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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (13878)	5/12/2009 1:00:56 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

The technical section shows that one can't be justified in claiming anthropogenic forcing as a cause of GW because such forcing is only incidental or correlated rather than causal. The assumption of strong correlation is built almost exclusively on the constancy of the solar constant. You can see their argument. If the solar radiance doesn't change much but century wide global temperature rises, there must be a non solar cause. Next, one looks around for likely suspects, rounds up the usual names, adds a political prejudice associated with war on wealth and traditional whipping boys like the oil industry, and comes up with CO2 green house effect from fossil fuel burning. The author doesn't attempt to directly refute the forcing argument as I have done, but simply shows solar radiance alone doesn't uniquely determine global temperature nor climate change. On the contrary the author shows that earth is affected by many non-radiance energy mechanisms working both in the sun, in interplanetary space, in interstellar space, through many devices from solar wind, Van Allen belts, planetary influences, cosmic rays, neutrino flux, upper atrmosphere chemistry, and how all these interact with one another. I might add, and for posterity, there is no climate change taking place on earth now outside of changes on the geological scale of millions of years. Notice that excludes the possibility of entering another ice age. If I'm wrong about this latter claim, nonetheless, it will take some thousands of years before there's enough evidence accumulated to show advance of ice age induced climate change. In past posts I've given evidence and argument that the 20th century's warming trend is starting to end. Doesn't mean that ice age is near. Just means we're entering a cooling trend and that trend won't be felt for decades at which time people will blame Bush for failing to dot the horizon with oil derricks offshore Malibu.