Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.

Uh, you suggest that I should search for something I don't
think exists, in order to show it doesn't exist? Logic
would not seem to be your strong point.

....


Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
"negligible".

Do you understand what sorts of conclusions are possible from
statistics
and what sorts are not?

--

FF