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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Slagle who wrote (68219)	8/28/2005 3:14:49 PM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 74559

Read Ruddiman in Scientific American. That's easy going :) What I do in this paper is take a few very simple well accepted (mostly) equations that model global climate change and then use modern sophisticated econometric methods to estimate the parameters in the model. So this is interdisciplinary. It is aimed at the climate change "community" so those terms aren't explained. And it assumes basic knowledge of statistics but explains the special econometric approaches. Figure 2 shows what I am referring to. It shows the "radiative forcing" which is the "greenhouse effect" + changes in solar radiation and net of increased reflectivity due to sulfur emissions from industry etc. and volcanoes. The big spikes are volcanic eruptions. The 10 year moving average gives an idea that in fact radiative forcing was on average not a lot higher in the 1960s-80s than in much of the 19th century. Only recently is there a sudden spike up. It was higher in the early 20th century than the decades before or after. Figures 4 and 5 show the warming of the ocean. Atmospheric temperature probably reflects that cumulated effect more than the current forcing actually. But both have to be taken into account. So a lot of the common media perceptions about these things are rather over simplified....