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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22325)	7/19/2008 3:02:06 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

The statement the earth MUST be in a net radiative balance is stupid. You prove you have no comprehension of physics. Err... excuse me, I'm not claiming that it is in balance for each ns or ms or even for each day. I assumed you understand low pass filtering. Once again, mybad. Why can't you isolate the essential details to understand a problem and get rid of the effects causing you confusion? AGW and climate change is looking at a particular frequency band. It is not looking at weather (minutes, days, yearly, even out to a couple of decades), neither is it looking at orbital cycle periods of 10's of thousands of years (although of course both weather and long term changes are studied and used to help build the climate models). AGW is concerned with a few decades to the 10's of hundreds of years. Nobody is claiming that 100% of the frequency content within the AGW "band" is caused solely by humans, neither are we claiming that all climate change outside the band is zero. All of these processes have characteristic times which can be roughly estimated, and those times range from decades to a few hundred years or a few thousand years. That is what is currently of interest. Plenty of scientists are working at dropping the lower end, so the climate models do a better job with the higher frequency (decade down to years) just so idiots like you (and numerous others here) don't jump up and down and pee when a year like 2008 comes along and you stupidly think this invalidates all the climate models because you for some reason don't have a clue about frequency content.