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: russet who wrote (15387)	12/16/2009 8:52:39 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86355

The graph I showed was not in log derivative. It was in CO2 PPM and in degrees celsius temperature changes. Anyone just looking at the graph can tell with a high degree of certainty that a correlation exists. I have no doubt that if I ran a correlation analysis, I'd find a high correlation reading. In addition, you can see that it appears that temperature precedes CO2, which would lead you to hypothesize that temperature variation is a root cause of CO2 changes. If I was looking at this data as a scientist, I'd start looking for reasons why temperature changes may cause CO2 variation and test those hypotheses. Maybe in period of warming, the planet becomes more hospitable to plant life, which then creates more CO2 in the air, which then exacerbates the greenhouse effect, which warms temperatures further, until some other unknown process kicks in that reverses the whole trajectory. This seems most likely to me. But ignoring the greenhouse effect is pretty silly. That's a theory that has been tested and found to be likely true. Also, saying there's no correlation between temperature and CO2 is also very silly. Just looking at the graph would tell even a layman that there is a high probability that a correlation exists.