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature, and that a logarithmic assumption would produce an even more meaningless reduction in global warming.
Does not appear worth the economic displacement affecting only the US, and more legislators should know this.

]]>