Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[Hohn]

Not circular at all. Use one set of data (let's assume your Sargasso sea mud would be relevant) to plot a line. Date the points along that line using ANOTHER dating method. Then, take a measurement of the C14:C12 ratio in your non-mud sample. See where it falls on the line you just made.

Yeah, that is really over simplified. Not all that for off from what actually happens, though.

And yes, radiocarbon dating is only good for a relatively small swath of time. Useful to tell how old a piece of human history might be. Pretty useless for anything pre-historic. Depending on what you are trying to date, there might be better techniques. If you REALLY want to pin something down, you would use several techniques on several samples.

I see better what you're saying now. Still, the problem is the assumption of known C12/14 ratio. We believe, but cannot prove, the ratio a thousand years ago was the same as it is now, so the difference in ratio today is refective of age (half life) rather than a difference that was already present when the object ceased fixing carbon.

To my knowledge, the Sea Mud and Ice core data sets are only used for CO2 levels and do not speak to ratio.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Ever feel like political hot buttons are sometimes thrown together - ala bizarro world - and it's all a night mare?

Black Lives Matter Close London Airport As ?Pollution Is Racist?

 

[david890]

The simple reality is that we have no historical measurement of ancient C12/14 ratios using comparable equipment as today.

And radiocarbon dating is not viable for anything past 20,000 years or so. The quantity of remaining C14 is too small to distinguish from other sources of beta radiation.

It's clear that you didn't research radiocarbon dating.

C14 is generated by the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen in the atmosphere. The C14 binds with atmospheric oxygen and is taken up by plants. The rates of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere have been stable for tens of thousands of years, so we can rightly assume C12/C14 ratios haven't changed significantly in that time.

Radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 45,000 years.

 

[david890]

I see better what you're saying now. Still, the problem is the assumption of known C12/14 ratio. We believe, but cannot prove, the ratio a thousand years ago was the same as it is now, so the difference in ratio today is refective of age (half life) rather than a difference that was already present when the object ceased fixing carbon.

Not true. We have living trees that are several thousand years old (count the rings), so we can use the C12/C14 ratios in those ring samples to get the "proof".

To my knowledge, the Sea Mud and Ice core data sets are only used for CO2 levels and do not speak to ratio.

There will be C14 in those CO2 samples. We can accurately date ice cores, in much the same way as trees: layers are put down yearly, as the seasons change. We can ID specific events in those layers (such as volcanic dust) to date events such as ancient eruptions and vice-versa (i.e., using known dates of eruptions to date the cores).

Finally, there are other elements we can use to establish dates. See radiometric dating. If C12/C14 is problematic for you, there are other methods. Reputable scientists - the vast majority - use multiple techniques to confirm their findings.

 

[Hohn]

I see we're dwelling on carbon dating since I just exploded the 97% myth.

 

[Hohn]

It's clear that you didn't research radiocarbon dating.

C14 is generated by the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen in the atmosphere. The C14 binds with atmospheric oxygen and is taken up by plants. The rates of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere have been stable for tens of thousands of years, so we can rightly assume C12/C14 ratios haven't changed significantly in that time.

Radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 45,000 years.

Correct, I have not fully researched C14 dating, I only know generally how it works. I don't have a religious dependency upon adhering to it or falsifying it, so absent such motivation, I've not yet dove deeply into it.

But I do know the difference between proxy data and actual data. I do know that solar irradiation is not constant, and that changes in solar irradiation are well-documented (and highly correlated to global temperatures, much more so than CO2 levels). I also know that logic insists that if solar irradiation is not constant, then the outputs of any process in which it plays a role cannot be constant without some kind of feedback mechanism (like a servo). The sun is the largest source of "cosmic rays" to the ionosphere. Thus, if solar activity influences the production of various naturally occurring isotopes, changes in it must correlate changes in their proportion.

I also know that the word "significantly" has no place in science unless it is defined-- a change of 5%, 10%, 30ppm, however one wishes to define it. But it must be defined to be properly used.

Not true. We have living trees that are several thousand years old (count the rings), so we can use the C12/C14 ratios in those ring samples to get the "proof".



There will be C14 in those CO2 samples. We can accurately date ice cores, in much the same way as trees: layers are put down yearly, as the seasons change. We can ID specific events in those layers (such as volcanic dust) to date events such as ancient eruptions and vice-versa (i.e., using known dates of eruptions to date the cores).

Finally, there are other elements we can use to establish dates. See radiometric dating. If C12/C14 is problematic for you, there are other methods. Reputable scientists - the vast majority - use multiple techniques to confirm their findings.

Logically, we may not infer ancient C12/C14 ratios from old tree rings alone. We may only infer the TOTAL amount of C14. A sample from a ring known to be 500 years old (500th ring) is taken. The beta decay is measured and, based on half-life, an original amount of C14 is determined.

But this does not demonstrate what the RATIO of C12/C14 was 500 year ago. It doesn't indicate what the absolute C12 levels were. Now, we believe C12 levels to be largely stable. But we do know that carbon-fixing plants

The tree rings are "proxy" data. As are the ice cores indicating CO2 levels. As are samples of Sargasso Sea mud.

The problems with proxies are many. First, is correlation curves. The value of a proxy depends on correlation. And even if a best fit curve has an R-square of 0.90, that is the value for the whole curve. What is the error in the range where one is concerned? It may be a good deal greater.

And what to do of these cumulative errors? All of the proxies do not neatly align with a near-zero error that is high-confidence.

Modeling the transfer function across cumulative proxy errors can produce error rates of 50% or greater in some cases. I do not know what the error rate for C14 dating is, nor I am suggesting it is entirely invalid. I personally do not care if it is 1000 years off on a frame of 15,000 years, or 100 years off on a scale of 2000 years.

That's why scientists consider the concept of least significant value, and precision-to-tolerance capability.

I can measure the height of my son using a Mitutoyo gauge repeatable to the micron, but it's hardly necessary to get useful data about how tall he is or how fast he is growing.


I don't really care if the earth is 6000 or 60,000 years old. It does not alter anything I believe to be true.

 

[jamil]

Why is there a state school board? Because, as pointed out here repeatedly, powers not delegated to the federal government by the states remain with the states. I suspect each state has one to ensure a measure of comparison among the various districts. In KY, the state board has no real power; each district (about 140 in total) makes its won rules. As for what the district requires be taught, those kids won't remain in that town. The effects will spread out, having far-reaching impact. As such, we should teach the best info out there, and that ain't creationism.

It's a rhetorical question. Point is, why do you want the school board to only wield power your way? You want your curriculum, vote your people in. Or, put your kids in private schools that teach the curriculum you want taught. Or teach them yourself.

What they mean when they "say" you have cancer?? Well, I'd imagine they mean YOU HAVE CANCER. I don't think there are that many docs who would make such a diagnosis lightly. Also, it probably doesn't take an oncologist to be able to read a CT scan or MRI; I'm sure all docs get some level of diagnostics training in med school.

I was trying to stick to your analogy. I can't help it you picked an imperfect one. You do understand that we're really not talking about doctors and cancer, right? None of the details you're complaining about are analogous to scientists or my point.

Nope. Not saying that. I'm saying the subsidies for the GIC wouldn't even be close to the $20B that goes to Big Oil.

Source?

MORAL equivalent?? How do morals play into this??

You're trying to draw an equivalence between big oil getting subsidies and green energy getting subsidies. You're implying that if it's "wrong" to subsidize green energy it's wrong to subsidize big oil because (in your mind) big oil gets more in subsidies than green energy, while being more profitable. I think that's a moral judgment. And I'm okay with judging the morality of it. I think both are wrong.

So, all farm subsidies are gone? I doubt a lot of small farmers would be happy with that...

Yes. All farm subsidies. It's not my place to make farmers happy.

How much gas have you burned carrying that spare around for 10--15 years??? Now, multiply that by the number of cars currently on the road. That's a pretty big cost, one you didn't mention.

That rebuttal is kinda ridiculous don't you think? I didn't just fail to mention it. I flat out didn't consider it. At all. It's irrelevant. We're talking about individuals making individual value judgements. *I* have to pay for *my* spare tire. *I* have to evaluate whether the cost of having one outweighs the risk of needing one. Same with carrying a firearm.

If you multiply a grain of sand times trillions, collectively that's a pretty big sand pile. What the **** does that have to do with what I had to pay for my little grain? I don't care about the societal costs of that. It's not "society" that pays. It's individuals.

Dunno, but probably not as much as Big Oil.

I think maybe you need to research that further.

How about we assume the vast majority of scientists are good, moral people, and are basing their decisions and recommendations based on their education and training? A bit of respect for those folks? If you can't do that, then all the 2A folks are "psycho gun nuts". Respect goes both ways.

This is kind of a silly argument. I haven't said that 97% of scientists have nefarious motives. I've said that what the survey says the scientists said, isn't really what John Kerry says. Or Obama. Or that ****ing quack, Bill Nye the blathering not-a-scientist guy. It's the politicians, crony capitalists, and the green industrial complex that I think are lying. If you've read the links I pointed to that say what I'm saying, you should understand that. I'm not denying that the earth is getting warmer or that if it is, humans are causing it. I'm skeptical. And as I've said, if they want me to be less skeptical, they should stop acting like people act when they're lying. Be sure you understand that the "they" here aren't 97% of scientists.

How many of the deniers get their funding from Big Oil?? That argument goes both ways.

You still going with that? Let's see the source.

The green industry is more dependent on tax dollars at this moment, but R&D may boost efficiencies beyond the 34% maximum (for single-junction PV cells). If R&D boosts efficiency and can reduce production costs, that money will be recovered in energy savings. Even if efficiency and costs remain about the same, all that does is extend the payback period.

That's bull****. If you look at subsidies per BTU we spend 25 times more on "green" than we do fossil energy. I mean, we spend more money on "green" outright, contrary to your belief. But it's absurdly more when you look at it in terms of bang for the buck. Green energy costs orders of magnitude more to produce per BTU than fossil. If you want to talk about savings, you can't compare green to green. You have to compare what you want to use, to what we're already using. That's red ink going from fossil to green.

I'm all for companies spending their own money to research making clean energy more efficient. I think some day there will be some breakthroughs that will make renewable energy closer to fossil fuels in terms of cost. In the mean time, let's not make tax payers foot the cost for propping up an otherwise unviable industry.

 

[rhino]

I wonder if the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Destruction has the equivalent of monks droning Gregorian Chants. That could be how they ingrain the downright silly ideas into the weak brains and force them to become . . . The Truth.

 

[david890]

I don't care about the societal costs of that. It's not "society" that pays. It's individuals.

Therein lies your error. You, apparently, cannot fathom your *tiny* contribution of CO2, solid waste, etc., as contributing to the societal problem of pollution. No, *you* didn't burn a lot of gas hauling an unused spare around for 15 years, but multiply that cost by all the cars on the road carrying spares, over the lifetime of each vehicle, and the cost is SIGNIFICANT. Millions of gallons of gas and CO2 emissions.

How many canaries in your coal mine must die before you care?

Here's the thing: if you're wrong about climate change, there's no chance to go back; we farked. However, if I'm wrong, we've swapped out oil for green energy, and it hasn't cost everyone that much more than what we're giving Big Oil now (despite your wishes for no subsidies to Big Oil, that's not gonna happen). Going green means there's still some oil in the ground for things like medicine, tech, etc. Staying with oil, regardless of any climate change, is a dead end. It's going to run out. Of that there is no question.

Keep in mind Big Oil's own research, their own scientists, knew about climate change in the 1970s, but chose to cover it up. Does that not make you care? What else have they covered up???

 

[actaeon277]

How much CO2 is emitted by rescuing people that don't have spares?
How about rescuing victims of car crashes, airplane crashes, boat sinkings.
I guess we should let them die so that we don't increase CO2 level.

 

[Thor]

If anybody want's some real estate that experiences zero climate change I can help you out, it passes overhead most every night. You want a climate? Deal with the changes, it comes with having an atmosphere.

IN has been under a tropical sea and alternately 100' of ice; if it's not hotter or colder than that it not the hottest or coldest it's ever been.

The inconvenient truthers like to forget the whole last part of the water cycle...after the ice melts and goes into the oceans (since it's is, gasp, hotter than last year ) it EVAPORATES. When it's a hot year my pond doesn't get more full, the water tables don't rise, and neither do the oceans.

 

[Hohn]

Therein lies your error. You, apparently, cannot fathom your *tiny* contribution of CO2, solid waste, etc., as contributing to the societal problem of pollution. No, *you* didn't burn a lot of gas hauling an unused spare around for 15 years, but multiply that cost by all the cars on the road carrying spares, over the lifetime of each vehicle, and the cost is SIGNIFICANT. Millions of gallons of gas and CO2 emissions.

How many canaries in your coal mine must die before you care?

Here's the thing: if you're wrong about climate change, there's no chance to go back; we farked. However, if I'm wrong, we've swapped out oil for green energy, and it hasn't cost everyone that much more than what we're giving Big Oil now (despite your wishes for no subsidies to Big Oil, that's not gonna happen). Going green means there's still some oil in the ground for things like medicine, tech, etc. Staying with oil, regardless of any climate change, is a dead end. It's going to run out. Of that there is no question.

Keep in mind Big Oil's own research, their own scientists, knew about climate change in the 1970s, but chose to cover it up. Does that not make you care? What else have they covered up???

Have you read the seminal work on the topic of social costs?http://econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/UCSBpf/readings/coase.pdf

 

[jamil]

Therein lies your error. You, apparently, cannot fathom your *tiny* contribution of CO2, solid waste, etc., as contributing to the societal problem of pollution. No, *you* didn't burn a lot of gas hauling an unused spare around for 15 years, but multiply that cost by all the cars on the road carrying spares, over the lifetime of each vehicle, and the cost is SIGNIFICANT. Millions of gallons of gas and CO2 emissions.

How many canaries in your coal mine must die before you care?

Yeah, you're right. What's the societal cost of my spare tire? I'll write a check.

No, really. I assume I just make it out to "Society"?

What's Society's address? Got a phone number? I need to tell Society the check's in the mail.



****ing moonbeams and unicorns.

Here's the thing: if you're wrong about climate change, there's no chance to go back; we farked. However, if I'm wrong, we've swapped out oil for green energy, and it hasn't cost everyone that much more than what we're giving Big Oil now (despite your wishes for no subsidies to Big Oil, that's not gonna happen). Going green means there's still some oil in the ground for things like medicine, tech, etc. Staying with oil, regardless of any climate change, is a dead end. It's going to run out. Of that there is no question.

Keep in mind Big Oil's own research, their own scientists, knew about climate change in the 1970s, but chose to cover it up. Does that not make you care? What else have they covered up???

Really? Now you're pulling Pascal's Wager?

SMH

 

[actaeon277]

Yes. Climate change in the 70s. When they called it global cooling.

 

[eldirector]

I find it interesting how folks conflate Climate Change with Human-induced Climate Change with Peak Petroleum and so-called Clean/Green Energy. It is like the old bait and switch: you lose ground on one so throw in the other 3 to cover the loss.

 

[Thor]

Yes. Climate change in the 70s. When they called it global cooling.

Yeah, I remember that one...we were all going to be dead, by the '90's if we DIDN'T DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW! They wanted then what they want now, to make us all do what they say without having to prove that they are right about anything. It's all power money and control, only the underlings think they are 'saving the planet'.

 

[rhino]

Still waiting to see actual evidence of a statistically significant correlation between CO2 concentration and climate change.

[video=youtube;Re72di5phM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0[/video]

 

[Hohn]

Interesting that we've been told for DECADES now that oil is running out. Yet we now have more proven reserves than at any point in world history.

Perhaps oil isn't made the way "the experts" say it is? What if oil doesn't take millions of years to make, but months?

And CO2 as a pollutant? Do tell!

In fact, do an experiment. Plant two seeds and let them germinate. Then put one in 300ppm CO2 and the other in 700ppm CO2 environs and see how much worse that latter does in the environment of "elevated toxicity."

 

[rhino]

Interesting that we've been told for DECADES now that oil is running out. Yet we now have more proven reserves than at any point in world history.

Perhaps oil isn't made the way "the experts" say it is? What if oil doesn't take millions of years to make, but months?

And CO2 as a pollutant? Do tell!

In fact, do an experiment. Plant two seeds and let them germinate. Then put one in 300ppm CO2 and the other in 700ppm CO2 environs and see how much worse that latter does in the environment of "elevated toxicity."

I think that when real petro-geologists and petrochem engineers started talking about running out of oil, they were really talking about running out of oil that we can access easily and cost effectively. Then the media and other people take what they say and all they hear is "running out of oil."

No one knows how much is really left. No one knows whether or not there are huge amounts that we just haven't found or not.

We do know that we have quite a bit (that's a technical engineering term) that we know where it is, it's just a matter of getting to it as inexpensively and as safely as possible.

 

[pudly]

I think that when real petro-geologists and petrochem engineers started talking about running out of oil, they were really talking about running out of oil that we can access easily and cost effectively. Then the media and other people take what they say and all they hear is "running out of oil."

The term they consistently used was "proven reserves". That is known oil deposits that can be accessed using current technology. That means that undiscovered deposits, accessible using currently unknown/unproven technologies, and unknown forms (such as shale gas) were not included.

"Peak oil" was a political term used to try and allow government direction/control of energy policy.