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: IC720 who wrote (1530218)	3/23/2025 8:40:36 AM
From: IC720	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz miraje Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583416

Regarding Climate article.. (CO2 Is Making The Earth Greener For Now) This is a very big deal! There is no such thing as "Settled Science". Those that claim otherwise are either ignorant or fraudulent, (Fauci, Greta, Gore, et. al.) There are big bucks related to the climate change hysteria. Cui bono. As always, follow the money. From the same article: "So where do we go from here? ". . . A realistic assessment would show that carbon dioxide is a benefit, not a pollutant, and that increasing CO2 adds to global productivity rather than imposes costs on society." ..... CO2 Is Making The Earth Greener For Now science.nasa.gov “A quarter to half of earths vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Just googled and took first link since it was from the gubmint Many scientific studies are showing this One person made a greenhouse and grew a type of pine tree at 100, 200, 300, and 400ppm. The more the CO2 the faster the growth, difference was very significant, 400ppm was 2-3 times larger. ——————————— pdf from Oklahoma State with nice CO2 vs growth rate chart extension.okstate.edu

To: IC720 who wrote (1530218)	3/23/2025 2:56:25 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583416

"they love America" Bullshit; they love South African apartheid and Hitler. == Recent Global Temperature: Acceleration or Surge? \| Open Mind (wordpress.com) Posted on March 23, 2025 RealClimate has an excellent post about how exceptional the years 2023 and 2024 were (in terms of global temperature). Here are annual averages since 1970, data from NASA: For decades (since 1970, or 1975, or 1978, or 1971, depending on which data set you use and which method to find the “turning point”), the simplest statistical model for global temperature has been straight-line trend plus stationary noise. But when we look at the residuals from the best-fit straight line to these data, the last two years seem exceptional: The residual in 2023 was higher than any previous year (albeit by only a little), and that in 2024 was “off the scale.” Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather estimated how strongly various factors affected those two exceptional years, including el Niño, the Hunga-Tonga underwater volcano, reduced sulfates in emissions from shipping fuels, and reduced sulfates from China. Their conclusion is that although these known factors influenced the last two years, it was not by enough to explain their extremity. Their analysis does, however, suggest that although both years were exceptional, it was 2023 rather than 2024 that was more so. Advertisement Meanwhile, Stefan Rahmstorf and I have (in review) an analysis of adjusted data. We applied a modified version of the method of Foster & Rahmstorf (2011), which adjusts data to remove the estimated effect of el Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar variations. Here is the result (since 1970) applied to NASA data: A lot of the fluctuation has disappeared because it is accounted for. Fitting a straight line to the adjusted data leaves these residuals: This makes it plain that Gavin and Zeke are right — the years 2023 and 2024 are truly exceptional, and if anything, 2023 is more so than 2024. So you may wonder, why do Stefan and I declare “acceleration” when others are reluctant to use that word? They may (like Beauleau et al.) prefer to call the recent outburst a “surge,” because the word “acceleration” implies that not only has temperature risen faster than before, we expect it to continue rising faster than before. It’s not that hard to show that the adjusted data are not just following the simple “straight line plus stationary noise” model. We do so by fitting a piecewise linear function (PLF, a.k.a. linear spline) with turning point found by changepoint analysis, and noting its overwhelming statistical significance. But (important statistics lesson!) that doesn’t confirm the alternate hypothesis (linear spline), it only rejects the null hypothesis (same old same old). Could it not be just a “surge” in the last two years that departs from the null hypothesis, rather than a change in trend? Based on the changepoint analysis alone, yes it could. We’ve seen this kind of surge before, when a strong el Niño heats the planet but after it passes we return to the trend, or a strong volcano imposes cooling but that subsides when the dust settles. But in this case we have, at least approximately, accounted for all the “usual suspects” which cause those outbursts. And looking deeper, we note that you can get the same basic result — reject the null hypothesis — if you analyze the adjusted data excluding the last two years. With adjusted data, we don’t need 2023 and 2024 to conclude something has changed. Advertisement If we use the PLF to model the adjusted data since 1970, then plot the residuals on exactly the same scale we used for the linear residuals, it looks like this: The residuals for 2023 and 2024 now seem rather ordinary. If the PLF model is correct, then the recent extremes are mainly due to the changing trend, a change which is not a 2023/2024 surprise — rather, it started about a decade ago. My own personal opinion (and here, I leave the realm of precise quantification and enter fuzzy territory) is that the trend has indeed accelerated, and 2023 and 2024 were exceptional. The warming rate isn’t the “same old same old” it was before (about 0.2 °C/decade), but it’s not quite as high as the best-fit PLF either. Forced to guess, I’d say about 0.33 °C/decade, and at that rate (0.1 °C every 3 years), after we blow past 1.5 °C (this year or next?) it’ll take just 15 more years to reach 2 °C.