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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (105392)	9/24/2009 9:01:09 PM
From: Gib Bogle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

theaustralian.news.com.au That's an interesting article. While I am very concerned about environmental degradation, especially habitat destruction and the resulting elimination of species, I am still agnostic on global warming, or what they now call "climate change". I accept the basic premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I think it is quite possible that the elevated CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels will elevate global temperature, but I don't believe that this has been established conclusively. Since I am a mathematical modeller (albeit operating at a much simpler level than the climate modellers) I am quite skeptical about numerical models. The global climate system is incredibly complex, with physical and chemical interactions between land, oceans and atmosphere, then there is the variability of the sun's output ... many aspects of the basic science are not well understood, for example I'm not aware of any reliable models of cloud dynamics. Even if the basic science were well characterized, the modelling task would still be enormously difficult. It's worth remembering that "chaos theory" was kicked off by a climate modeller, and the chaotic system that he discovered was actually very simple - only three differential equations. Also, there is a lot of stupid and irresponsible material published in the media. For example, many people seem to think that as the earth gets hotter everywhere will turn into a desert. This is precisely wrong. Higher temperatures mean higher levels of total rainfall, because of the increased evaporation rate. Of course, some places will probably get drier, but that just means some will get even wetter than they otherwise would have. Also the idea that global food production will crash is silly. OK, there will be adjustments, and temporary losses in production as some regions become less well-suited to agriculture. But overall higher temperatures, more water and more CO2 are all good for plants.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (105392)	9/24/2009 9:42:42 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

You mean these ideological misinformation hacks? <<Beck, Hannity falsely suggested Latif's presentation damages case for action against climate change Beck: "[O]ne of the leading guys for the IPCC" has "just backed out and said, 'I was wrong.' " On his radio show, Beck falsely asserted that "the biggest guy they had to the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] has just backed out and said, 'I was wrong.' ... This is the leading climate modeling guy for the IPCC." Beck further claimed that Latif "has backed out now and said, 'We were wrong. We're going into 30 years of cooling right now.' " Contributing editor Pat Gray added: "[H]e says that he's conceded that the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering one or even two decades or more during which temperatures cool. I mean -- and then you couple that with the sunspot report that you were just talking about, and it's madness what they're trying to shove down our throats." Gray concluded: "And so, they know there's very little time and they've got this Copenhagen thing coming up, and they thought they'd have it all wrapped up by now." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 9/22/09] Hannity: Ally in "global warming hysterical movement" "pulled the rug out." On his radio program, Hannity stated that "one of Al Gore's most prominent allies in this global warming hysterical movement has just pulled off -- pulled the rug out from the former vice president and now says the world more likely faces decades of global cooling." Citing Latif's World Climate Conference presentation, Hannity said Latif "argued that the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade, and that we are likely entering one or even two decades during which temperatures actually cool." Hannity later added: "The science is not unchallenged; it is challenged. And even leading environmental extremists that have been, you know -- you know, sending out these dire warnings, they're now contradicting themselves." [Premiere Radio Networks' and ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, 9/22/09] Latif: There are "fluctuations" within years and decades, but clear "long-term warming trend" is "manmade" Presentation addressed "decadal variability," noting "we all believe that this long-term warming trend ... is manmade." Latif opened his presentation by stating: "What you see here is just the globally averaged temperature during the 20th century. And you can clearly identify the long-term warming trend, and we all believe that this long-term warming trend is anthropogenic in nature, is manmade. However, you see also a lot of fluctuations superimposed on this trend, interannual, as Tim has pointed out, but also decadal scale variations." Latif went on to discuss the "mechanisms" of decadal variability and the potential for predicting climate at the decadal timescale. [UN World Climate Conference -- 3, 8/31/09] mediamatters.org