SI
SI
discoversearch

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

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (8373)5/20/2009 4:53:53 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) of 86356
 
I've seen articles supporting what I said. I posted several of them awhile back, but since I'm grandfathered on these boards, I don't have the search capabilities to go back and find them.

Bottom line is that the articles I posted claimed that based on their analysis, sunspots are part of the equation, but it appears that CO2 has more influence on temperature. I understand that there are arguments both ways, but I'm really not interested in opinions when statistical analysis can resolve the question with the data we have today.

Now is it possible that analysis is incorrect? Possibly. Our temperature readings and sunspot data only go back so far. So the analysis that shows CO2 being a bigger factor influencing temperature is only relevant for as far back as we have sunspot data. I'm open to the idea that over longer periods of time and more careful analysis, such as what is happening as we speak, we may find that our current analysis didn't take into account larger cycles and other causes of temperature fluctuations that are even more causal than those two. Having said that, the data we have today is pretty conclusive. So I wouldn't bet against it, until we have new, better data.

It's like this. If I'm betting on a horse based on a tip I got from a jocky who has ridden all the horses in the upcoming race, then that's a decent bet, rather than my own less informed opinion. But if someone comes along who is a groom for the horse I'm betting on and tells me that the horse had a nasty spill last night and has a swollen leg, but will race anyway, then I will apply that new information to my decision on which horse to bet on. As such, right now I am with the folks who believe CO2 is the prime cause of warming, because they have all of the best data and models on their side. But I will always leave open the possibility that new, more comprehensive data comes along that turns their high probability theory on its head.

Right now, you guys are betting against the probabilities, which is your prerogative, but not very rational.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext