tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post7132149055891209152..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Commander CoincidenceEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79624621116129847962010-01-06T15:46:44.964-05:002010-01-06T15:46:44.964-05:00As a non physicist, I have some difficulty underst...As a non physicist, I have some difficulty understanding some of the assumptions made to validate the data. Can anyone explain the following:<br />1) The assumption that since there was no information on EESH against global surface temperatures before 1970, it is safe to assume that a straight line trend from 1980 back to 1970 can be extrapolated back to 1850?<br />2) It is then safe to use that assumption to talk about the relationship with EESH from 1950, from extrapolated data?<br />3) I note the comment "Strikingly, it is shown that except the<br />short-period large fluctuations, the SH, NH and global surface temperatures did not rise<br />appreciably (within 0.1 oC) from 1850 to 1950". I see no statistics for this confident statement. <br />It appears to me that Professor Lu sets his own bar for when he uses assumaed data, and for when he gives proper stastical analysis to that information. <br />I am interested in any mathematical or statistical comments supporting or commenting on this work. It appears to be a house built on sandy foundations to me.<br />FredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9431313249860488662010-01-04T04:22:13.457-05:002010-01-04T04:22:13.457-05:00> Absorbed
Surely you mean 'adsorbed'?...> Absorbed<br /><br />Surely you mean 'adsorbed'?<br /><br />(You guessed it, way over my head, so I'll criticize the language)Martin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.com