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: epicure who wrote (44347)	11/9/2017 3:54:55 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 365623

>> Let me summarize the inane hockey stick wars for you: Let me give you a clue in simple, non-statistical, easy to understand terms. When you have a model that gives you a hockey stick in response to the data you're working with, that is part of the hockey stick theory fulfilled. But when you can then put RANDOM NOISE DATA into the same model and get the same hockey stick, the theory is WRONG. (Period). Doesn't matter whose theory it is or how badly they want it to be right. It is wrong. Now, the more important point, is what about the IPCC average models? Why are they consistently wrong, requiring constant adjustment? And why does the average of the IPCC models vastly overstate the temperatures as compared with actuals? The model is wrong. I'll say one more thing you may not understand about higher order computer models with time series. If you get it to be "right" on one day but then it spins off into outer space, your model is not right. Even though it was right on one day, it is WRONG. For a model to right, it has to be reasonably consistent, and the IPCC models have been consistently WRONG. That is not to say temperatures aren't rising. Or that people aren't causing it. But it is to say we don't know how much it will rise, whether CO2 has anything to do with it, and whether it makes any difference. Over the the last 20,000 years or so, sea level has risen by at least 400 feet. 2.4"/decade. It is true that over the last 10 or 12 decades that average is substantially higher (maybe 6"/decade). That is a very small sample that will regress to the mean over time. Don't wet yourself.