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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (12730)	5/20/2007 7:14:00 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36917

Because I know something about modeling, and I say the models are good enough at this point to say that. Your comments about weather instead of climate lead me to suspect that you know nothing about modeling physical systems, hence I guess you can claim ignorance. Suppose a car with nicely balanced steering is coasting down a road which has slightly cupped depressions where the wheels run. The car is not being actively steered. It is observed that the car weaves around a bit, but always stays within the worn depression. You might even detect a cyclic pattern to the weave. There is nobody visible in the car. After watching this for a while (through a number of weave cycles) somebody asks you for your prediction as to what the car will do slightly in the future. You answer: It will continue to weave. Just after you answer, a head pops up behind the wheel, and somebody applies a little right bias to the steering. The car slowly drifts off the road to the right. Oops, you were wrong. That is why you are wrong on the climate. You are looking at historical cyclic trends, and ignoring that there now exists a slight bias which was not in the historical data. What data do you think is missing?