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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156457)	9/4/2011 6:11:03 PM
From: Tommaso	2 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

>>>Call me crazy<<< No. Boring. I thought we got rid of this type of crap.

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156457)	9/4/2011 6:48:15 PM
From: t4texas	14 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

salt'n'peppa, i commend you for spending your time showing jacob some fun with numbers and graphs. i started to respond to his charts and text, but i decided i just did not have the time to answer the charts properly. then just a few posts later, i saw you already did -- better than i likely could have-- reply. i appreciate your cogent comments.

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156457)	9/4/2011 6:55:52 PM
From: kollmhn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 206085

Good job, S&P. The message is visable but needed a person that could devote the time to bring it out. Lot's of data that is easily challenged. Not, because it's wrong but because it's unproven and unprovable. I love the one where we're told what the earth's temperature was in the 1880s. Puhhhleeezzze.

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156457)	9/4/2011 10:32:33 PM
From: Webster Groves	13 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206085

There is nothing wrong with the graph. Your allegations of inaccuracy have no basis in fact, but are more likely a result of prejudice. You interpret any measurement of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere as being erroneous because they don't fit your world view. The Mauna Loa data does not say why the CO2 is increasing, just that it is increasing. There is no political slant to the data, so why add one to the interpretation, Mauna Loa is not an active volcano, why do you infer that it is ? It is true that science indicates that atmospheric CO2 was higher in the distant past, You seem to have no argument with that statement. You do not denigrate the scientists who state that inference. But for modern times, any measurement that indicates an increase in CO2 is called spurious or manipulated. Why is that ? The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 in over the last 100 years is enormous. The measurements are relatively simple to do, and do not require a degree in political science to interpret. wg

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156457)	9/6/2011 11:54:04 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	5 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 206085

I want to thank this board in general, and Bearcatbob and Salt'nPeppa specifically, for your responses last weekend re GW. You questioned my numbers, links, logic. Nobody attacked my motives, engaged in name-calling, or made personal insults. That's the way to have a discussion. Thank you. BTW, I thought the most important post I made yesterday, was one that got no responses: 6 Signatures of recessions: Message 27615430 A double-dip recession would have a big, immediate effect on the POO and our stocks.

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156457)	9/7/2011 12:52:12 AM
From: Archie Meeties	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

SnP, Mauna Loa is the perfect site for CO2 measurement. CO2 from the nearest active volcano never reaches it and the influence of man made sources of CO2 is nonexistant. Next! "Why start the graph at 1880? " It was about that time that; accurate temperatures were measured on a gobal scale. There is data from Europe going back earlier, but the rest of the globe was scanty. Older measurements are derived measures from other data. Regarding the polar ice caps: "Regardless, once again the graph shows just 30 years of data. I want to see a graph over 1000 years to give the subject any real value. " You're not going to get that, as highly accurate data is only possible with satellites. "Place the same error shading on the lower curves and it is totally statistically sound to say that the curves do actually overlay one another in near-perfect correlation." Yes for May, June, the rest seem solid. 2 SD is a pretty high bar. Let's say they overlap 50% and 50% they is no chance that the difference is by chance alone. Then what? Wait another 10 years until we find out if it's 100% for all months? "It is an order of magnitude smaller using the same data!!!!!!!!! " Although the slope of the line in the same direction, correct? Ice sheets going down everywhere you look. I agree that cherry picking a recent time frame is fraught with problems. I think it more accurate to look at it like this, Either the rate of change recently has dramatically increased or There are wide ranges in the rate of change over the same time period, and the recent data is just one such an example. One hypothesis that isn't supported is; the rate of change when measuring one 8 year period is higher than when you look at a 20 year period, therefore agw warming is bunk!