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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3751)	2/10/2014 11:15:34 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 4326

It looks like what it is intending to show, in "long wave radiative heating"... is the presence of a CO2 "blanket" at 15 KM that is the "greenhouse" insulation factor that has CO2 increases preventing the planet from properly cooling by re-radiating heat. That its not normalized for variation in density... likely means they've vastly overstated the relevance... particularly given big variation in density exists... and it isn't a "static" thing like the fixed energy input from the solar constant (sarcasm) and the fixed factors that we know drive the variations in density (more sarcasm). Say... what is the average / normal diurnal variation in density... and what scale of impact does that variable "breathing pattern" have on their "predictions" ? Anyone ? Why it doesn't occur to anyone... that the "hole in the ozone" would mean... losing WAY more insulation than you'd ever gain from any minor shift in the increase in CO2 concentrations ?? LOL! BOTH arguments are made by the same side ? Both are fraud. Only, with ozone, we were all going to fry because if it was missing, it wouldn't keep the heat out as it should ? And with CO2 we're going to fry because it won't let heat out as it should ? I'm not the one claiming it ever really did make any sense in proportion to facts in the physical reality ? Blankets can and do work both ways... keeping heat in... and keeping heat out ? And, it matters how many blankets you use ? In one sense... they're arguing that they've proven beyond doubt that you're going to overheat and die in bed tonight... because you're using two sheets... while ignoring that you have a thermostat and can change the indoor temperature... which might prevent you from dying because you put two sheets on the bed. Never mind... opening the windows... or removing your pajamas ? It's not total nonsense in relation to fundamental physics to think a change in CO2 concentration will have some effect. It will. And, we don't know what that effect will be... meaning it would be worth doing real science, instead of paying huge sums for politically motivated patronage paid to charlatans to produce political propaganda based in fraud while providing them the answer they want... instead of doing real science ? But, its STILL not rational to predict what that effect will be... when you really don't know what the hell you're talking about ? When the models... are based on nothing other than ill informed conjecture, or merely follow change after the fact... or predict the answer they want for no reason ? "Models" are not science... and may contain none... but, when you say they do contain science... but they fail to make accurate predictions... then, you got a bad batch of science. The "settled facts" have them ignoring everything else that might matter... including most of what does... because they already have the answer they WANT... even if the real facts prove that changing CO2 levels don't matter at all in the way they want them to. Error obvious in the elements in predicted amplitudes... still has them claiming CO2 and only that matters, even given only relatively minor changes in concentration... without the effect materializing. Claiming that CO2 has had and will have dramatic consequences? It is the causality that is in error, first. They ASSUME that increased CO2 correlating with changes apparent in energy flux (warming) during a period when warming was occurring... naturally meant that CO2 is (was) and must be the SOURCE of that change (when it was occurring) ? But, then, when warming turns to cooling, and the "driver of heating" CO2 continues increasing... but the energy flux (warming) doesn't... that proves that CO2 clearly IS NOT THE SOURCE and and only driver of change they thought it was. You only make that error... by wrongly eliminating other potential sources of variation... including things that are far more likely to be actual drivers of variation... or limiting factors in it... including things that are KNOWN sources and drivers of change. So, again, picking your answer, and ignoring any other evidence as irrelevant... defines their project as "not science". It is equally as valid as would be "science" making the claim that "CO2 makes automobiles work, as the primary motive force". There is a correlation between CO2 production and the larger range of engineering factors and the physics in the changes that make your car work... but, CO2 doesn't "cause cars to work"... just because its there ? But, also, of course, the claimed sensitivity of the entire system versus CO2 concentration is clearly in error. Changed CO2 concentrations in the mix of gas that is our atmosphere... will change things... but, they need the change they predict to be catastrophic in order to scare people into voting to do what they want... But, since CO2 is not the dominant source and driver of change they claimed it was... it doesn't support their mantra that elevated CO2 levels are incontrovertibly driving us toward catastrophic change... because the failure of their models that the facts require us to recognize... eliminates their ability to claim they got anything right... much less that they can be certain about those VERY things they're proven wrong about ? Others have already pointed out... clouds reflect heat... water in the atmosphere is a more potent force than they appear to recognize... solar output is NOT a constant... and, they continue to ignore that the magnetosphere and its interaction with the (variable) solar output matters more in climate than "zero" they account for in their modeling... and, they're also not constants. They're not even looking at what DOES matter... so, they're not likely to ever get close to a right answer... Which doesn't mean they'll quit flogging the message that oil companies are evil... because of CO2... since they thought oil companies were evil anyway... and that's the only message they care about... and they don't really care if the science is right, or not ? For a more well reasoned discussion of the concepts... which will show well enough some of the same aspects of the physics as they are developed and applied in a no less speculative, but far more non-controversial setting... read the Wikipedia entry on the planet Venus... en.wikipedia.org The stuff there is equally as speculative, in parts... but, it also clearly doesn't matter if they're wrong ? They're not trying to take money out of your pocket... destroy your business... take your freedom... alter the natural progression of human progress, while forcing a global reversion to dependence on medieval political theory ... because of changing weather patterns on Venus ?