Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bcsco
Perhaps you should call him sometime?

Can't waste the time trying to get through. If he would guarantee me 10 minutes, I'd be glad to inform him of the top five environmental things he's wrong about. He has problems in a lot of areas. It'd be nice to tell him so that he stopped misleading the flock so egregiously.

I'll continue to reserve judgment until I know I've seen definite proof coming from the scientific community that I deem incontrovertible, based on methodology that has been universally accepted.

For sake of conversation... such as? (And perhaps you will be doing a complete read-through of the full IPCC science working group report when it is available?)

114 posted on 03/01/2007 11:11:15 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]


To: cogitator
For sake of conversation... such as?

Such as? Such as definitive proof. You seem totally acceptable to the man-made GW argument. I'm not acceptible to it. Let's leave it at that; okay?

Thanks for your input.

116 posted on 03/01/2007 11:13:51 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]

To: cogitator

I guess after looking at various charts and reading some of the more readily accessible papers, I too am no sure yet about the GW phenomena. The amount of manipulation needed to create these time series types of data and the inherent errors in actual raw measurements and statistically combining data from sources of widely varying degrees of precision makes me skeptical.

I just ran a simple test of the sensitivity of the trend line on Arctic Sea Ice from 1979 to 2005 by testing the impact on the trend line by hypothesizing different numbers for 2006 and 2007. (Note: Again I am not sure of the constancy in method of measuring the extent of Arctic Sea Ice. Certainly I hope the data's reliability has been checked by an independent assessment with no reference to the year the data was collected.) If you project the 25 year average, excluding 2005, for 2006 (i.e., treat 2005 as an anomaly or outlier) then the apparent trend weakens significantly. Now I hasten to add that there is no basis for so treating 2005 but it does serve to demonstrate that the pre-existing variability in Arctic Sea Ice is sufficiently great to call into question the stabiity of the model. With this relatively short time series it is kind of tricky to feel very confident in the trend. I would be interested in seeing the data on Antartic Sea Ice added to the same chart. Has anyone seen such a graph?


123 posted on 03/01/2007 12:07:21 PM PST by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson