Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
michael adams wrote: Any extrapolation of climate change based only on around 100 years worth of hard data of varying quality and reliabilty will of necessity require a fair amount of conjecture. That is true, but is seriously misleading, because there is a LOT more data of adequate quality - if you are up to handling it. If you're of the opinion that your conjecture is superior to that of the meteorologists whose opinion I quoted then good for you. No, my statement is not conjecture. I am a statistician, incidentally. To repeat what I said, there is damn-all evidence for a cyclic phenomenon in this case and, in situations like this one, almost all cases of apparent cycles are created by something like an ARIMA process. I could also add that the observations from previous centuries are quite good enough in quality to debunk the theory that there is a single predominant cycle. While I am pretty rusty in this aspect of statistics, I could still explain in more detail than I expect you want to know about this issue. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
GLOBAL WARMING'S IMPACT ON YOUR GARDEN. | Gardening | |||
Global warming? "Evidence" from my garden? | Gardening | |||
Global warming? "Evidence" from my garden? | United Kingdom |