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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5053)	2/16/2009 6:48:13 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between theoretical modeling and real-world observation is that the models on which the case for alarm about climate change are based are very substantially overestimating the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse warming on global temperatures. This would be true except for one thing. The GW models have been consistently wrong. Every year, scientists are saying that their models have to be adjusted because they underestimated the increase in human CO2 output and the increase in temperatures due to natural feedback mechanisms. So the reality is that the GW models have been consistently UNDERESTIMATING the temperature increases. So much for that guys theory using Occam's Razor. How about this for a more appropriate application of Occam's Razor. If the GW models that use CO2 baseline increases as a key input for predicting future temperature increases are consistently underestimating those increases, then perhaps they are also underestimating the increases in CO2 from humans or natural feedback cycles. This would imply that the problem is bigger than we thought and getting worse faster than we thought.