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: Taro who wrote (312512)	11/27/2006 9:19:41 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1572378

Well, Taro, as to recording of temperatures going back past 100 years, I don't know how accurate they have been. However, the rule of thumb in the statistics world is that if you have 6 data points in a row that are above the mean, then you have a systemic issue on your hands. If the 6 data points are above the upper control limit, then it's not just a handful of outliers, rather you have a formerly very improbable event now becoming the new trend, which means that something very abnormal is going on. When your data goes back 800,000 years, as in the case of CO2 levels and then suddenly the last 50 years of data are trending upwards and the last 17 are above the upper control limit, well, you most certainly have something not created within the normal system going on. The other rule of thumb in statistics is that the most likely explanation is usually the right one. In this case, humans causing CO2 spikes is the mostly likely explanation. I've asked this before, but I'll ask again: what else could be causing this abnormal spike in the last 50 years? What is different about the last 50 years when compared to the last 800,000?

To: Taro who wrote (312512)	11/28/2006 5:53:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572378

Actually the decline is much longer than that........it measures thousands and thousands of year. That long term trend began to change at the beginning of the 19th century. In fact, on numerous occasions, I have posted a chart that shows the divergence from the trend starting in the early 1800s and accelerating at the turn of the 20th century just as the industrial revolution really took off. Coincidence or is there a correlation? I tend to believe the latter.