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: RetiredNow who wrote (545628)	1/22/2010 2:38:25 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576876

bull

To: RetiredNow who wrote (545628)	1/22/2010 2:40:34 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576876

What increase? <So what about the recent temperature increases in the past 100 years (with solar output staying constant)?> Do you mean the 0.7 degrees which has been claimed? Not even 1 degree Celsius after 100 years of all-out carbon production and burning. Also, you have obviously not checked the solar output over the last few hundred years including the last 100. The sun's output has been on a high for decades. It's hardly surprising that things warm slightly with increased solar activity. Now it's reducing to a more normal level as predicted by Mq the Marvelous a couple of years ago, and now by the "experts" who are catching up. You got two things wrong in one sentence. To make it clear. 1.....Earth has not warmed up as promised by the Global Alarmists. 0.7 deg C is not enough to melt butter let alone defrost the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland. 2.....Sol's output varies a lot and has done since records began. There was the Medieval Warm Period. There was the Little Ice Age. There was the big ice age not long ago. Earth has been warming since the last glaciation, with a few ups and downs on the way. Have a look at the sun's output as described by sun-spot cycles and you should be able to see it for yourself. Mqurice Message 26253817

To: RetiredNow who wrote (545628)	1/22/2010 3:18:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576876

>> t is what it is. It is statistically significant when looking at 130 years of data. 130 years is nothing. Less than meaningless. Totally without the slightest significance whatsoever.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (545628)	1/22/2010 4:52:03 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1576876

Wrong on both counts: we know from ice core data over 800,000 years that this is the fastest rate of change in 800,000 years...and it continues to accelerate ..... from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998. ..... wattsupwiththat.com ...... The “warming trend” in fact began in 1695, some 305 years ago. During all but 23 of those 305 years, the “warming trend” cannot have been caused by humankind. During the 23 years 1975-1998, we may have contributed to the warming rate: however, that rate is far from unprecedented. Even in the 150 years of the instrumental record, that rate has been observed on two previous occasions. ..... sppiblog.org Wrong here too: there is credible evidence and the scientific consensus says that CO2 is the main cause and that humans are responsible