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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (115604)	7/16/2009 7:28:57 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541731

Actually, the predictive aspect of climate change is being modeled at LLNL- one of our national labs. I was lucky enough to hear this guy speak last week: en.wikipedia.org He was discussing the super models they are making when they combine all models in to one model using the supercomputers at LLNL. Interestingly he said their long term predictions were getting pretty good- better than short term. They are doing predictions. Unfortunately some of the predictions are turning out to be too conservative- and the data they are getting is worse than the models predicted (all the models.) I asked him if there was any hope- because quite frankly we've lost control of the carbon in the atmosphere- that's crystal clear. The ocean simply can't take up any more than it already is in the thermohaline current, and the only thing left is the atmosphere- hence the Keeling curve. And he said, the wild card is clouds. It's the one thing not very well understood. The climate will definitely change- that's certain now, the question is how. Clouds will be the wild card, most scientists in the big labs think. I was not nearly as worried about climate change until I heard some of these guys speak. These are brilliant guys, and I'm sorry to say, they are not very sanguine on our chances. I hope all these guys are wrong- but the days of the ice age folks (who didn't have access to the supercomputers these guys are using) are over. This is not your father's climate change science. There are not "tons" of scientists on both sides of the issue. There are a huge number of guys on the climate change side, modeling various aspects of the problem. There are a few guys on the other side- usually guys with little on their resume, and a small amount of funding from businesses- if they are lucky. Most big companies are now funding climate change programs, and even they have cut off the deniers. Climate change is not an "invented" problem. There is definitely a change in our atmosphere at both low and high levels. It is significant, and it's easy to track the impact of fossil fuel carbon. Did you know that? Here's the deal- CAMS- the center for accelerator mass spectrometry, has a new protocol- just developed, and they can actually trace the carbon footprint "load" in the air from fossil fuels- here's why. Fossil fuels are "dead" carbon 14-wise- they don't register; they are too old. So if you test the air, and the c14 is lower than "normal"- you know the depression is because of dead carbon from fossil fuels. Neat trick, isn't it? Brand new science. So it is possible now to show very clearly what the anthropogenic carbon load in a given area is from- when you are looking at fossil fuels (obviously it wouldn't work for something like wood). And it is fairly alarming. Pray the clouds save us a little. Everything else the scientists have looked at are in a positive feedback loop. Not good.

To: greenspirit who wrote (115604)	7/17/2009 11:31:44 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541731

You asked for one book and I found it with a few clicks....I sent you the name of the author over a week ago, apparently, it was too difficult for you look up on your own. "Over a week ago", you posted the name of an author who, it turns out, wrote a book that didn't predict an ice age. Without any reference to said book. I'm supposed to be impressed? I suppose I could have figured out that it was my duty to look up anything that Schneider wrote that could count as a book claiming "the planet was going into a deep freeze", but life is short. Then when you finally posted the alleged book I found one (1) other book that seems to have matched your criterion, a paperback credited to some anonymous "impact team", that apparently pinned the alleged coming ice age on the CIA. In the conventional reality department, that wouldn't really count much as supporting the bald assertion that 25 years ago GW supporters were writing books and claiming the planet was going into a deep freeze. though it might work in the W world "scientific community", but that's ok. It is a book, and who knows, maybe "impact team" is now crediting global warming to the CIA or something. You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.