Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-23-2012, 03:29 PM #1
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Climate change data less viable than a random number generator?

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...-reality-test/

"A few years ago a biologist I know looked at how climate change might affect the spread of a particular invasive insect species. He obtained climate-model projections for North America under standard greenhouse-gas scenarios from two modelling labs, and then tried to characterize how the insect habitat might change. To his surprise, he found very different results depending on which model was used. Even though both models were using the same input data, they made opposite predictions about regional climate patterns in North America.

This reminded me of a presentation I’d seen years earlier about predicted changes in U.S. rainfall patterns under global warming. The two models being used for a government report again made diametrically opposite predictions. In region after region, if one model predicted a tendency toward more flooding, the other tended to predict drying.

Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change? I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse. "

-----------------

That's interesting, it would appear on a look that our understanding of the climate is still in it's infancy or toddler stages. The article goes on to question many of the actual methods used to detect climate change, and how some of the long term predicted data is not very good or reliable.

I imagine a few people (Umami) will have an opinion of this article. I wouldn't necessarily say this means temperatures are not getting warmer, but if the trend will continue, and why, are other questions of note.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 06-23-2012, 04:09 PM #2
Gnarly Whyn (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Could you please offer some of your thoughts on the research he did?
Gnarly Whyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 11:28 PM #3
shakeyjonez
In GOD We Trust!
 
shakeyjonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: One Nation Under GOD!
:lighterinthefire:
__________________
Holy
Kids


"Love those who hurt you the most, because they are probably the ones closest to you.” ― Nikki Sixx
shakeyjonez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 01:32 PM #4
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Key words being random number generator. Also we know the same evidence can be used to reach opposite conclusions. Brahe v. Copernicus anyone?
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 01:16 PM #5
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
Good point.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 03:21 PM #6
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
The Koch brothers are responsible for funding websites like junkscience.org - run by the hack and evolution denier Steven Milloy. Milloy, with a degree in douchebaganomics, is actually a former tobacco industry advocate, and switched to this career when money in that field dried up. He has no scientific background at all. Additionally, he denies second hand smoke is harmful to babies.

Additionally, the Koch brothers have spend three times the amount of money that Exxon-Mobil has, to fund anti global warming people.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global...retly-fund.pdf

One of those is the Cato Institute - a Libertarian Think tank, which both Koch brothers and Milloy identify themselves as politically. Sounds like Libertarians are even more anti global warming than the right possibly?

I suggested to someone earlier that the following three things were true

- The temperatures are getting warmer/records are being set
- Carbon dioxide is a contributor to trapped heat/warming
- Humans technically produce carbon dioxide thru various means

And that was all. That information, the above 3 bulleted points, were challenged as factually inaccurate. I'd ask anyone here - which ones and why?

This isn't to say that the left is entirely blameless, or that the IPCC is off the hook

It's amazing how profit margins and economics have played into this issue, and the science is ignored or beaten into the ground to the point you can't even discuss the science of the issue anymore.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 03:32 PM #7
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
How much funding, total, by all of the Koch brothers grants?

Where is your proof of the first two points of those three? You made the "suggestion", so source please.

Not going to ask about the third, since it's irrelevant depending on the first two.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 04:06 PM #8
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swerve22 View Post
How much funding, total, by all of the Koch brothers grants?

Where is your proof of the first two points of those three? You made the "suggestion", so source please.

Not going to ask about the third, since it's irrelevant depending on the first two.
What?

- The temperatures are getting warmer/records are being set
- Carbon dioxide is a contributor to trapped heat/warming"

These? You want proof for them?



Like that huge spike of late?

Well - http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ords-corn-crop

"The last 12 months also have been the warmest since modern record-keeping began in 1895, narrowly beating the previous 12-month period that ended in May 2012." So the old record was - 3 months ago? It's been doing this for a while. The temperatures now are consistently warmer than they were 50-100 years ago. Is it really necessary to show more on this subject?

Onto Carbon dioxide -

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

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is partly responsible for the greenhouse effect and is the most important human-contributed greenhouse gas"

Why is this important? Look at Venus. Venus has no carbon cycle. Why look at Venus? Well, it's another planet, like Earth. Lack of a carbon cycle = way higher temperatures. Hotter on Venus than even Mercury, which is 32 million miles closer to the sun than Venus.

When carbon dioxide molecules absorbs heat, they go into an unstable state. They become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the Earth and some goes into space.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 04:28 PM #9
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
Records are being set yeah, but we're talking about the entire globe not just the continental US or towns here and there which the article talks about. Where did this graph come from? What is the meaning of the colors of the lines?

The carbon dioxide thing doesn't mean that marginally small increases will cause the carbon cycle to stop completely which would make the earth hotter, so I don't see what you're getting at by posting it.

The real question is whether or not man is causing the earth to get warmer and if so what to do about it. It hasn't been PROVEN that man is and even if it was the idea of cap n' trade to fix it (which is where the politics of the issue comes in) is completely unrealistic, economically destructive, and little more than a power grab in the name of "solving the problem" which government types are quite adept at.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 04:39 PM #10
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
This is the problem with global warming "reasearch":

http://jasonjeffrey.wordpress.com/20...make-billions/

Quote:
No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.
These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
All those that are promoting the idea the strongest are the ones benefitting the most from it.


Oil companies also stand to WIN BIG from cap n' trade environmental legislation (although ingorant people continue to claim the oil companies are fighting tooth an nail against it):

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/147520

Quote:
In practice carbon-trading has had farcical results. The EU introduced a carbon emissions trading scheme in 2005. Polluters were handed an allocation of carbon permits based on their historical carbon emissions and then allowed to trade the permits if they wanted to increase or decrease their emissions.

The oil companies, given huge amounts of permits, found it easy to trim their emissions a little and so make huge profits. Expanding businesses and public services, on the other hand, were forced to buy more permits. In its first year of operation Shell made a profit from carbon-trading of £49.9million and BP a profit of £43.1million.

NHS Hospitals, meanwhile, made a loss of £5.8million.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info

Last edited by Swerve22 : 07-11-2012 at 04:48 PM.
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 04:48 PM #11
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swerve22 View Post
Records are being set yeah, but we're talking about the entire globe not just the continental US or towns here and there which the article talks about. Where did this graph come from? What is the meaning of the colors of the lines?

The carbon dioxide thing doesn't mean that marginally small increases will cause the carbon cycle to stop completely which would make the earth hotter, so I don't see what you're getting at by posting it.

The real question is whether or not man is causing the earth to get warmer and if so what to do about it. It hasn't been PROVEN that man is and even if it was the idea of cap n' trade to fix it (which is where the politics of the issue comes in) is completely unrealistic, economically destructive, and little more than a power grab in the name of "solving the problem" which government types are quite adept at.
You must not be reading up on the loss of the polar ice caps, resulting in a 6.7 inch rise of the ocean. Or how 10 of the past 12 years have been the warmest years for us, even though we've recently had a smaller solar output from the sun. Or how glaciers are receding all over the world. Or how rainfall has higher acidic content in it.





Just because a lot of things are happening in this country doesn't mean they aren't happening elsewhere. It takes maybe 5 minutes to find studies from every corner of the globe which see similar effects. Coincidentally, the severity of these effects line up almost perfectly with the change of CO2 emissions.

Even here in the Pacific Northwest, we are starting to see the first biological changes due to climate change. Salmon DNA is changing, favoring the fish that migrate earlier.

Quote:
Although we do not know the specific selective pressures that led to earlier migration timing in this population, stream temperatures during peak migration timing in 1989 were the second highest on record, and we observed substantial genetic changes... in the progeny from this spawning generation. Migrating pink salmon appear to avoid high stream temperatures; given the trend in migration timing, changes in the genetic marker and increasing stream temperatures in Auke Creek, it appears that earlier-migrating fish may have higher fitness in warmer years... and there is evidence that early-migrating adult fish are adapted to warmer conditions at multiple life stages and life-history events (e.g. juvenile developmental rates and migration timing, and adult migration timing, lifespan and breeding date).
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marb...lmon-evolution
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 04:53 PM #12
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
LOL @ mother jones as a source for starters.

And of course you find "similar stories" all over the world because there is a well funded and well organized group of people making enormouse amounts of money finding and propogating these stories while all the places where it's not happening are ignored.

Polar Ice caps bit by you is also a pretty serious lol, since not much of the antarctic has been attributed to anything other than a natural cycle, and the arctic is a floating ice cap meaning the entire thing could melt and the oceans wouldn't rise a single inch.

Also you're not sourcing your graphs.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 05:01 PM #13
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Source of graphs is in the image URL.

You claim these people do these studies to make money. Source(s)?

Motherjones a problem? K.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...evolution.html
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 05:03 PM #14
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
You obviously didn't read the links I posted, where it is clearly stated.

lol @ newscientist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

"New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed..."

Also the same publication that had a front page story in 2009 declaring Darwin was wrong. Creibility?

Not to mention it has no bearing over whether or not man is the cause of global warming.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info

Last edited by Swerve22 : 07-11-2012 at 05:10 PM.
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 05:56 PM #15
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swerve22 View Post
You obviously didn't read the links I posted, where it is clearly stated.

lol @ newscientist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

"New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed..."

Also the same publication that had a front page story in 2009 declaring Darwin was wrong. Creibility?

Not to mention it has no bearing over whether or not man is the cause of global warming.
Read the source of the article...
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...c-29d5b5821b3e

You're right though. It doesn't have bearing over mankind's involvement with the being the cause of global warming.

97% of scientists believe our current climate change is at least partially due to carbon emissions. 97%. You're saying 97% of the scientific academic community is doing this for money?

And you're doing a wonderful job of ignoring the global temperature changing in tandem with CO2 concentration as described by the graph I presented.

Seriously, if you're going to deny what's accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists and play it off as "they're doing it for the money," then I don't know what to tell you. I guess all the scientists that believe in the atomic theory do it for the money. Same goes for those who believe in gravity. Or evolution. Or germs.

... I won't even bother. Have fun.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 06:42 PM #16
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
7% of scientists believe our current climate change is at least partially due to carbon emissions. 97%. You're saying 97% of the scientific academic community is doing this for money?
Spare me the 97% bs. There is no "universally accepted" theory other than the error and lie riddled one put forth by the IPCC which was supposed to have been based on contributed science from all relevant research groups. It was found to have doctored and cherry picked it's info to an astounding extent. Smaller entities have no way of gathering the kind of data needed to make an educated guess, so they believe what the IPCC told them because "everybody else does". Add that to the fact that there are usually coordinated personal and professional attacks on any member of the field who shows the slightest amount of doubt, and that most of those who have government grants would have to find a different line of work were AGW to be discredited, and it's no wonder we have an echo chamber.

The scientific community has been wrong on multiple occasions and also right on multiple occasions, so acting like not believing the orthodox AGW BS is similar to denying atomic theory is intellectually dishonest of you - more like denying flat earth theory if anything.

As for you co2 graph, I'm glad to know that correlation = causation is now part of the scientific method

Guess you've never checked into the relationship between solar activity and global temperatures, eh?

I guess you would have been one of the guys clamoring for manifest destiny back when 97% of the scientists of the day claimed that the white man was a higher species than other races of man and used it as a springboard for colonialism too, eh? After all, nobody would ever have been doing it for profit

Typical result of letting others think for you.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 10:21 PM #17
inkjt510
Romo Never Stops Smiling
 
inkjt510's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swerve22 View Post
and the arctic is a floating ice cap meaning the entire thing could melt and the oceans wouldn't rise a single inch.
are you kidding?
inkjt510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 10:27 PM #18
Drex17
Valar Morghulis
 
Drex17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ilium, NY
Drex17 is one of the top 25 posters on PbNation
Well, he is right that a very large portion of the arctic cap is floating, and wouldn't affect sea levels as much as you'd think. It would raise it a bit, but it would be uneventful for a vast majority of the planet.

However all the ice on Greenland would raise levels.


Then there is you know...Antarctica.....that sum***** melting could make things real interesting.
__________________
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Last edited by Drex17 : 07-11-2012 at 10:30 PM.
Drex17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 10:46 PM #19
shakeyjonez
In GOD We Trust!
 
shakeyjonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: One Nation Under GOD!
Carbon Tax is the real crime here.
__________________
Holy
Kids


"Love those who hurt you the most, because they are probably the ones closest to you.” ― Nikki Sixx
shakeyjonez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 07:35 AM #20
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Charles Koch supports Ron Paul. Wow.

Steve Milloy remains non credible.

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/heartland/

Terrible campaign.

It was already shown that Carbon dioxide can create a warming, and we help create the carbon dioxide.

Anyhow, this is about how the science has gotten pushed aside so a series of smear campaigns against the climate scientists can be taken up by a series of crusaders. Those people, happen to have strong ties to the oil industry, but that should be ignored because it's not evidence of anything

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/01/...ered-by-exxon/

Good ol Willie Soon. He's not a climate scientists, he's an astrophysicist, but Exxon figured that was good enough. So of course there is "no consensus" when people are standing to make money.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-sceptics

"The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators."

http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/15/cli...ptics-exposed/

Heartland trying to denounce this. They, like the others, don't even care if the science is right. They don't care if the planet is in danger or not. They just want the science to go away, so they can keep getting richer. Awesome?



Spike starts during the Industrial Revolution. Odd?

It's sad how this entire scientific issue has been shredded in order to make profit. I bet if scientists found a 100% way to cure cancer, you'd have people wanting to stop that cure from going public so all those donations to curing cancer wouldn't dry up.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2012, 05:03 PM #21
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuff View Post
It's sad how this entire scientific issue has been shredded in order to make profit. I bet if scientists found a 100% way to cure cancer, you'd have people wanting to stop that cure from going public so all those donations to curing cancer wouldn't dry up.
Actually, it's mostly private companies funding the search for a cancer cure. I'd be skeptical if a bunch of government or government funded organizations suddenly announced that there was a cure for cancer and started requirng everybody to get vaccinated or something yeah. But that's a lot different than Global Warming, which is a theory of a problem that hasn't even been shown to have anything to do with humans. The only "cure" the government has put forth has been destorying the entire global economy. No thanks on destroying the worlds economy based on a little to no evidence theory who's research is funded almost 100% by socialist governments who would love an excuse to consolidate more power.

You also just claimed that it was "already established" that Co2 causes warming, which it hasn't been.

Correlation =/= causation people, ffs. It's like everything you ever learn about science goes out the window when somebody shows you a graph of CO2 and temperatures (usually doctored) then points out that it's hot outside.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump