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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (1019089)	6/3/2017 5:11:45 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573430

Diversion from reality. Do you believe the projections, for the year 2100, could possibly be accurate when the best meteorologists can't get next week projections accurate? Using the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling ( IGSM) framework, which combines a human activity model with a climate model of intermediate complexity, the researchers project the climate impact of a “no climate policy” case and three scenarios that effectively extend the NDCs to 2100. The scenarios considered range from a pessimistic world where no further action is specified past 2030 to a world where the same level of commitment as in the Paris agreement is extended until the end of the century. Assuming a climate system response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that’s of median strength, the three scenarios reduce the SAT in 2100 between 0.6 and 1.1 C relative to the “no climate policy” case. But because the climate system takes many years to respond to emissions reductions, in 2050 the SAT falls by only about 0.1 C in all three cases. Meanwhile, the rise in SAT since preindustrial times exceeds 2 C in 2053, and in 2100, reaches between 2.7 and 3.6 C — far exceeding the 2 C goal. If you are old enough to remember the 70's then you will recall the theatrics were about the coming ice age. Only fools refuse to follow the money because that is what this is all about. Not about a 3.5 F degree increase in 100 years.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (1019089)	6/4/2017 12:22:25 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573430

#LondonBridge Unarmed London Police Ran Away From Knife-Wielding Terrorists 8 100percentfedup

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (1019089)	6/4/2017 2:58:00 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573430

It's a product of modeling, not based on any observations of data. Which of course would be impossible.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (1019089)

6/4/2017 4:39:13 PM

From: Brumar89

Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1573430

NASA Head Ducks Debate, Concedes No Rise In Hurricanes…Says We’ll Have To Wait For It!

By P Gosselin on 3. June 2017

John Stossel conducted an unusual interview, one where the head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, refused to appear together on the set with skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist at the University of Alabama.

According to Stossel about a dozen scientists had been invited to debate Spencer, but they refused to do so on air.

Great uncertainty

At the start Spencer tells Stossel that scientists in his opinion do not have a clue at this stage just how much of the warming can be attributed to man, saying it could be 10% or 90%.

Next a fidgety Gavin Schmidt appeared, insisting that the climate signatures of methane and CO2 “are very very clear“.

He then absurdly claimed that humans built its cities and infrastructure near the sea with the assumption that climate would not change and because “we didn’t expect the sea level to rise“.

Concedes Obama was mistaken

Surprisingly, at the 3:30 mark, Schmidt even conceded (reluctantly) that President Obama had been mistaken when he claimed hurricanes were increasing. When pressed by Stossel, the NASA GISS head was forced to admit that hurricane activity has in fact been showing no trend.

Problem is in the future

The inconvenient chart presented by Stossel actually suggests hurricane activity has been decreasing, which seemed a bit embarrassing to the NASA scientist. But Schmidt insisted the problem remained in the future (i.e. models): “Now what’s going on in the future, that is what we are concerned about.”

Ducks debate

When asked why not stay on the set and debate Spencer, Schmidt said: “I’m not interested.” And walked away.

Spencer returned and summed up telling viewers that the proposed green energy solutions were unrealistic and expensive, and that they would be far more damaging and deadly to the poor than the problem of climate change itself.

CO2 actually a good thing

Spencer told viewers that it is amazing how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere: “My long-term prediction is that eventually we are going to realize that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a good thing,” Spencer said.

Spencer ended the interview by telling that many scientists in fact agree with him, but that they are afraid to speak up about it for fear of losing funding.

- See more at: notrickszone.com