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: RetiredNow who wrote (15204)	12/13/2009 5:21:17 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

Yeah, It's obvious he never took science in school.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15204)	12/13/2009 7:08:37 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

Astrophysics, astronautics, genetics, etc don't rely entirely on complex models. Climate forecasts do and what they're modeling is far too complex with too many unknowns for the models to be reliable. Can you imagine all the variables they had to take into account in their simulations of the multiple flights to the moon and the satellites we've sent out to explore the universe? Those models probably have thousands of variables and millions of lines of code to enable those computers to react predictably to changes in those variables. Yes, those models are far less complex than what would be needed to model the earths climate. ...entire modern society is based on the science of modeling real life and building code to handle life predictably. A vast overstatement. Simulations are useful but in most fields, real world testing can be used to test simulations and are the real field of experimentation. You're exaggerating the importance of simulations and modeling because you're defending the use of relying on them when it isn't warranted.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15204)	12/14/2009 6:47:08 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86355

Satellite Data: Theory That CO2 Causes Positive Water Vapor Feedback, Which Then Boosts Temperatures Seems Not To Work Read here and here. Another failure for the IPCC climate models and the overall CO2 AGW hypothesis that relies on a phantom positive feedback water vapor mechanism - the climate opera is at the curtain call and the phantom is AWOL. (click on image to enlarge) "Increasing atmospheric CO2 does not by itself result in significant warming. The climate models assume a significant positive feedback of increased water vapor in order to amplify the CO2 effect and achieve the future warming reported by the IPCC....According to the IPCC, “Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies, and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change.“" c3headlines.com appinsys.com climate4you.com