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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (2558)	9/22/2011 10:28:40 AM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Dude, you just said the models aren't right. If they're 'off' like you say, we can't rely on them. Funny, to hear an alarmist bash the models if he thinks it will help his case.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (2558)	9/22/2011 8:22:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Oh, it is well known the models are off. If the models are off, then we know very little about the causes of climate change. Because 100% of the AGW alarm comes from running the models into the future and reading the results. There is NO other reason to think that the minor warming (approx. 0.75 degrees C) we have seen in the last 150 years is anything but natural variability, a slow continued exit from the Little Ice Age. They are all too conservative. Hansen's models of 20 years ago predicted swift warming in the 2000-2010 period. Instead, there was no statistically significant warming in that period. So that model was too alarmist, not too conservative. Besides, what does "conservative" mean wrt to chaotic, non-linear systems? These are not linear systems. You can't make linear extrapolations about them. A little bit off in these models can change warmings to coolings and vice-versa.