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: Land Shark who wrote (45735)	1/7/2014 3:29:52 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86356

Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. There is no error in anything I posted. typically models are composed of empirical, semi-empirical and statistical equations. Adding some adjectives. All model equations in fact all science equations are speculations until tested. The models encoded the climate temperature sensitivity that would be caused by the trace increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The models equations reflect the speculated assumption about the interaction of said CO2 and the Sun's and the Earth's electromagnetic radiation. They did not predict the present and they cannot hindcast the past. The CO2 model equations are they are And even though it is beyond any understanding by you. I Repeat. For your AGW, Climate models were created using speculation equations. Those equation tweaked to show the relationships of CO2 and energy being captured have predicted wrongly the current global temperatures. But even more damning is that they cannot hindcast the past observed global temperatures at all. There is only debunked science speculations supporting the supposed speculation on the physics of the relationships of CO2 and large additional energy being captured. YOU ARE ONLY the politics of saying "science is wrong". And that means.

To: Land Shark who wrote (45735)	1/7/2014 4:03:28 PM
From: teevee	Respond to of 86356

Landshark, To dismiss the entire modelling effort of the climate scientists is sheer idiocy IMO. It is sheer idiocy to accept models that cannot replicate past or future climate. Nobody is claiming they're 100% accurate, but from a macroscopic perspective, they provide enough information to indicate which direction we are going in (and in the long term that's warming and probably catastrophic in the longer term - i.e. mass extinctions, floods, wildfires, drought, extreme weather events anon anon. The data used in modelling has been altered and "massaged". There is an old axiom that applies to models: Garbage in garbage out. You might also ask a geologist at your place of employment to learn to your surprise that the planet has experienced mass extinctions, floods, wildfires, droughts and extreme weather events for many hundreds of millions of years. Much of us have noticed that this is already happening, but it's going to get a lot worse over the next 20 to 50 years). Insurance companies note there has been no statistical increase in in extreme weather events. The increase has been in population and assets built in harms way, and increase in the value of those assets. There has also been an increase in the reporting of extreme weather events, which many people, including yourself, appear to interpret as an increase in the number of events. When you revel in being an AGW stooge, and make vapid statements like those above, it indicates your lack of intellect and shallow character, which further leads me to believe you are unemployable in any professional capacity.

To: Land Shark who wrote (45735)	1/8/2014 2:48:41 AM
From: Bilow	1 Recommendation Recommended By Hawkmoon Respond to of 86356

Hi Land Shark; Regarding the comparison between climate science and the electrical equation V=IR; It's an excellent comparison. V=IR works so well that billions of electronic devices are sold every year that depend on this equation. Climate science, by comparison is so faulty that they were completely surprised when temperatures didn't rise for 17 years (and counting). If they ever get climate science up to the level of V=IR it will be a wonderful thing for farmers, they'll have an idea of what kind of weather will be showing up next year. And V=IR is based on statistics. The difference in statistics between V=IR and climate science is the difference between night and day. With V=IR, testing just a single resistor, you have billions of independent statistical tests available per second (fluctuation dissipation theorem). With climate, you have only a single test and since climate has natural periods on order of a few hundred thousand years it would take many many times the age of the universe to gather the statistics that can be obtained from a single resistor in a second. But we're not restricted to single resistors. We make trillions of them every year. And they work. Using resistors as evidence that science has solved (LOL) the climate problem is ridiculous. What's more, if you take the right graduate physics class they will derive V=IR from first principles (it's done in solid state). That cannot be done with climate science. The first principles derivation does not exist. -- Carl

To: Land Shark who wrote (45735)	1/8/2014 6:47:28 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86356

I love the climate modeling discussions. What we had was a period of warming coincident with rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Then we had political opportunists like Algore jump on the phenomena and make himself rich. From all the money the alarmists like Algore generated came an avalanche of models. The only thing that can be said of the models is that they do not work. In my opinion we have had opportunists take advantage of coincidence and a loose understanding of green house gas impacts on the environment. All of this was accompanied by lies lies and more lies. All of the argument aside, there is absolutely nothing that can be done by first world nations as emissions from the rising third world will overwhelm any pissing into the wind the loony left makes countries like the US to. Think of the people who could be fed with money wasted on green "scientists". It is not only wrong it is destructive and many will die due to green slaughter. Bob