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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (765099)	1/21/2014 10:54:56 PM
From: average joe	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB THE WATSONYOUTH Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573221

Wow that doesn't look very good. Too bad there is nothing that can be done about it. Warren uses phony climate debate to propose creating new jobs to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Only in America or Blazing Saddles...

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (765099)	1/22/2014 5:09:52 AM
From: Bilow	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573221

Hi Wharf Rat; Re: Ocean heat content. The temperature predictions of the 1980s were about air temperatures, not deep ocean temperatures. Rewriting them to refer to deep ocean temperatures is not predictive, it's postdictive. Hell one of your links admits this: Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period 1. nature.com By the way, I think it's hilarious that yesterday you didn't know what the word "pause" meant and now you're quoting an article that uses "pause" in its abstract. What you're doing is, at best, showing that the cause of the pause is still under debate. And in fact, that's what the IPCC admitted. Here's a clue: You won't get the nations of the planet to subject themselves to unbelievably expensive CO2 measures based on science which is still under debate. This is why the climate alarmists of yore were so into saying that "the science is settled". Fact is they have no clue as to the long term behavior of deep ocean temperatures. And the oceans are so large and deep that accurately measuring their temperatures is not possible at this time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- But it's worse than that for you. Your basic argument is that global warming is going to start again "someday" when the heat in the ocean comes back into the air. But the same argument applies to the (unknown) condition of the ocean before the great warming of the 1980s. Maybe that heat mostly came from the oceans instead of CO2. That would mean that the CO2 sensitivity calculated from the 1980s rise was exaggerated by the heat released from the ocean. And adding the oceans to the regions that you need to watch temperatures? That means you can no longer tune your models using just land data. And ocean data doesn't go back nearly as long as land data. The result is that now, to verify your climate models against real data for even a period as short as 100 years, you need to wait until around 2050 to 2100 or so. That's roughly when the "climate science" (as it's done now, by retrospective comparison of models with data) might possibly be "settled". Without the science being "settled" you have to rely on the old argument that "what we don't know could hurt us". But you know how well that worked in the past, LOL. The "settled science" argument was far more persuasive. Too bad. What you're describing is a recipe for justifying giving money to climate researchers for the next 40 years, but not a recipe for making coal obsolete in your lifetime. -- Carl