1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Climate predictions and hard data don't mix

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by TheMailMan78, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,849 (8.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,382
    According to this article there are some "Huge discrepancies" between the two. Anyway read on and enjoy!

    Source
  2. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (5.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,615
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
    DonInKansas says thanks.
  3. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,849 (8.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,382
    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.
  4. NinkobEi

    NinkobEi

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,045 (0.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    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
    Chevalr1c says thanks.
  5. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,849 (8.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,382
    So you admit the science is not accurate just yet however you are positive of its current conclusion?.....interesting.
  6. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (5.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,615
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    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.
    FordGT90Concept and cadaveca say thanks.
  7. NinkobEi

    NinkobEi

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,045 (0.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    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.
  8. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,381 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,218
    [​IMG]
  9. streetfighter 2

    streetfighter 2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,658 (1.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    732
    Location:
    Philly
    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.
    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.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2011
    Chevalr1c says thanks.
  10. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    I stopped reading after the word "may" on the first line.

    Wake me up when they actually know something.
  11. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644 (3.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,763
    Location:
    Chicago
    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.
  12. The_Ish

    The_Ish New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    328 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    Sweden
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    lilhasselhoffer says thanks.
  13. lilhasselhoffer

    lilhasselhoffer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,545 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    920
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    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.
  14. The_Ish

    The_Ish New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    328 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    Sweden
    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?
  15. NinkobEi

    NinkobEi

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,045 (0.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    tenletters
  16. the54thvoid

    the54thvoid

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,204 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,430
    Location:
    Glasgow - home of formal profanity
    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
  17. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,381 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,218
    ^ so you just go around blindly believing whatever the consensus is? you would make a good scientist then.
    The_Ish says thanks.
  18. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,309 (6.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,336
    Location:
    IA, USA
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  19. twilyth Guest

    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.
  20. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,124 (1.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    458
    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...
  21. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,381 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,218
    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.
  22. streetfighter 2

    streetfighter 2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,658 (1.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    732
    Location:
    Philly
    [​IMG]
    Mussels says thanks.
  23. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,381 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,218
    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.
  24. twilyth Guest

    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
  25. Widjaja

    Widjaja

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,819 (1.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    636
    Location:
    Wangas, New Zealand
    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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page