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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Warming -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (114)	6/13/2008 11:49:52 AM
From: sageyrain	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 185

Very interesting. Are you a climate scientist? "Now for the science part. Even if good data existed from 1600 to 1850, if the hypothesis "increasing sunspot activity increases temperature" is rejected over the past 150 years, it should stay rejected. This goes back to how science works. If one has the statistical power to reject a hypothesis over 150 years, then even if there was a cold period and low sunspot activity somtime in the past, you shouldn't accept the null hypothesis. In laymans terms, either its true or not. It can't be false now, true then. Has to be statistically valid now, statistically valid then. Garbage into a statistical model, garbage out. The garbage is the beginning assumption. "Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming" They are mainstream climate scientists. They would lose their funding if they brooked the party line. "So the first question has to be..."Do we toss out all the other data because data from one latitude, and one altitude isn't warming along with everything else?" Seems silly, and furthemore, you should be aware that satellites don't actually measure the temperature of the atmosphere. Really, how could they? Temperature is inferred and modeled, and therein lies quite a few sources of error." Your dodging and bobbing and weaving is getting weird. You keep calling on statistical models and math and and you use these words very impressively to argure FOR your thesis, but the inference of temperature from satellites by modelling through using statistical methods is bogus?. Again, you are only allowing inferences and statistics when you want to use them. THE DATA, clearly shows GLOBAL scale cooling since 1998 at the surface, a period of the most rapid buildup of CO2. GLOBAL scale, not local. You ignore that. Repetitive selectivism, it's becoming tedious. And it does not take any statistical treatment to see that <gg> The data sets are modeled for latitudes from 85S to 85 N, and each data set is a composite over many thousands of feet. You apparently don't understand this and you are consistently applying that which you decry, so not much point in continuing.

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (114)	6/13/2008 8:19:44 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 185

archimedes, I'm agnostic on the cause. The warming is real. One issue though, since otherwise I tend to agree with what you post in closing... from Personally... on.. re: "Data is presented only for the period 1850 to present. Isn't this similar to the case for most of the proponents of GW ? at least with respect to fossil fuel use, especially from the 5 degrees more and we are dead crowd ? We know that the earth has been much warmer than present with abundant higher forms of life. The Black Swan Edit I just read your post to Chancels on BBR... I expected that LOL.. That brings to mind however that I think China will surprise to the good wrt alternative energy.. They don't really enjoy their dirty smelly air.. I've asked them :O)