Hey, remember that time when Carbon markets collapsed in Europe? Before the US adopts the silly cap-and-trade “market” approach to curbing carbon emissions, perhaps we should see what the recession has done to the European carbon market. The EU……

There’s nothing like the combination of fighting spirit, political stamina, and legislative pro-activity on an issue that is an affront to the very ideal of democracy: Republicans moved aggressively on Wednesday to seize the initiative in the upcoming…

Yes, but that I didn’t think most people continue on a thread once if falls off the main page. Do they?

Cheers.

If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.

There is some theoretical validity to thinking that increased CO2 will lead to warming due to the paired double bond of CO2 being reflective to Infrared radiation, but that it remains to be seen if the CO2 levels can rise to the concentration levels that would cause climate forcing to be possible.

Marine_Bio on February 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I believe your statement above represents our biggest disagreement. Trust me, I clearly understand WHAT you are saying, I simply disagree. As you said, this thread is disappearing so this isn’t the best time to get into it. We will have that opportunity in the future and I will present my case.

Maxx on February 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Fair enough, and yes changes to the magnetic field would be very destructive. How destructive depends upon how the reversal occurs.

I’m going to try this one more time, but this is likely to drop off the main page soon.
CO2 by itself or any other component in a complex system by itself can not be isolated as the single point of change. As such, any changes to concentrations have unknown consequences, which is why the CO2 driven climate change folks have gained so much traction. There is some theoretical validity to thinking that increased CO2 will lead to warming due to the paired double bond of CO2 being reflective to Infrared radiation, but that it remains to be seen if the CO2 levels can rise to the concentration levels that would cause climate forcing to be possible. We’ll know for certain in 700 years, but I suspect they will be wrong.

If you examine the concentrations of CO2 in the past, they show a pattern of being higher during warmer periods. What I believe is that increased CO2, which lags by about 700 years on the Milankovitch cycle, is the result of warming. There used to be a fairly nice graph that I can’t find which illustrated this nicely, which probably means it has been removed.

You just need to focus on other areas if you try to engage someone who believes this is reality. Google turns up all sorts of information (or misinformation if you prefer) and your efforts become nullified. That is my point.

Case in point.
Gamma rays and x-rays are electromagnetic radiation, in other words they are photons, light energy that we can’t see if you will. UV light falls into this category as an electromagnetic radiation outside of the visible light spectrum, and the filter is ozone, not the earths magnetic field.

Magnetic fields only affect charged particles, like the solar winds that are responsible for the auroras. The only particulate radiation is alpha and beta radiation.

Magnetic field disruption will not affect the types of radiation he is talking about.

Marine_Bio on February 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

I stand corrected. Yep, I got that one wrong. I knew the magnetic field stopped something, I thought it was the rays, nope, it’s the charged particles.

Nevertheless, my point was that a reduced magnetic field will indeed work to our detriment. I just got the stuff that is stops wrong.

a stoichiometry

DOH!

A stoichiometry problem…

Badger40 on February 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM

You don’t have to even try to articulate your frustration…I know. Before I found this position, I was teaching HS Chemistry and Forensic Science.

That is why I call it Google-Fu. I picked up that name frome someone here on Hot Air, but it is more appropriate than they realize. No thought goes into looking at the google results to do a simple gut check. So it is viewed as somewhere between the answer god and magic.

Many of my students felt that they didn’t need to know what I was teaching them because if they ever needed it they could google it. Unfortunately, Google can’t help you understand a stoichiometry if you don’t understand the mole concept or a differential equation if your don’t understand calculus before you search.

It doesn’t bode well for our future as a nation.

If a HS student with a white belt in Google-Fu can find information on wikipedia that disproves his argument, he has a problem being convincing.

And this is what I am furiously trying to ‘unlearn’ my students from.
I cannot tell you how frustrating it is that young kids believe what they see on the Internet as gospel.
Ugh.
I also have fellow teachers believe crap like this.

Badger40 on February 26, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Oh Yes. I haven’t been trying to tirade, but rather trying to get Maxx to understand some of his assertions are easily shown to be false, which weakens his argument against global warming. If a HS student with a white belt in Google-Fu can find information on wikipedia that disproves his argument, he has a problem being convincing.

Towards the end, I became irritated. I really tried not to become irritated.

Marine_Bio on February 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Ah I see you’re here this morning. You & I seem to both hate the perpetuation of ‘junk’ science & ‘dumbed down’ data that people grab out of thin air.
Arggg! I just hate it!

I don’t know what effect if any it will have on temperatures but the weakening magnetic field is one of the many reasons radiometric dating does not work and cannot work.

Maxx on February 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM

False. I have perused a lot of work on this subject as a geo-sci girl.
In my educated opinion, this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#dating

is a very scientifically based site with GREAT reference reading material to substantiate the arguments made therein.
Suffice to say-radioisotopic dating methods do NOT depend upon how much of the parent material you started with.
Decay rates do NOT change.
They been measured in the laboratory in controlled experiments.
When all or many of the different decay series are used to date an object agree on the same date-you know you are doing it right.
All of the data supporting radioisotopic dating techniques overwhelmingly supports the accuracy of the various methods.
And don’t try the basalt or pillow basalt ruse- read the link I provided. Peruse the proffered reading material the link provides.
Get educated. Don’t exacerbate the ignorance problem & spew false-hoods.
Marine_Bio is right in his little tirade here:
Science is so often misunderstood-even by many scientists themselves. People spew ‘facts’, 1/2 truths & throw up a graph or a pie chart & without the proper context or background knowledge, you can perpetuate a lie, even accidentally.
The scientific community needs to come down hard on these ‘junk’ scientists who are publishing unsubstantiated data sets that aren’t even fully explained in their conclusions.
Incidentally-you know something is a lie when you really see it in the laboratory yourself.
Radioisotopic dating is real. With technology, we will only get more accurate with it-like a slide rule vs a calculator.

…There are problems with the methods …
Marine_Bio on February 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

And by this I mean that I disagree with selection of decay rates. Once selected, the methodology is meticulous. These kinds of differences are ultimately why science has a doctorate of philosophy instead of a doctorate of science. There are different ways of looking at the same thing, and it becomes a philosophical discussion at that point.

Case in point.
Gamma rays and x-rays are electromagnetic radiation, in other words they are photons, light energy that we can’t see if you will. UV light falls into this category as an electromagnetic radiation outside of the visible light spectrum, and the filter is ozone, not the earths magnetic field.

Magnetic fields only affect charged particles, like the solar winds that are responsible for the auroras. The only particulate radiation is alpha and beta radiation.

Magnetic field disruption will not affect the types of radiation he is talking about.

The reversal of magnetic fields has no impact on radiometric dating either, since that is based on radioactive decay rates for isotopes of elements like potassium, uranium and carbon. Just look at the name, breaking it down into the parts, the name radio metric, litteraly meaning mearuring radioactivity. There are problems with the methods and you have to make a lot of assumptions, but it is completely disconnected from the earths magnetic field, and is a very lengthy discussion that is completely off topic.

There is one result of the weakening that we can witness and that is Gore and all like him have lost the ability to distinguish up from down, west from east, north from south and warm from cold.