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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (23694)	7/6/2017 2:28:11 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354429

Damn computer just ate my post. "No one doubts that temps should increase with increasing CO2." EPA head Scott Pruitt denies that carbon dioxide causes global ... Rick Perry Denies Climate Change Role of CO2 "But if your estimates are off by 140pct, your experiment has failed." Perhaps you don't understand the experiment, which is still on-going. We are gonna ( or not, if we are lucky) increase CO2 from 280 ppm (pre-industrial) to 560, and then measure what the temp is on the surface of the planet. Estimates are 1.5 -4.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. For those keeping score at home, we spiked to 1.51 in Feb, '16, and daily CO2 is somewhere around 410, so we have a long way to go. There's a new paper saying the full response might be 6 degrees, but that's on a time scale of hundreds of years, as the oceans equilibrate. advances.sciencemag.org What is off, for a variety of reasons, is measurements of atmospheric temperatures. If it makes you feel better, I'll be glad to throw out what you apparently see as the experiment; can we use satellites to measure the temperature of the atmosphere? Nobody lives in the troposphere, and, AFAIK, Arrhenius didn't make any predictions about it, so I don't mind throwing out atmospheric temps, if it resuilts in climate action.

To: i-node who wrote (23694)	7/7/2017 10:11:04 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 354429

But if your estimates are off by 140pct, your experiment has failed. Sigh. Such ignorance. If such a result were true, it isn't a failed experiment. Experiments don't fail unless they are crafted in such a way that they yield invalid results. If they don't conform to your thesis, which is what you seem to be saying, that means it just yields data that should be used to fine tune your thesis. Depending on exactly what you are investigating, off by 140% doesn't necessarily mean your thesis is even wrong. Besides, it isn't even clear what you are critiquing. Your figure of 140% seems like it is just plucked out of the air...