Romm Says We Are Actually On Scenario A++

So much for Gavin’s claim of scenario B. These guys should talk to each other and get their story straight.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Romm Says We Are Actually On Scenario A++

  1. Dave N says:

    I note that they talk about grafting data from ice-core samples onto data from direct sampling from the atmosphere. Beats me why they even need to bother; looking at data from 1959 to present shows it is nothing like “super-exponential”.

    Nice work if you can get funding for frivolous studies like that.

  2. suyts says:

    Hmm, I think this may be a fun time to venture to CA.

  3. suyts says:

    Well, the study has already admitted a couple of mistakes, but apparently it isn’t anything more than a Malthusian/Ehrlich scare coupled with CO2………. no kidding.

  4. Mike Mangan says:

    Super exponential? Whoa…

  5. Les Johnson says:

    I did the calculation on CO2 data from 1958.

    Linear trend – y = 0.1206x + 308.49
    R² = 0.9859

    Exponential trend – y = 310.05e0.0003x
    R² = 0.9912

    With an exponent that low, the trend is equivalent to linear, especially in short time frames. Technically it is exponential, but still equivalent to linear. But super-exponential? I am guessing that drug screens are not part of the peer review process.

    • Scott says:

      So can someone explain to me what exactly super-exponential is? I remember that factorials always eventually outpace exponentials…but what is the definition of super exponential?



    • suyts says:

      I’m guessing not either. Yeh, it bothers me when people arguing it isn’t linear………technically…..sure, but to quibble the slope vs. curve is silly to me. But, just what I’ve gleaned from the study, in spite of the linear trend, the paper is insisting that population growth will cause the super-exponential rate increase. They’ve already did an “oops” reality slapped us on the assumptions of pop. growth. A better and more simple approach, in my mind, if one wanted to engage in Malthusian alarmism would be to correlate CO2 per captia change (can’t find my triangle) and then extrapolate that rate with pop growth. But then it is simply a number game where one could put just about anything they wanted anywhere.

      I haven’t checked the actual numbers, but something like 4 bil people in 1975, aCO2 = 360ppm? 7-8 bil today. a CO2 = 390? Then put that on a curve. It, of course, would still be wrong, but much more elegant than this tripe. Could even sophisticate it with rate of change of developing nations and developed nations.

    • Dave N says:

      Alarmists have a tendency of rewriting the dictionary so that stories sound scarier. The word “slightly” becomes “super”, and so forth.

  6. Les Johnson says:

    As explained on another blog (apologies for forgetting where), its the product of two exponential expressions.

    Ax * Ay = A(x+y)

    But, I had never heard of it before.

    • Scott says:

      But isn’t that exponential, but just with a higher exponent?

      A factorial would be a true super-exponential function.


  7. Les Johnson says:

    I guess this site does not support HTML superscript. That should A to the x and y power.

  8. Les Johnson says:

    Scott: I would agree. It does not make sense either, having the same original number (A) on both sides.

    I can’t find a good explanation in Google, either.

    Which is moot, as the increase in CO2 could be argued to be linear. It is definitely not super exponential.

    • Scott says:

      Exactly…CO2 might be expontential (with a small exponent), but it’s not super exponential.

      Still doesn’t keep me from wanting to know what super exponential is…

      Oh wait, how’s this for a guess: in the current context, super exponential is defined as:
      “a made up term used as a scare tactic”


  9. Andy Weiss says:

    Super-exponential must mean that it is cooling rather than warming! Because that is what seems to be happening in the real world. I never was very smart at math and science like our climate expert friends.

  10. papertiger says:

    Romm is a con artist, liar, fraud, who can’t do math.


    I hope he super-exponentially falls off his horse and breaks his neck.

    Then he can ask his paymasters, “What ever happened to that unequivocal fetal stem cell science that would fix spinal cord injuries?”

    “Oh, you mean that was politically expedient bullshit too?”

    But even when faced with naked self interest urging him toward reality, the light or realization will never come on for our friend Joe.

    Because he is a squid’s dick.

  11. omnologos says:

    A human civilization where somebody like Romm becomes one of the most listened-to voices regarding climate change, that civilization is on the precipice indeed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s