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 (50635)	5/3/2014 4:57:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 86356

Wharfie, the correlation of temperature with CO2 increasing is poor. The temperature graph you provided shows cooling for 30 years from 1880, then heating rapidly for 30 years to 1940, then cooling slowly to about 1970/75, then heating rapidly to Y2K [another 30 years], then slow cooling since then. CO2 is obviously not the dominant effect. The Little Ice Age bottomed out long before CO2 emissions by people became significant. That was the big climate change. Franz Josef and Fox glaciers for example were retreating from the ocean long before CO2 emissions got going. Their terminals have continued steadily up the mountain since then. Climate change before people dug up any fossil fuel or even burned many forests has always been very large. In very recent times, the glaciations and interglacials are an example of gross variation unrelated to people. We are in an interglacial. We have already enjoyed enormous global warming, which is why people are no longer clinging to the Indian ocean fringes and middle east. People have spread from Egypt right up to Finland and across Russia and Siberia. That's because the climate warmed in a big way after the last glaciation ended. The great danger is not global warming, but global cooling. We have not got long to wait. With 2020 foresight, your amazingly precise prognosticator predicted in October 2007 serious cooling at the end of this sun-cycle, with 2020 being woetime. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (50635)	5/3/2014 6:17:52 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Dear Mr. Rat, I occasionally like to check the loony lefty thread just to see what you loons talk about when you are in an all loon all the time protected environment. I must say - koan admiring De Blasio is absolutely beyond loony. Beyond loony. Did any of you loons take a math class? De Blasio will bankrupt NYC! He is an idiot and I think you are smart enough to know it. Charles - aka koan - is loony beyond the definition of loon. Bob

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (50635)	5/4/2014 3:05:13 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Hi Wharf Rat; Re: "Sometimes a picture might be worth 1000 words to the verbally impaired."; Now you've told us that global warming dates to around 1850 and this graph shows why you're scared of it. Let me repeat it: Indeed, it shows temperatures steadily increasing in a wave-like fashion. In fact, if the above graph were extended into the past by another 100 years it would show temperatures rising from the bottom of the "Little Ice Age". And we know that, according to the physics, temperatures should increase according to the logarithm of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And that's why you believe that the small changes in CO2 early in the graph caused relatively large increases in temperature (as seen in the slope around 1920 to 1950). The question is how does this graph extend into the future. And this is where we differ. I'll draw how it is that your side concludes that temperatures will probably rise above 2C by 2100 and my side believes that they'll probably stay well below 2 C. I'll do this by drawing the extensions on your own graph: In other words, the alarmists got worried because of the steep rise in temperatures from 1980 to 2000 and they managed to convince themselves that it was going to keep going up. See how the red line cuts the peaks and valleys nicely from 1980 to 2005? That's why your side was convinced it was right up to round 2010. But since then temperatures have escaped from the red line. Instead, climate is following the more complicated cyclical climb with peaks cut by the green line. And now you can see why so many climate scientists believe that temperatures could continue to "pause" or even decline, for the next 25 years and then peak again around 50 years from now (but at a temperature much lower than 2 C). And you can see why your side lost the scientific argument and therefore lost the political argument. I expect that some of y'all will keep fighting the fight but you won't have any more effect than those Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender in 1945. -- Carl

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (50635)	5/5/2014 4:03:16 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Sorry.. my bad.. should have said 1998, I guess.. But Hansen predicted his worse scenario based upon a 1.5% per year increase in CO2. But CO2 has apparently been increasing at a rate of 2.5% per annum.. Translated from original German: The CO 2 emissions have since 2000 with Increased 2.5%, Which Means That You We Should expect a more drastic temperature increase enlarge than in model A. In the figure three scenarios are shown together with the Observed global temperature curve - all shown as 5-year running mean . kaltesonne.de Yet, OBSERVABLE temperatures have barely met Scenario C. But what is MORE evident to me is that instead of seeing consistent rises in temperature per year, we seeing dramatic fluctuations, to include places like S. Africa seeing snow in 9 different provinces for the first time in recorded history. This should not be happening if the trend is for GLOBAL warming (not just regional warming hotspots).. We haven't seen the sea ice in the Arctic disappear, as long ago predicted. There is still snow falling in the UK (as well a lot of rain).. And there's still that embarrassing flawed expedition of AGW scientists who, retracing a 1913 expedition where sea ice was absent, being stuck beyond seaborne rescue in incredibly thick ice flows during an Antarctic summer.. It's just disgusting to see every weather related event, hot or cold, being blamed on AGW. It's beyond logical sense. But it will be interesting to see if the next 17 years are warmer, or colder, than the previous ones.. Watch Solar Cycle 25 for clues, IMO. Hawk