Geologic timeframes. I would think something like 50k years will provide statistically significant data. As long as there is truly global data collected so local data is correlated to all events so a complete picture is available.
clay On Mar 20, 2015, at 6:19 AM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: > So how many years of data would you like before you're persuaded we have a > problem, let alone convinced? is it worth the risk pretending this problem > is merely cyclical and will go away in, say, another 36 years? > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Meade Dillon <dillonm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Come on Andrew, do you read any of the stuff you post? >> >> Lowest-ever wintertime level "since records began in 1979". Wow. 36 >> years worth of data. >> >> Typical low information voter response: "OH NO, in 36 years we've NEVER >> seen such low ice!!! >> >> Quick, we've got to impose draconian costs on all Americans (especially >> the poor and middle class) to drive up their basic energy costs to keep >> their houses warm, cook food, and drive their cars to work. THAT will work >> FOR SURE!!!!" >> >> Give me a break.... >> >> >> > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > https://server.secureplusplusfour.net:2083/cpsess595060604/3rdparty/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: https://server.secureplusplusfour.net:2083/cpsess595060604/3rdparty/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
