Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187788)	5/31/2006 10:52:03 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And I think you COMPLETELY missed his point. He's one of the world's foremost hurricane experts who has based his research on OBSERVED DATA, not solely on computer forecast predictions. No I didn't, I have a lot of respect for old farts and experience. Though that doesn't make the man god. His predictions are based on computer forecast predictions. His brain being the computer. And that we cannot permit ourselves to incorporate Cyclical data into some computer model that tells us that current weather phoenomena are solely related to GW. Did you really mean that? I would expect that they have most certainly incorporated cyclical aspects within the computer models. You can't have GW and Global Cooling at the same time. You absolutely can. Global warming has never claimed that each and every year is warmer [or will be] than the previous. The stock market is a fair analogy. You can't guarantee that the stock market is going to go up each and every year, but you do have some good confidence that over 20 years it's going to be up an average. A short cycle can dominate a trend and can be in the opposite direction of the trend. Nor has global warming ever predicted that each and every spot on the planet will rise at the same level. England, for example, the model predicts that in the long run, the fresh water from the polar caps will break down the moderation from the Atlantic currents and England will experience something close to an arctic climate. It's an area that deserves FAR MORE RESEARCH in order to determine the extent to which phytoplankton export CO2 to the ocean depths. I agree with that. I also agree that all other related environmental aspects need FAR MORE RESEARCH. Now tell me IN WHAT YEAR are we going to have enough research to satisfy everyone that we know EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO. jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187788)	5/31/2006 11:59:26 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Had to break away for a bit... The difficulty is that there are no historical measurments of phytoplankton cycles, if there are some. That hasn't stopped scientists from referring to historical levels of C02, now has it? We REALLY HAVE NO IDEA just how high levels of C02 were just prior to the last ice age. Really? "Ice cores have been drilled in Antarctica and Greenland to examine the variation of the composition of air trapped in bubbles in the ice, representing global atmospheric conditions as much as 160,000 years BP (1). The first and deepest ice core was drilled at Vostok in central Antarctica, originally by a French-Russian team (Fig 1). Drilling of the core still continues, and it is expected that, when drilling is completed in a few years time, an age of up to 500,000 years will have been reached. Starting on the right-hand side of the graph at about 140,000 years ago, the climate was about 6?C colder than it is today. This was an ice age. Then at about 130,000 years ago, there was a quite rapid warming period until about 125,000 years ago, when the climate was, perhaps, 1?C or 2?C warmer than today. These short warmer periods are called interglacials." www-das.uwyo.edu See the chart in the link for atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 160,000 years. [Figure 1]. See figure 2 for atmospheric CO2 levles over the last 1000 years. You get the honor of showing me what you have on global historical levels of phytoplankton. jttmab