/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6780180
I misread you, Christ. I apologize.

Read this damn graph. The radiative forcing levels out at close to 250 million years. This is my entire point. The rest is noise that you can draw a line through. That fits decently with the temperature rise and drop.

I AM NOT HIDING BEHIND UNCERTAINTY. You are the one that claimed with certainty that the decrease was not monotonic. I was just pointing out that you can't claim that with certainty. This graph here. The one that I'm posting, is not based on a monotonic decrease of CO2 like you claimed. It is based on a monotonic increase of solar activity, but the radiative forcing contribution used in the calculation of this data is directly taken from the data points of CO2 concentration on the graph. Otherwise, why would there be so much noise in this graph if both sets of data were linearly changing?

>And the K-T thing? From the precious heart of SkS propaganda:
"According to Beerling et al (2002) the impact pushed atmospheric CO2 levels up from 350-500 ppm to approx 2,300 ppm, which would have been sufficient to warm the Earth’s surface by »7.5°C in the absence of counter forcing by sulfate aerosols."

Read this rest:
"Interestingly Nova’s source had in turn also misrepresented its own sources, as the temperature reconstruction which the graph at Figure 3 draws upon (see here) shows temperature as increasing from approx. 25°C to approx. 28°C at the K-T boundary, as opposed to the 22°C to 25°C jump shown in the graph. This 3°C increase is consistent with the predictions of Beerling et al’s paper when the counter forcing of aerosols is taken into account."

The 7.5 degree increase is without considering aerosols. The aerosols are accounted for later on.