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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10603)	3/19/2007 6:09:27 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Only when human activities are added in do the models produce results that agree with today’s temperature measurements. Ah, Wharfie, why not add what else there was in the article you linked, all the skeptical scientists who are not sure about the accuracy of the models? Jumping to conclusions is not the scientific way. Big claims require extraordinary proof. It isn't there yet. And even if you are right, you aren't right for the correct reasons because they don't exist yet. Intuition isn't science; it is often wrong.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10603)	3/19/2007 9:40:42 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Dr. James Hurrell, Director of the Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explained that if you took today’s models, and ran them without the “anthropogenic forcings” (i.e., the extra CO2 and other greenhouse gases released by human activities), the models no longer explained the changes in the climate since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Natural changes, like variations in sunspot activity, were not sufficient to explain the planet’s rising temperatures. Only when human activities are added in do the models produce results that agree with today’s temperature measurements. Well of course. The models are models of the greenhouse effect, and of course you can parameterize them to only give the correct results given the actual rising CO2 levels, and not give correct results without rising CO2 levels. That isn't the question. The question is, do these same models have PREDICTIVE power, and hopefully without having to discard 20% of the runs because you think they are out of range? That is to say, can you verify what the model is showing against the actual behavior of the Earth's climate?