Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
Turtly, I agree we don't know much about underwater volcanoes. However, we have models that very closely match past performance, how did those get so close?
|
I have a thread on them:
Underwater Volcanism Feel free to contribute.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zythryn
I have also seen models that take into account natural forcings only. These show past trends pretty darn closely until the 1930's or 40s. Then they start going off target. Models that take into account only manmade forcings also don't end up being very accurate. Models that take both natural and manmade forcings fit pretty darn close.
Once you get more data on those underwater volcanoes (how many active ones, how much CO2 they put out and how much of that CO2 reaches the atmosphere) please do let us know. I am very interested in that data.
|
By all means conduct your own search.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zythryn
As documented in the Wiki link you provided Turtle, climate models have improved quite a bit since 2000 (when the reference Nature letter appeared).
|
Search the phrase 'climate model errors' and you will find plenty that is more recent.
The point has been laid that even a slight increase in the rate of CO2 increase/decrease can have profound consequences, and yet other 'slight' changes -such as underwater volcanism - get poo-pooed as insignificant. Sounds illogical to me.
