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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (5107)	2/19/2009 6:12:49 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86356

Re correlations between CO2 and temperature in the last 100 years, how do you explain that hot period in the 1930's when CO2 additions by humans were modest? Our big increase in CO2 addition has occurred after WWII. Yet for 30 years after the 1930's we had cooling. I'm not so impressed with the CO2/temperature correlation for the last 100 yrs. As to the issue of using proxies - whether ice core data or data from Canadian fiords - I'm pretty sure they get the general trends right. And I doubt we'd hear someone questioning their reliability if they supported AGW.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (5107)	3/17/2009 1:23:52 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 86356

First, this guy at least recognizes that global warming is occurring and has been since 1850. Around then, maybe a bit before. Basically from the end of the "little ice age" Being a statistician myself, I'd much rather rely on records from the last 100 years based on measurement systems that are fairly reliable in order to make any correlations between temperature and CO2. The 100 years of data should be more accurate than the very long term less direct evidence that he was writing about, but it has some of its own problems. Also while 100 years is a huge set of data in terms of weather, its not very much data to work with when considering long term world wide climate change. When there are many known factors, and unknown factors as well, and when there appears to be a number of cycles operating on periods from daily to 1100 years or even longer, as well as long run changes that aren't so clearly cyclic, 100 years just isn't a lot of data to draw solid conclusions from, even if it was perfect data. Which doesn't mean we can draw no inferences from it, or even act in a limited way based on the inferences, but it isn't enough data to treat skeptics as if they where flat-earthers, or to justify spending trillions to combat the future dangers that many see.