# Climate predictions and hard data don't mix



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 30, 2011)

According to this article there are some "Huge discrepancies" between the two. Anyway read on and enjoy!



> Global warming may occur slower and correct itself faster than computer models have been predicting, a new study says.
> 
> The study, published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, reports the atmosphere may shed heat much faster than previously thought — a potentially serious problem for the computer models used to predict global climate trends.
> 
> ...



Source


----------



## Kreij (Jul 30, 2011)

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 30, 2011)

Kreij said:


> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.



Right now I am looking for the LiveScience article. I'm curious to see what else was said. I mean if models from the last 10 years were inaccurate I wonder what else could be.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 30, 2011)

makes sense I guess. scientists dont really  know _that_ much about how the earth regulates climate, and is totally probably that they missed something key. that said, its hard to deny climate change being caused by humans


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 30, 2011)

Ninkobwi said:


> makes sense I guess. scientists dont really  know _that_ much about how the earth regulates climate, and is totally probably that they missed something key. that said, its hard to deny climate change being caused by humans



So you admit the science is not accurate just yet however you are positive of its current conclusion?.....interesting.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 30, 2011)

I've lost most of my respect for scientific research.
It is no longer, "What is the effect of X", but has devolved into, "X is bad let's prove my hypothesis."
That and the amount of hypocricy of the people involved makes a lot of so called "science" laughable.

Just my opinoin.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So you admit the science is not accurate just yet however you are positive of its current conclusion?.....interesting.



science will never be completely accurate. its a process of understanding and is forever changing. fundamentals good sir! what is accurate today will be inaccurate tomorrow.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 30, 2011)

Ninkobwi said:


> its hard to deny climate change being caused by humans





Ninkobwi said:


> what is accurate today will be inaccurate tomorrow.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 30, 2011)

http://www.space.com/12469-climate-change-debunked-fast.html
Related?  (Currently reading, I'll get back to it in a minute.)

EDIT:  It is related.
_"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study._


Kreij said:


> It is no longer, "What is the effect of X", but has devolved into, "X is bad let's prove my hypothesis."
> That and the amount of hypocricy of the people involved makes a lot of so called "science" laughable.


Science doesn't work in just one way.  "X is bad, let's test my hypothesis" is actually the definition of the scientific method, but that is not the only mechanism which perpetuates science.  I would argue that, "what is the effect of X" is a very difficult thing to test.  We need to come up with a theory of the behavior of X, then create a hypothesis such as, "X is bad".  Finally an experiment is created which says, "X is bad, because Y occurs in the presence of X".

Many discoveries are incidental, re: PTFE (teflon), graphene.  Yet other discoveries were manifested purely in the mind and only observed after years of debate, re: relativity, heliocentricism, evolution.  Some discoveries refine previous discoveries and help to close gaps in understanding, re: relativity to Newton's gravitation.  Very often science is also about brute force, testing every single combination to find a solution, re: conditional scientific method, much of genetic engineering.

The hypocrisy in science is about where the money comes from.  Who is going to fund a study about the effects of oil on the ocean floor?  The oil companies of course.  All of the studies about Pennsylvania shale are paid for by oil companies to Penn State university . . .  Conflicts of interest are rampant in science.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 30, 2011)

I stopped reading after the word "may" on the first line.

Wake me up when they actually know something.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 30, 2011)

I stopped paying attention to any "data" regarding this long ago. My gut and daily observations tells me we've fucked something up and it's only going to get worse. Things like the literal killer drought in the central and southwest and the massive hurricane-like thunderstorms and flooding we're getting up here now-"100 year storms" three times this year already one being a near-record blizzard with thundersnow-only strengthen this conviction. This shit is *not* normal, people. Yes it's happened in the past but not with such frequency and severity.

Of course I hope I'm wrong and I guess only time will tell. But If I'm not I'm just glad I don't have kids. Not sure what else to say about it.


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 30, 2011)




----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 30, 2011)

Assumption based on incomplete data means current data does not match with the assumptions?

Captain Obvious says: "No s**t Sherlock!"


Seriously, they have said bad science is bad.  Rather than taking this as an excuse to either prove or deny climate change, how about we ask for some good science?

As far as severe weather, let's look at this numerically.  Rate of severe storms is 1/100 years.  The likelihood of a severe storm in three consecutive years is therefore (1/100)^3 = 1/1 000 000.  Has the earth been around that long, if you believe in the most recent scientific discoveries, then yes.  If you believe in god creating the earth 2000 years ago, then you don't have to worry about this because god will fix it all.

Whenever you can show me real facts and data I will listen.  Until then you're tailoring the facts to your opinion.  You're welcome to believe, but there isn't a chance that I'm going to give credance to your opinions above anyone else's.


As a side bar, perhaps someone would care to show me the climate refugees the UN predicted two decades ago.  Bad science proves nothing.


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 30, 2011)

When did they start collecting data? And what kind of data are we talking about? Average temps?
Because that's really all you need, isn't it?


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 30, 2011)

tenletters


> If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
> - Albert Einstein


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 30, 2011)

*More denial Bullshit...what a surprise, now go fill your 6 litre v8 gas tank.  Exxon*

The general scientific consensus is climate change is happening.  Sea levels are rising and global temp has risen.  There are regional variations and time based fluctuations but the science is there.  Like all studies you will get some say 'yay' some say 'nay'.  With climate change, most say 'yay', a few say 'nay'.

Especially relevant
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html

Other stuff
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/arctic-tundra-at-greater-risk.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10445-climate-change-special-state-of-denial.html

For the Yanks that don't trust the brits.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/search/?i=1&q=climate+change&sort=publish_date&u1=q&x=0&y=0


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 30, 2011)

^ so you just go around blindly believing whatever the consensus is? you would make a good scientist then.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

I naturally take issue with "global warming" because you only have about 40 years of good observations (satellite based) on a process that has been ongoing for at least a billion years.  We can't accurately predict the weather 7 days from now and weather plays a major role in climate.  Call me a skeptic.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

We have data from a variety of sources including but not limited to ice cores, sediment cores from sea beds, isotope analysis of fossils etc that go back at least hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of years.  There is absolutely no doubt that high atmospheric CO2 levels correlate with higher global temperature.  

However we all realize that correlation does not equal cause - or at least that's something we should realize.  But when you have a valid mechanism which explains the correlation - which we do - then you ignore the correlation at your own risk.

So we have evidence that high CO2 correlates with higher temps and we have a mechanism by which this can be explained.  That doesn't by any means cinch the debate, but it does begin to look more and more like scientific fact and can't be ignored.


----------



## xenocide (Jul 31, 2011)

I can't wait for the conservative media to get their hands on this story...

That being said, whether or not the predictions match, does curving carbon emissions really hurt anything?  Regardless of whether or not the damage is as bad as we thought, would pre-emptively comitting to lower the amount of CO2 and other gases we are constantly emitting have any _negative_ side effects?  I think not.  I am not all that interested in the particular's of Climate Change until there is a logical answer other than "HUMAN'S DID IT!?!?!" or "IT'S ALL A SCAM!!!! KEEP BURNING OIL!?!?"  I see there is data that suggests the Earth is warming, and Climate Change is occuring, so I think we should address the things that we have control over...


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 31, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I can't wait for the conservative media to get their hands on this story...
> 
> That being said, whether or not the predictions match, does curving carbon emissions really hurt anything?  Regardless of whether or not the damage is as bad as we thought, would pre-emptively comitting to lower the amount of CO2 and other gases we are constantly emitting have any _negative_ side effects?  I think not.  I am not all that interested in the particular's of Climate Change until there is a logical answer other than "HUMAN'S DID IT!?!?!" or "IT'S ALL A SCAM!!!! KEEP BURNING OIL!?!?"  I see there is data that suggests the Earth is warming, and Climate Change is occuring, so I think we should address the things that we have control over...



two things:

one, there is absolutely no scientific evidence than humans are warming the earth to a measurable degree.

two, yes we should pollute less. the problem comes in when the government gets involved and screws things up more.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 31, 2011)




----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 31, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2967/hoaxj.jpg



just about everyone wants to create a better world. getting the govt involved will not create a a better world. it will create more corruption, a massive bureaucracy and higher energy costs which always hurts the poor.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

The mere fact that Goldman Sachs was ready to jump into carbon trading with both feet tells me there was probably something bogus about that approach - at least as it was envisioned by policy makers in the US.  Maybe someone from Euroland can tell us how carbon trading works over there and if it really works or is just another way for the banksters to bend us over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme


----------



## Widjaja (Jul 31, 2011)

Maybe all the efforts to prevent gobal warming has worked during that time and is now at a point where the ozone layer is now healing, maybe even to the point where it will be back to what it was.

Either way I don't think any corporations have made any money off reducing C02 emissions.
Just good publicity.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

twilyth said:


> ice cores


Which relies on the assumption that heating/cooling patterns don't change enormously, ever.  For example, the magnetic pole reversing theory.



twilyth said:


> sediment cores from sea beds


Which assumes the oceananic currents don't change enormously, ever.  The Atlantic ocean current right now is going slower than expected.  These variables, along with mass kills, and other phenomena skewers sediment core accuracy.



twilyth said:


> isotope analysis of fossils etc that go back at least hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of years.


And just recently, evidence has been presented that shows radition is not constant; therefore, the accurcy of those analysis comes under serious scrutiny.



twilyth said:


> There is absolutely no doubt that high atmospheric CO2 levels correlate with higher global temperature.


And there's no doubt water vapor is the #1 green house gas while methane remains the most potent.  There's more domesticated animals on earth right now than ever before in order to feed the meat-eating human population of approaching 7 billion individuals.  CO2 is _a factor_ in a complex puzzle no one fully understands.

The hottest Earth ever was in its history was when there was no atmosphere at all.  Today, all greenhouse gasses (not just CO2) prevent the Earth from being inhospitable at night.




twilyth said:


> So we have evidence that high CO2 correlates with higher temps and we have a mechanism by which this can be explained.  That doesn't by any means cinch the debate, but it does begin to look more and more like scientific fact and can't be ignored.


Methane has increased more during the same period than CO2 and we have some poorly understood mechanisms to explain those too.  There's too many variables and not enough data to draw any conclusive results.

Even satellite imagry shows contradictions where the Earth has warmed in some places but cooled in others--most places show no correlation to where most human activity is.

I've argued before that "global warming" stands on a crapload of assumptions.  TheMailMain's article proves one of those assumptions to be wrong (forcing).  It is just a matter of time before another assumption bites the dust (like ignoring methane).




streetfighter 2 said:


> http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2967/hoaxj.jpg


Three words: Drowing in debt.  To do everything those environmentalists want, the price tag would number in the many trillions of dollars.  What would the end result be?  More elaborate means of trashing the planet.  I can go on and on and on about how "green" is browner than "brown" and the true "green" solutions are out of reach (like fusion power).




Widjaja said:


> Maybe all the efforts to prevent gobal warming has worked during that time and is now at a point where the ozone layer is now healing, maybe even to the point where it will be back to what it was.


Ozone layer isn't healing.  The holes over the Arctic and Antartic are growing by 4% per year.  It could be contributing to the warming the satellites are detecting as well.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which relies on the assumption that heating/cooling patterns don't change enormously, ever.  For example, the magnetic pole reversing theory.
> 
> 
> Which assumes the oceananic currents don't change enormously, ever.  The Atlantic ocean current right now is going slower than expected.  These variables, along with mass kills, and other phenomena skewers sediment core accuracy.
> ...


And your scientific qualifications are what exactly?  I'm not going to trouble myself with each of your points since i know for a fact that you're wrong.  But I will toss a couple of wikipedia entries at you.

Source


> The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka).





> On long timescales, atmospheric CO2 content is determined by the balance among geochemical processes including organic carbon burial in sediments, silicate rock weathering, and volcanism. The net effect of slight imbalances in the carbon cycle over tens to hundreds of millions of years has been to reduce atmospheric CO2. The rates of these processes are extremely slow; hence they are of limited relevance to the atmospheric CO2 response to emissions over the next hundred years.
> 
> Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 Ma of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm.[5] In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Ma. About 34 Ma, the time of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 is found to have been about 760 ppm,[25] and there is geochemical evidence that volume concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 Ma. Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Ma.













Also, the variation in radioactive decay is barely noticeable and appears to be seasonal so while there may be some effect on the margin of error for such measures, it hardly invalidates them - unless you want to produce some evidence to the contrary. I'll be waiting anxiously for your reply.


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 31, 2011)

Asking for scientific qualifications, and then quoting wikipedia..


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> Asking for scientific qualifications, and then quoting wikipedia..
> 
> http://d1535dk28ea235.cloudfront.net/preset_65/LIKE-A-BOSS.jpg


Neither of us has any but both of us made unverified statements of fact.  So your comment is relevant to my interests. 

I did at least respond with citations which contradict some of ford's claims.  And while wikipedia may not always be accurate, I've found that on certain topics it seems to be.  If ford would like to respond in kind with citations that contradict mine, I would like to see them.  Then we can start digging into the footnotes and journal articles and have a real blast.  But I tell you right now that won't happen - and not because I'm not willing to go that route.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Also, the variation in radioactive decay is barely noticeable and appears to be seasonal so while there may be some effect on the margin of error for such measures, it hardly invalidates them - unless you want to produce some evidence to the contrary. I'll be waiting anxiously for your reply.


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

This research is still in its infancy and even if they are correct that the core of the sun is to blame for the flucations (which is a stretch of the imagination), the sun is anything but constant.

Give it another 15 years and you'll have a better answer.  Until then, radio dating's accuracy is in question.

Assumptions are bad in science.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
> 
> This research is still in its infancy and even if they are correct that the core of the sun is to blame for the flucations (which is a stretch of the imagination), the sun is anything but constant.
> 
> ...


I didn't see the effect quantified anywhere.  From your article and others that I've read, it seems to be infinitesmal.  As stated in your article:


> The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.



Are you planning to refute my other points or should I look for edits to earlier posts.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I didn't see the effect quantified anywhere.


My point exactly.  It's going to take years of research to get solid numbers and even then, I anticipate it isn't so simple as "blame the sun."




twilyth said:


> Are you planning to refute my other points or should I look for edits to earlier posts.


Quoting Wikipedia isn't "points."  They're contributor's points using the same IPCC figures that get recycled over and over and over.


Isn't it ironic how the recent upward trend in temps coincides with the 1970 launch of temp-measuring satellites?
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My point exactly.  It's going to take years of research to get solid numbers and even then, I anticipate it isn't so simple as "blame the sun."
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Wikipedia isn't "points."


It is if you read them in light of my original comments.  I made certain claims in one post and backed them up in another.  I don't see the problem.  What sources have you cited?  None.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

Go look at the climate change thread on General Nonsense.  That's where most of my sources were quoted.


Digging a little deeper, I grow more suspcious.  It seems that virtually figures for atmospheric CO2 are taken from a handful of locations around the world.  Most notably, Mauna Loa in Hawaii:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html

Satellite-based CO2 readings aren't even possible yet until OCO-2 launches:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/main/index.html

Not to mention, OCO-2 and Mauna Loa both focus on surface CO2, not high-altitude CO2 which is output by aircraft.  High-altitude CO2 likely has more influence on the greenhouse effect than surface CO2.  Little/no research has been done on this.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 31, 2011)

Interjection

@ford how is it possible that raioactive decay is not constant when it is basically electron bleed. Also what isotope? also under what conditions? also do either coninside with the isotope read from fossiles and or the conditions in which they are under assuming that their are conditions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

Something on the outside is influencing the release of radiation be it neutrinos, solar flares, an unknown particle, or something else.

Those questions will have to be answered by further research.  At this point, all they know is there are some patterns to it and it isn't constant.

Isotopes: Assumed to be all but it was identifiied in silicon-32 and radium-226.

Conditions: They don't really say except that it was a "long-term observation" of the two elements above.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Go look at the climate change thread on General Nonsense.  That's where most of my sources were quoted.
> 
> 
> Digging a little deeper, I grow more suspcious.  It seems that virtually figures for atmospheric CO2 are taken from a handful of locations around the world.  Most notably, Mauna Loa in Hawaii:
> ...


My links to the wiki article, if you'd bothered to read it, shows that sampling has been done in a variety of locations using a variety of techniques from direct measument of CO2 concentrations in ice bubbles which are largely consistent between the poles as well as isotopic analysis - as to which your point is largely irrelevent since i have shown from your own sources that the the effect is both infinitesimal as well as seasonal.

Nice try at evading the issue by sending me on some wild goose chase.  After all of the times I've debated you and won on GN do you really think I'm going to let that slide?  Post your sources here that you say contradict mine and then we can have a debate.  If you can't manage to do that, you are completely lacking in credibility.


Solaris17 said:


> Interjection
> 
> @ford how is it possible that raioactive decay is not constant when it is basically electron bleed. Also what isotope? also under what conditions? also do either coninside with the isotope read from fossiles and or the conditions in which they are under assuming that their are conditions.


There does seem to be some seasonal variation originating with the sun that causes a very tiny change in what were believed to be constant decay rates.  But at this point it is little more than curiosity.  I think solar neutrinos have been ruled out as a possible cause and I don't think at this point there is any theory that seems to have a lead in explaining the phenomenon.  It just happens to be the sort of thing the popular media likes to glom onto.  It is definitely interesting and might lead to new physics, but for our purposes, it seems largely insignificant - at least until ford can show us what the quantitative effect is on the decay rate.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jul 31, 2011)

They'll tell you whatever you want to hear so long as your still buying gasoline.


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 31, 2011)

twilyth said:


> wall of text



*Sigh* Why can't people take a joke when they see one 
Either way, the warmest day recorded in Sweden was in the 50's.. So if global warming started along side the industrial revolution, we don't have anything to worry about for a couple of hundred years. Not in my book anyway. But if Holland floods, and the ice is melting according to "some study" then i guess we should take it as a fact, huh.

I know absolutley nothing about these things, and I don't buy it. It just seems improbable.
As much as Carlin was a comedian he is also one of the more informed people I've come across.
He doesn't joke about what isn't true. Not that I can think of right now anyway, whether it's airport security or global warming. I can't help but think, "man, Carlin is right" on every subject he ever spoke on. Unrelated to topic, but I feel there are subjects that people just need to open their f-ing eyes to tbh. Like, why does governments need to have meetings behind closed doors? Because they only want whats best for us, right? Right.. But don't bother responding to that, im just drifting here  Let's stay on topic hehe.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

twilyth said:


> ...both infinitesimal as well as seasonal.


They did not say that and seasons change year over year and no two seasons are exactly alike.  Compound a tiny change discovered over a period of 10 years can easily be exacerbated over 100, 1000, or 10,000 years.  Moreover, a lot of these current climate predictions are made relative to ice core samples which reflect in the 100,000+ years.  In other words, a tiny change year over year can add up to a very big one on the scales we're talking about.

It is possible that the source of the change in radioactive decay isn't even solar--it could be external to our solar system.  Seasons would have an effect on that too.




twilyth said:


> Nice try at evading the issue by sending me on some wild goose chase.


Then you'll have to take my word for it because we're both to lazy to go URL hunting. 




twilyth said:


> It is definitely interesting and might lead to new physics, but for our purposes, it seems largely insignificant - at least until ford can show us what the quantitative effect is on the decay rate.


Again, give it a few years.  They're just now figuring out decay isn't constant so they have to set up new experiments that likely last decades in order to better understand why and how it isn't constant.  It takes more than a year to generate a solid consensus on what is going on--especially when it could have far reaching implications.




The_Ish said:


> *Sigh* Why can't people take a joke when they see one
> Either way, the warmest day recorded in Sweden was in the 50's.. So if global warming started along side the industrial revolution, we don't have anything to worry about for a couple of hundred years. Not in my book anyway. But if Holland floods, and the ice is melting according to "some study" then i guess we should take it as a fact, huh.


They claim a change of 1.5 F/0.6 C on _global average_ since 1970.  I agree though that is rather insignificant and considering our means of measuring it, and reliance on a 7 year "seasonal average," those figures should be considered well inside a reasonable margin of error.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jul 31, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> the warmest day recorded in Sweden was in the 50's../QUOTE]
> 
> Global warming doesn't raise the temperature X-deg globally. The first thing we'd probably see is changes in global weather. It might be hotter someplaces and colder in others. It'll be a massive weather change. Storms, flooding, etc. It's happened before and it'll happen again. The industrial revolution accelerated the change. Earth will always fix itself one way or another. I'm sure we'll have been long gone when it heals.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They did not say that and seasons change year over year and no two seasons are exactly alike.  Compound a tiny change discovered over a period of 10 years can easily be exacerbated over 100, 1000, or 10,000 years.  Moreover, a lot of these current climate predictions are made relative to ice core samples which reflect in the 100,000+ years.  In other words, a tiny change year over year can add up to a very big one on the scales we're talking about.
> 
> It is possible that the source of the change in radioactive decay isn't even solar--it could be external to our solar system.  Seasons would have an effect on that too.
> 
> ...



I guess you have no concept of the difference between linear and non-linear.  If it is an infinitesimal change, you can multiply that error over 1 year or a million years.  If for any given radioisotope the difference is .000000001% it's completely irrelevant and you've provided nothing persuasive in terms of actual facts to show otherwise.  All you've done is speculate that maybe it varies more than they think, maybe it has nothing to do with the sun, blah, blah blah.  No useful information, just your unsubstantiated speculation.  In the meantime, isotopic analysis is used daily in many fields of science.  I guess you think those efforts are pointless since we don't know what causes some insignificant effect.  OK Ford.  If that's how you want to look at, i don't really care.  i'll just point out that real scientists are ignoring the phenomenon and continuing to do their work.

And I'm not lazy.  You are.  I'm glad you're willing to admit that.  I guess it beats losing the argument outright though - doesn't it?  It's nice evasion tactic though.  I might use it myself the next time you make some set of unsubstantiated, pseudo-factual statements.  "You know, I went into that in detail in my blog.  Why do you go have a look at that and get back to me."  Yeah.  I like it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2011)

What argument?  You question the significance of Stanford's and Purdue's research and I say it is too early to throw it out as irrelevant.  There's no argument here, only a statement: hurry up and wait.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What argument?  You question the significance of Stanford's and Perdue's research and I say it is too early to exclude it because it was just discovered.  There's no argument here, only a statement: hurry up and wait.


Where did I question the research.  You don't read the sources I quote, you don't even read what I've actually written.  I never questioned the research.  That's been verified repeatedly.  That was never my point and I have no intention of repeating it here if you're not going to pay attention.

This started out with my listing all of the evidence showing changes in atmospheric carbon over the millenia and how those changes correlated with changes in global temperature.  You then attempted to refute my claims using nothing other than an authoritative tone.  I responded with actual facts which you ignored and now the best you can do is try to engage me in a pissing contest.  Well, that's just not going to happen.  As I usually do in my discussions with you, I'll let you take your last snipes at me and then proceed to ignore you, as per usual.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 31, 2011)

Solaris17 said:


> Interjection
> 
> @ford how is it possible that raioactive decay is not constant when it is basically electron bleed. Also what isotope? also under what conditions? also do either coninside with the isotope read from fossiles and or the conditions in which they are under assuming that their are conditions.



Here check this out. A whole thread on it..

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149245

Its not just due to "seasonal" fluctuations. Its due to distance from the sun.....or thats what current theory says. It pretty much invalidated any timeline to an extent. 

Anyway IMO the whole "green" economy is about grant money and taxes. If it was about "saving the planet" they wouldn't need mandates and laws to get people to comply. Also there wouldn't be tons of contradicting science.

With that being said I am a conservationist. Ive been an outdoors man for my whole life and the philosophy I was taught as a child was "leave the earth how you found it". My play ground was the everglades and the keys. When I track I do my best to leave no trace I was even there. I respect mother way more then most people do. Another reason I don't live in the city anymore. To much pavement and not enough soil. I don't trust man, his motives or his ego. Thats why I think the whole "green movement" is a fly by night fad for more government control. It reminds me of corrupt organized religion. Man takes a good thing and bends it to his own evil needs.........as always.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 31, 2011)

Honestly, this isn't a topic I follow very closely, but is there really a lot of contradicting science?  Do you have any examples?  Thanks.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 1, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Honestly, this isn't a topic I follow very closely, but is there really a lot of contradicting science?  Do you have any examples?  Thanks.



Here are some of the "leaders" against the current theory.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7

I know you love the business section so I did my best to find you something you could relate to lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 1, 2011)

Ooooo, I like that one:


			
				Ian Plimer said:
			
		

> The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. *Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science.* Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ge-skeptics-2009-7#ian-plimer-7#ixzz1Tng3Kdzw


From what I've seen, this is very true.  Science is never supposed to approach any subject or belief system with such a degree of religious fervor and alarmism.  I really can't name any other scientific issue that got as politicized (opinion-based) as this one.  Even Roe v. Wade, which based its decision on medical science (trimesters), didn't generate this level of skepticism.  That is to say, the scientific matters of Roe v. Wade weren't argued--the morality of it was.

Most skeptics don't deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  They simply argue that its effect on climate is grossly overrated so any changes man makes have little impact on actual climate.


----------



## swaaye (Aug 1, 2011)

I found a fun NASA extrapolation of where the ozone layer was going if CFCs weren't significantly reduced.  CFCs are still in use though much of the world has reduced their use considerably. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Future_ozone_layer_concentrations.gif

I'm not sure on where I stand on the whole climate change topic, but the poles are melting slowly. We've polluted just about everything. Reworked ecosystems to our desires. CFCs were/are one of the biggest problems we humans have managed to create for ourselves. So it's not like we aren't an influence on the planet. The long term results of our influence will be interesting, no doubt, whatever they may be.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 1, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ooooo, I like that one:
> 
> From what I've seen, this is very true.  Science is never supposed to approach any subject or belief system with such a degree of religious fervor and alarmism.  I really can't name any other scientific issue that got as politicized (opinion-based) as this one.  Even Roe v. Wade, which based its decision on medical science (trimesters), didn't generate this level of skepticism.  That is to say, the scientific matters of Roe v. Wade weren't argued--the morality of it was.
> 
> Most skeptics don't deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  They simply argue that its effect on climate is grossly overrated so any changes man makes have little impact on actual climate.



That and historically speaking we are coming out of a "mini" ice age between 1550 AD and 1850 AD....which by the end we were just starting the last industrial revolution. So we have a natural warming period combined with a huge C02 spike and assume they are related because man as always thinks its more important then what it is. I would argue the earth would be warming right now if man never walked the planet........but don't tell any religious "green" zealot's.

I mean after all the government is only here to help right?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 1, 2011)

you mean, in the grand scheme of the universe which has been around for billions of years and is infinite in scope i don't mean as much as i think i do? nnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 1, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> you mean, in the grand scheme of the universe which has been around for billions of years and is infinite in scope i don't mean as much as i think i do? nnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!



Yes, in fact man is a single flea on the proverbial nut sack of the universe.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 1, 2011)

i prefer the taint.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 1, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2967/hoaxj.jpg



A better world is such an elastic thing.  Better for the rich, yes.  Those people that can afford such luxuries as clean water and food might (and that is a huge might) enjoy a more temperate climate.

On the other hand, the increased cost of resources royally f***s the third world.  Perhaps you could find a way towards a "better" world that brings everyone along.  The current green movement isn't a boat for everyone.



twilyth said:


> The mere fact that Goldman Sachs was ready to jump into carbon trading with both feet tells me there was probably something bogus about that approach - at least as it was envisioned by policy makers in the US.  Maybe someone from Euroland can tell us how carbon trading works over there and if it really works or is just another way for the banksters to bend us over.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme



Willing to trade in carbon credits, not reducing carbon emissions.  Let's say I have 10 billion a year in business, and can "make my company carbon neutral" by spending 50 thousand dollars.  I generate so much positive press, can purchase a clean conscience, and continue poluting at the same rate I am today.  The only difference is venture capital is being channeled into new green start-up companies, that often don't do anything impactful with the money (a thousand dollar carbon sequestering tree is a joke).

Whenever they start to acknowledge that carbon credits are stupid, and simply a way to buy yourself good PR without doing anything different, I'll buy in.  Right now, it's an effort in futility.



Denial of facts is an issue.  Denial of the popular opinion/consensus is not.  It was popular consensus that the earth was flat, that the 80's was the start of a global ice age, that molding and decay were matter passing from one state to another, and that the sun was the center of the universe.  All of these consensus were built on very little facts, and proven foolish by time.  If you can show facts, figures, and have a reasonable explaination (that isn't short sighted) then you are worth heeding.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 1, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> It was popular consensus that the earth was flat.



Not true.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 1, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Not true.



How so?  If you remember correctly, Christian scientists believed the earth was flat.  Anyone who did not abide this theory was locked up, or labelled a heretic and killed/excommunicated.

When a gun is held to your head, you generally agree with the consensus.

Perhaps you have a different take, such that religious scientists is an oxymoron.  Scientists needed funding in the dark ages, and religion was the cash cow.  In the search for truth we have made some strange bedfellows.  Perhaps remembering that might shed light on why we are where we are...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 1, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> How so?  If you remember correctly, Christian scientists believed the earth was flat.  Anyone who did not abide this theory was locked up, or labelled a heretic and killed/excommunicated.
> 
> When a gun is held to your head, you generally agree with the consensus.
> 
> Perhaps you have a different take, such that religious scientists is an oxymoron.  Scientists needed funding in the dark ages, and religion was the cash cow.  In the search for truth we have made some strange bedfellows.  Perhaps remembering that might shed light on why we are where we are...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

You are following a myth sir.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 1, 2011)

I just wish I could be there in however many years when the "Expert" climate scientists say "Ya sorry guys we had NO IDEA what we were talking about the past 100 years"


----------

