SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (13676)3/28/2006 3:03:21 PM
From: Sully-   of 35834
 
    [I]f the models can't replicate what happened in earth's 
polar regions over the past few decades, there's surely
no reason to give any credence to what they tell us about
something that occurred 130,000 years ago.

ICE, ICE BABY

Iain Murray
The Corner

If you want a complete rundown on the science surrounding the supposed rapid disintegtration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has it here. The Center provides a comprehensive, non-alarmist weekly update on climate science for a minimal fee and is well worth supporting.

The conclusion:

<<< These observations reveal that over the latter part of the 20th century, i.e., the period of time that according to climate alarmists experienced the most dramatic global warming of the entire past two millennia, fully 80% of the Antarctic coastal stations with sufficiently long temperature records experienced either an intensification of cooling or a reduced rate of warming; while four coastal sites and one interior site actually shifted from warming to cooling.

In light of these facts, it is clear there is a serious disconnect between reality and the virtual world of climate modeling; and since everything else in the 24 March 2006 set of glacial ice Science papers pertains to climate modeling, there is not much else that need be said about them ... except, perhaps, to note that the modeling pertains primarily to the prior interglacial, which makes it essentially meaningless for two additional reasons. First, if the models can't replicate what happened in earth's polar regions over the past few decades, there's surely no reason to give any credence to what they tell us about something that occurred 130,000 years ago. And second, one can easily get the right answer to a computational problem for any number of compensating wrong reasons, so that even a "correct" replication does not imply that the mechanics of the modeled phenomenon are correctly understood.
>>>

And that is a pretty good summary of much that is driving alarmism today.

corner.nationalreview.com

co2science.org
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext