Climate Change

[Hoofbite]

Ouch, that had to hurt some, somewhere, somehow!

Here's the site.

http://www.petitionproject.org

It's just awful. Not only in methodology but look at the site itself. How dated is that thing?

It was mail order and they had zero way of guaranteeing that the people were actually alive.

They would send their flyer in bulk so people could pass them around to friends. So 1 guy gets a bunch, fills them all out with different names and who's to say they weren't separate people.

Edit:

The requirement was a B.S.

 

[jrumann59]

Look at some of the side effects of magnetic pole shift

http://heal-the-earth.org/climate_change/climate_change_pole_impact.htm

There are some that arrogantly believe that man's presence has an effect on Magnetic Pole Shift something that has been proven to happen at natural intervals.

 

[jrumann59]

Mercury thermometers have been around for about 300 years.

Yes but even today off the shelf mercury thermometers will show a standard deviation and they are regulated by NIST, 300 years ago they were not. I do not doubt that the thermometers back then were accurate but how accurate even a 1% deviation can cause substantial inaccuracies and since they do not have DeLorean to go verify the data is unreliable at best unless they guess at what is an acceptable deviation factor.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes but even today off the shelf mercury thermometers will show a standard deviation and they are regulated by NIST, 300 years ago they were not. I do not doubt that the thermometers back then were accurate but how accurate even a 1% deviation can cause substantial inaccuracies and since they do not have DeLorean to go verify the data is unreliable at best unless they guess at what is an acceptable deviation factor.

This is a good point but honestly, even 300 years is not a sufficient baseline for really understanding the issue and it's arguments for or against. Just not a long enough period of study.

 

[DFWJC]

That website is a complete joke. I can't remember the name of it, but I've seen the site you are talking about. Saw some guy post it on reddit and I looked at the site. Apparently it's also been heavily critiqued based on the replies the guy received. I'm not sure you could have picked a worse site to go with.

They define "scientist" as someone with a B.A. level of education. So, random undergrad who set foot in a lab at one time or another qualifies.

That in itself is laughable and many of their higher degree holders don't have degrees in areas that have anything to do with climate change. Let me ask my podiatrist about climate change.

The Wall Street Journal published it.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

And 9000 PHDs is not some BA education level.

I'm not even taking a stance here but some of you are getting a little ugly here.

People get all worked up over this topic. It is EXTREMELY political in nature.

 

[DFWJC]

Ouch, that had to hurt some, somewhere, somehow!

Hurt who exactly?

 

[DFWJC]

...

 

[Hoofbite]

Yes but even today off the shelf mercury thermometers will show a standard deviation and they are regulated by NIST, 300 years ago they were not. I do not doubt that the thermometers back then were accurate but how accurate even a 1% deviation can cause substantial inaccuracies and since they do not have DeLorean to go verify the data is unreliable at best unless they guess at what is an acceptable deviation factor.

Or you could use an old timer mercury thermometer, or recreate one today, and measure it's error.

Yes but even today off the shelf mercury thermometers will show a standard deviation and they are regulated by NIST, 300 years ago they were not. I do not doubt that the thermometers back then were accurate but how accurate even a 1% deviation can cause substantial inaccuracies and since they do not have DeLorean to go verify the data is unreliable at best unless they guess at what is an acceptable deviation factor.

Probably fortunate then that they could use an old thermometer or recreate one using the same techniques to find out how accurate they are.

The possibility of inaccurate readings diminishing climate change claims exists.

As does the possibility that old thermometers were reading too hot and thus would strengthen such claims because it was actually colder back then.

Perhaps I have a little too much confidence in science (generally speaking) but I'm just guessing that these concerns are trivial because temperatures are still cited.

Look for historical references for boiling points and compare them to today's known values.

Problem solved.

 

[jrumann59]

This is a good point but honestly, even 300 years is not a sufficient baseline for really understanding the issue and it's arguments for or against. Just not a long enough period of study.

you are right all they fall back on are ice cores which do not give you what the Earth's avg temp was during a given period it has various chemicals and such and various thicknesses of the layers but either way it is a guess with a certain margin for error. I have no problem with the data I just question the motives and conclusions behind some of the biggest proponents one way or the other.

 

[Hoofbite]

The Wall Street Journal published it.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

And 9000 PHDs is not some BA education level.

I'm not even taking a stance here but some of you are getting a little ugly here.

People get all worked up over this topic. It is EXTREMELY political in nature.

Can't access it. Not a sub.

I posted the link to that site and I'm not getting worked up.

Just pointing out how awful that source was.

 

[DFWJC]

Can't access it. Not a sub.

I posted the link to that site and I'm not getting worked up.

Just pointing out how awful that source was.

Fair enough

 

[jrumann59]

Or you could use an old timer mercury thermometer, or recreate one today, and measure it's error.


Probably fortunate then that they could use an old thermometer or recreate one using the same techniques to find out how accurate they are.

The possibility of inaccurate readings diminishing climate change claims exists.

As does the possibility that old thermometers were reading too hot and thus would strengthen such claims because it was actually colder back then.

Perhaps I have a little too much confidence in science (generally speaking) but I'm just guessing that these concerns are trivial because temperatures are still cited.

Look for historical references for boiling points and compare them to today's known values.

Problem solved.

That would be awesome but last I checked there was no world archive that collected the data uniformly back then. For example you and I could use a mercury thermometer of todays vintage and me and you could get two similar numbers . There are two many variables. Boiling points are not necessarily based on temps. Water can boil at room temperature in a vacuum.

 

[Hoofbite]

That would be awesome but last I checked there was no world archive that collected the data uniformly back then. For example you and I could use a mercury thermometer of todays vintage and me and you could get two similar numbers . There are two many variables. Boiling points are not necessarily based on temps. Water can boil at room temperature in a vacuum.

Obviously you would compare similarly controlled environments.

 

[jrumann59]

Hoofbite regardless temperature has only been recorded for a little bit of 400 years, the accuracy of the instruments is still key. due to the small deviation of temperature change that is being thrown around by scientists. I do believe the world is warming I just do not agree with how much mankind is involved.

 

[Hoofbite]

Sure there's variation.

I just think it's incredibly naive to think that some of the worlds best minds haven't factored that in. As if NASA hasn't considered this aspect? It's just nonsensical, IMO.

To what degree you want to follow their train of thought regarding the cause, that's up to you.

Trying to undermine the entire argument based on temperature measurements seems like a poor route to take.

 

[DFWJC]

Lots of variables for sure.
Seemingly hundreds of variables--some independent and some very dependent--add to the hyper complexity of it all.
One of the ongoing hot topics is the wave-length of infrared light from the sun vs refracted heat from the earth, what is captured and what escapes out of the atmosphere, remains in the atmosphere, is absorbed by water, ice, rock, and of course, vegetation. All of this is a moving target (and always has been) that requires it's own set of hypotheticals just to begin to try to study that small part of the issue.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here are Gifs that describes the changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun and why it effects Climate change. This, IMO, is the primary reason for why we see Climate change.








Here is a Gif that illustrates the Earth's rotation around the Sun. Taking into account the axis variance of the Earth and the fact that it moves between a tilt of 22.1 degrees and 24.5 degrees at any given time in it's rotation around the Sun, the mean temperatures in any given part of the world can change because the amount of direct radiation from the Sun changes. Temp changes either increase or decrease the amount of Carbon into the atmosphere, which in turn, create Temperature variations.

Remember that the Sun is also rotating and that it also sits a tilted axis as well. I believe that the Sun's axis tilt is approximately 7.5 degrees of true vertical. Also keep in mind that certain spots on the Sun burn hotter then others. What does this suggest? It suggests that depending on where the Earth is in it's rotation around the Sun, the Tilt of the Earth, the rotation of the Sun and it's tilt can account for short term climate conditions because again, certain points on the surface of the Sun create more direct radiation hitting the Earth via Solar Flares etc. Another variable is the actual amount of time the Earth is closest to the Sun and how the speed of the actual rotation around the Sun, in accordance with where it is in it's trajectory pattern around the Sun effects temps. This is why you seem short term periods where it may be hotter or colder.

It's much more complicated then this, obviously, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is much more a normal phenomenon, IMO, then anything Man is currently doing or not doing.


We won't even get into the discussion of the fact that all celestial bodies are moving outward and that over time, our own solar system is also expanding away from each other, which in turn, causes a cooling effect. That's another discussion all together.

 

[DFWJC]

2014 is now here and Mr Gore claimed (even got a Nobel Prize) that the Arctic would be Ice Free by 2014. Oops.
I want a refund.

Also, does anyone know if the increase in ice mass in Antarctica offsets the reduction of ice mass in the Arctic. I know measure ice extent in the Arctic is tracking 2006 numbers, but not sure about the other end of the world.
Honest question. I have not looked it up or seen a tally yet.

 

[Rockport]

Hoofbite regardless temperature has only been recorded for a little bit of 400 years, the accuracy of the instruments is still key. due to the small deviation of temperature change that is being thrown around by scientists. I do believe the world is warming I just do not agree with how much mankind is involved.

You guys are getting lost arguing stats. Just use your common sense. Look around and see what we are doing on a daily basis? Have you been to China? Some days you can't even see more than 100 yards. Have you ever flown into LA and seen the brown layer of crap? Every spring here in San Antonio we get haze from the Mexican farmers burning their fields before planting season. This crap is going on daily all over the world. Much worse in some places than here. Anyone who doesn't think that is having a long term effect on the climate is just not being honest with themselves.

 

[DFWJC]

You guys are getting lost arguing stats. Just use your common sense. Look around and see what we are doing on a daily basis? Have you been to China? Some days you can't even see more than 100 yards. Have you ever flown into LA and seen the brown layer of crap? Every spring here in San Antonio we get haze from the Mexican farmers burning their fields before planting season. This crap is going on daily all over the world. Much worse in some places than here. Anyone who doesn't think that is having a long term effect on the climate is just not being honest with themselves.

Pollution sux in a big way.