Originally Posted by tiptap
So I am looking at the argument between cdcox and AustinChief. And here is my take. AustinChief thinks the old Henson notion is flat out wrong because from that 1988 date we see exponential growth in CO 2 but not the corresponding increase in temperature directly correspondingly. It should have been more. He calls the more recent paper cdcox quotes as revisionist. In that it has been jiggered to be more in line with data.
So my question is does AustinChief think the generated graphs are statistical in origin or are they physical representations? A statistical representation of the earth temperatures that set the beginning temperature for every site at the average temperature of 10 degrees C or 50 degrees F. would continue over a run on a computer to continue to show that the North or South Pole was around 10 degree C. give or take the error in measurements of instrumentation usually less than .5 degrees C. However even a simple physical representation of climate systems with the same starting points at every site of 10 degrees C. would start showing the poles cooling and the equator warming. The average would still be 10 but the temperatures at the poles would greatly decrease and the equator would rise.
Is Hansen's model physical or statistical in its origin?
Regardess, the model makes an asssumtion that it actually knows the concentration of C02 in our atmosphere.