Big Dog's Boom Boom Room Message Board

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156457)	9/7/2011 12:52:12 AM
From: Archie Meeties	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 206086

SnP, Mauna Loa is the perfect site for CO2 measurement. CO2 from the nearest active volcano never reaches it and the influence of man made sources of CO2 is nonexistant. Next! "Why start the graph at 1880? " It was about that time that; accurate temperatures were measured on a gobal scale. There is data from Europe going back earlier, but the rest of the globe was scanty. Older measurements are derived measures from other data. Regarding the polar ice caps: "Regardless, once again the graph shows just 30 years of data. I want to see a graph over 1000 years to give the subject any real value. " You're not going to get that, as highly accurate data is only possible with satellites. "Place the same error shading on the lower curves and it is totally statistically sound to say that the curves do actually overlay one another in near-perfect correlation." Yes for May, June, the rest seem solid. 2 SD is a pretty high bar. Let's say they overlap 50% and 50% they is no chance that the difference is by chance alone. Then what? Wait another 10 years until we find out if it's 100% for all months? "It is an order of magnitude smaller using the same data!!!!!!!!! " Although the slope of the line in the same direction, correct? Ice sheets going down everywhere you look. I agree that cherry picking a recent time frame is fraught with problems. I think it more accurate to look at it like this, Either the rate of change recently has dramatically increased or There are wide ranges in the rate of change over the same time period, and the recent data is just one such an example. One hypothesis that isn't supported is; the rate of change when measuring one 8 year period is higher than when you look at a 20 year period, therefore agw warming is bunk!

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next