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: Wharf Rat who wrote (46777)	1/26/2014 5:19:03 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 86350

That's not settled Wharfie: <That CO2 is causing temperatures to rise is settled.> What is settled is that CO2 absorbs particular wavelengths of light. If everything else was equal, then that would cause a tiny temperature rise, but everything else is not equal, as admitted by the climate alarmists whose manipulative models do not match reality as they also admit, excusing their failed results because of "natural fluctuation". If their results are actually correct representations of the effect of forcings on temperatures, then their model outputs would match the measured reality, which they do not. <We will discover a few positive feedback loops (and lots of other stuff) we don't now about yet, but, unless somebody manages to show that this is because the cosmic wind is slowing down, or we are getting more heat from the moon, or the pole flip caused it, there are no undiscovered forcings.> There are undiscovered forcings or the models, which are claimed to be correct, would give output predictions matching reality, which they do not. There are unexplained fluctuations, which that commentator carelessly and incorrectly compared with British weather, which I guess you understand is not climate. Climate, unlike weather, does not randomly fluctuate, if we believe the Climate Alarmists who claim that climate is a predictable function of known and measurable forcings. The fact is that the models do not match reality and there are variations so large as to make the effects of anthropogenic CO2 minor. The average annual variation in global temperature is so large that the models are obviously inadequate. The variation is most likely due to cloud and snow cover because other effects are relatively minor [for example chlorophyl variation which follows a fairly steady annual cycle]. Since the models do not represent cloud and snow cover variations, the models fail to give output which matches reality. CO2 increases have been shown to not increase global temperatures - see the last 15 years as proof. There is obviously bigger stuff afoot. CO2 is soaring, temperatures are not. So the 'settled' science is bung. Mqurice