/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15006558
>This figure reveals, that for January, the ionization for the HS case has a statistical significant warming of up to 7 K over Europe and Russia whereas the ionization for the SS scenario shows neither a statistical significant increase nor a decrease over the above mentioned area. The southern hemisphere, however, shows for both ionization scenarios a negligible decrease north of Antarctica in January. The right side of the panel, showing February, shows still a significant increase over Russia for the IR for the HS whereas the ionization rate for the SS scenario has no statistical significant area over this part of he northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere still shows just a negligible decrease for the soft spectrum ionization rate.

So in a single model setup run it shows a modest temporary and regional warming, how is that inconsistent with the argument that these events have small effects on surface temperatures in comparison to CO2? Didn't you say that you don't trust climate models? why do you trust this one?

>>15006573
Another one where you either didn't read or purposely misrepresent. This is another model where they found very modest temperature increases (at 95km altitude), again nothing inconsistent with the rest of the data that says these events mostly interact with the upper atmosphere.