I believe the pertinent proof is that during periods of lower temperatures (such as following volcanic eruptions, etc.) we have less plant life. Global coolings leads to less plant life, so logicaly it follows that global warming would lead to higher plant life. In addition, looking at the historical record of the Earth, periods hotter than now have more plant life.
In short, where the laws agreed with the majority even if I didn't. I'd rather suffer some minor inconviences and not have things my way if I knew that "the way"
But do you see the disconnect? You believe you are justified in bringing down the system because you believe a minority is running things. I believe that you are wrong, and that the majority is running things and that you are a minority that is trying to usurp power unjustly. Do we really need to resort to violence?
Threatening violence if you are not appeased is never a valid argument. It may be the only way to get what you want (and may even be just in certain circumstances), but saying it during a discussion will just result in violence - the best way to deal with a bully is to smack them down.
if we march on washington because we don't like the results of the next election and start getting...
Look, if you march on Washington and they start shooting, wouldn't you rather have them shoot this instead of bullets? You are assuming that the government is both evil (but only with tasers) and not evil (with guns). It doesn't make sense!
The same thing that protects you from being shot protects you from being tasered - public opinion. If enough people think you should not have been tasered, the guy that tasered you will be fired / jailed. May not help you, but that is how our society works...
Or is it that there are a few loud, obnoxious people that want to force their viewpoint on everone else? Perhaps the government is trying to preserve the freedom of the many quiet people that do not want to have to obey the wims of the liberals...
When was the last conservative march, btw? They do seem to be right around 50% of the population, why don't they march? They do seem to have most of the guns, however... so maybe those that say they will "fight the man" better take a chill pill;-}
If you have a club that you fly with, get together and make a bunch of foam core wings + bodies. Cover them in packing tape, put in the (cheap!) radios. Get them flying, and try to wack each other down. Last one flying wins.
In our contest, any repairs you could make with duct tape were allowed. We flew on a ridge, using the updraft of wind blowing up the mountain - more fun than legally allowed!
I have a friend in the screw industry, and another in the gear industry. You'd think those were commodity things, right? One size fits all, lowest price wins, failure rate should be as high as you can get away with?
But think about it - in a modern car engine, a $0.10 bolt fails, a $1.00 gear fails - and you have a $1,000 factory warantee repair. How much would you pay to lower your repair rate from 1% to 0.5% on a million cars? Up to 5 million dollars! The failure rates on some of this stuff is so low that it is unreal - it is a real piont of competition!
Thanks for that post, very clarifying - but again, note that as a scientist (or at least married to one!), the questinos you are asking (and have well reasoned answers for) are 1) "Is it happening (the average temperature data)?", and 2) "Why is it happening (is it anthropogenic)?" Those are interesting questions, and exactly what a scientist should be concerned with. But that is not the global warming debate.
The global warming debate is: "Should we cut down our economy in favor of decreased CO2 emissions?" That is the premise being thrown around (although, of course, they say that industry is doing it anyway and all that - if that is true, we don't need laws!). That is not a question that science can answer - and I don't think that true scientists are trying to answer that. The problem is that the science is being abused for political purposes...
Well, if you look at other sites you will see that if all the ice melts that is at low enough altitude to melt (as in the worst case global warming predictions come true), you have, at most, a 1 meter change in the sea level this millenia. There are places with tides larger than that! Really, the end of the world scenarios are just silly. You say that the ecosystem is fragile - BS! The ecosystem has survived catastrophes you cannot imagine!
Admit it, you are just anti change. Save the polar bears that are dying to make room for a more resilient polar bear species - what rot! People like you caused the massive public park fires of prior years by your "protectionism", and this is no different. The only constant in this world is change, deal with it.
OK, pray tell me the worst case rise in ocean level. 1 meter? Wow, I guess we better go back to canoes! If all the ice on the planet melts (hint - that hasn't happened even when it was much hotter than the 10 degrees maximum CO2 warming can provide), you see a 7 meter rise. The most likely scenario is that runaway global warming would cause a 1 meter increase in ocean levels.
There is no 100 ft wall of ocean doom! 7 meters maximum, all stop. New Orleans was lower than that, for goodness sake - and the only reason they had problems is because they skimped on the dikes that they were told that they needed!
Well, perhaps. But the maximum, worst case prediction (if we go completely Venus) is a 10 degree rise in temperature. I'm not certain that is something to go bonkers about - I mean, you say our children will miss the eastern seaboard... I'm sure the New York dikes will hold up just fine (baring the odd flooding disaster), and the midwest will love the oceanfront propperty. We are talking about change, not disaster. The argument so far is merely one that is against change.
(As long as you are not in Europe. If you are in Europe, I can see why you don't want change - you'll freeze or burn, because Europe's weather is not natural. Add in your slow economic growth [and its effects on your future discount rate], and I completely understand why you are concerned. I just don't understand why you expect me to bail you out, at my expense?)
I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car.:-)
The reason you are contributing to the problem is because you exagerate it out of proportion. Reasonable people read your rant and assume that there is nothing to global warming, just some nut cases. We need ratinal thought, and debate (to bring out more rational thought). We don't need people running around proclaiming the end of the human race.
It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes
OK, but I do not perscribe to the belief that we must maintain the status quo. I believe change has more value than stasis. If the species are worthy of survival, they will move to where they can survive. We are not the worst thing to happen to everyone on the planet, and preserving specific types of bugs, or a special brand of polar bear is not high on my list of concerns.
this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now
OK - that is something we can have a ratinoal discussion about. How much will it cost us to do nothing for 100 years? In 100 years, everyone (including everyone in China) will have personal fusion reactors for power, so the problem goes away on it's own. So what are the (relatively) short term costs of doing only what we are doing now (pushing conservation as quickly as economically reasonable)? Vs what are the costs of trying to stop the CO2 increases? What are other alternatives, that we can more easily do?
I believe that in the short term (100 years), we should continue to do what we are currently doing. We should get to the personal fusion reactor stage as quickly as possible. And, personally, I think we need to start moving people off this planet - that will open up a whole new range of options as yet unexplored.
But then, I build rockets - what did you expect me to say?!
Hm - I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about the credibility that you give a scientifically published article that you have 1) found yourself, and 2) somewhat understand. 1) is important because it is possible to convince someone of anything if you give them a biased sample of articles, for example the media is heavily biased to report global warming disaster stories rather than boring reports - this would lead you to believe that all global warming reports are disaster stories if your only access to reports was through the media. 2) is important because if you can't understand it, someone has to explain the "important" parts to you - and therefore that person introduces his personal bias. (And, yes, I believe everyone has a bias - there is only a question of degree)
Which brings us to my point - the question is whether that person would change his mind if he knew the outcome was different than what he was saying. This is not scientifically testable, true - but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how a normal person, not knowlegable in the subject, can make a rational decision. Most people can see someone's bias - it is a relatively normal life skill, useful in a wide variety of tasks. And this is what most people use to tell if they should alter their lives to match someone else's predictions.
but it assumes that we know the *reasons* why other approaches will not be, in the long run, as cheap
But surely I can just turn that around and say that you cannot prove that your method is long run cheaper. In your scenario, I can at least show short run cheaper and long run unknown - while you have short run more expensive, long run unknown. (And yes, I was obviously using all in costs - including all future costs) The thing is, the way our economy works is that present costs are more important than future costs (this is true as long as the economy is growing at all).
What is the metric used to determine cost? Lives? Property? Dollars?
What metric is used in the insurance business? What metric is used for car safety? This is a political question, not a scientific one.
Evaluating the impact of warming and migrating populations on these observable effects takes careful consideration and the application of scientific methods.
And this is the big one, NO! Science can tell you about processes, and other things. It can tell you nothing about value! (All you have told me are your values - there is nothing scientific about them!)
In any case, worst case warming of 10 degrees is not going to require a lot of population movement. It may require a larger energy expenditure on air conditioning, though.
Yours apparently is "makes money from". Well, that fits - but my definition encompasses more. I believe that you have a bias on this issue (just like everyone else), even though you have basically nothing at stake other than your ego (just like everyone else). For me, bias is best described by: you would not change your desired outcome even if the experiment had the opposite result.
Would you be pro-oil if global warming was eliminated tommorrow?
this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic
OK, so what does that have to do with missing the fact the atmospheric methane is self regulating? They said "methane will continue to go up unless we kill the cows!" and methane went down instead! The same could be true of CO2, we don't know! CO2 levels have always tracked (lagged behind) temperature levels - so perhaps there is a self-regulating mechanism. I'm saying that the models are probably not valid, that's all.
Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth
I see. So the maximum possible event - worst case warming by CO2 - of 10 degrees is going to kill us all. Do you realize that Arizona is 10 degees warmer than Chicago? And they farm there - did you know that? Global warming cannot end the human race. Worst case global warming will be totally ignored by 90% of the world's species.
Don't over-hype the issue. Global warming needs to be studied, but drastic measures should not be taken without a) making them feasible (China is not going to cut CO2 production - that must be dealt with), and b) knowing that we are doing more good than harm.
I'm afraid you are totally wrong and have obviously never examined the data. The reverse is quite obviously true at the merest glance at the chart in question.
We've burst outside of that envelope.
And you still think that models created using past data are valid? I'm not saying that we shouldn't study it - I'm saying that climatologists cannot predict what is going to happen. And they keep making predicitons - and then they make predictions as to how to prevent their predicitons. Madness!
I wish people would stop writing this passively defensive crap.
Unfortunately, most of the people with your convictions mode people that disagree down. Look at my posting history - you will find well-reasoned (or at least rational) posts marked troll, etc. In the last global warming debate there was a mod war over my post - it was modded up about 7 times, and down about 6.
But that is my point! The models cannot predict what is happening now if they were programmed to handle the historical data! We don't know what is going to happen!
But that is not the message of the global warming crowd (not the scientists, but the media that reports what they think the scientists said) - they say we are all going to die. There is no scientific rational for that!
From your point of view, what is the difference between effective and cheapest? From a standard economics point of view (another field of engineering, not science, IMO), the cheapest (well, least expensive all in) is always the best solution. Why is this not the case here?
Just FYI, the measured change so far is only 1 degree. The maximum change predictable by 100% CO2 spectrum absorbtion is 10 degrees.
There is a larger difference between Chicago hottest day and Arizona's hottest day than the maximum difference global warming can make. The difference between Arizona's day and night in the summer is about 3 times the maximum change. Humans will continue to thrive no matter what - the real issue is polar bears, etc. That is why the overlap between the global warming people and the green people is 99%.
Especially when those that research it at all finally get down to the nitty-gritty: a 1 degree change measured so far.
What?!?! Those global warming guys keep telling me how it is global warming every time we hit a record temperature, and the real event is one degree?!? You can't even feel the difference!
And you honestly think the global warming crowd in unbiased?
I think both sides are equally biased - but only one side is trying to use the government to make me obey their rules. The other one gives me a free choice.
As a scientist, I am sure that you have studied statistics - but you may have fallen into a common trap of those with a scientific mind. That is, to create a model based on past data and then to believe it when it makes predictions wildly divergent from said past data. When the model is making predictions that are outside of it's experience you are in a danger zone.
For example - I know that the complex models you describe are missing at least one critical element: Methane has stopped increasing for unknown reasons. Methane is an important green house gas, and not modelling this behaviour may invalidate the model. Why did we not forsee this? Because the model was based on past data, which has never included humans farming at the level we are today. Are they completely invalidated? Who knows!
Your branch of science is much further developed - because people made predictions based on past data, and then verified those predictions! Even then, the predictions are not always correct, even after a millenia of improvement. (For example, rocket fuel formulations almost never work exactly as predicted - they are all on the edge of stability, and without actual testing you cannot know which side of the edge they are on).
Making models and running past data through them until the output matches is not science. That approach suffers from a form of survival bias - you keep changing the model until it matches, but that doesn't mean you can predict the future.
The stock market exhibits the same behavior. Many people come up with algorithms to predict the markets using past data. They all fail when run on future data. It's just not science!
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the pertinent proof is that during periods of lower temperatures (such as following volcanic eruptions, etc.) we have less plant life. Global coolings leads to less plant life, so logicaly it follows that global warming would lead to higher plant life. In addition, looking at the historical record of the Earth, periods hotter than now have more plant life.
This is described somewhat by Nasa.
OK, now that there is proof on the table, can you change your world view - or is this a religion to you?
In short, where the laws agreed with the majority even if I didn't. I'd rather suffer some minor inconviences and not have things my way if I knew that "the way"
But do you see the disconnect? You believe you are justified in bringing down the system because you believe a minority is running things. I believe that you are wrong, and that the majority is running things and that you are a minority that is trying to usurp power unjustly. Do we really need to resort to violence?
Threatening violence if you are not appeased is never a valid argument. It may be the only way to get what you want (and may even be just in certain circumstances), but saying it during a discussion will just result in violence - the best way to deal with a bully is to smack them down.
if we march on washington because we don't like the results of the next election and start getting...
Look, if you march on Washington and they start shooting, wouldn't you rather have them shoot this instead of bullets? You are assuming that the government is both evil (but only with tasers) and not evil (with guns). It doesn't make sense!
The same thing that protects you from being shot protects you from being tasered - public opinion. If enough people think you should not have been tasered, the guy that tasered you will be fired / jailed. May not help you, but that is how our society works...
Or is it that there are a few loud, obnoxious people that want to force their viewpoint on everone else? Perhaps the government is trying to preserve the freedom of the many quiet people that do not want to have to obey the wims of the liberals...
;-}
When was the last conservative march, btw? They do seem to be right around 50% of the population, why don't they march? They do seem to have most of the guns, however... so maybe those that say they will "fight the man" better take a chill pill
If you have a club that you fly with, get together and make a bunch of foam core wings + bodies. Cover them in packing tape, put in the (cheap!) radios. Get them flying, and try to wack each other down. Last one flying wins.
In our contest, any repairs you could make with duct tape were allowed. We flew on a ridge, using the updraft of wind blowing up the mountain - more fun than legally allowed!
I have a friend in the screw industry, and another in the gear industry. You'd think those were commodity things, right? One size fits all, lowest price wins, failure rate should be as high as you can get away with?
But think about it - in a modern car engine, a $0.10 bolt fails, a $1.00 gear fails - and you have a $1,000 factory warantee repair. How much would you pay to lower your repair rate from 1% to 0.5% on a million cars? Up to 5 million dollars! The failure rates on some of this stuff is so low that it is unreal - it is a real piont of competition!
We used to have RC glider dogfights - no weapons, just ram the other guy out of the sky without killing yourself. Good times!
Thanks for that post, very clarifying - but again, note that as a scientist (or at least married to one!), the questinos you are asking (and have well reasoned answers for) are 1) "Is it happening (the average temperature data)?", and 2) "Why is it happening (is it anthropogenic)?" Those are interesting questions, and exactly what a scientist should be concerned with. But that is not the global warming debate.
The global warming debate is: "Should we cut down our economy in favor of decreased CO2 emissions?" That is the premise being thrown around (although, of course, they say that industry is doing it anyway and all that - if that is true, we don't need laws!). That is not a question that science can answer - and I don't think that true scientists are trying to answer that. The problem is that the science is being abused for political purposes...
Well, if you look at other sites you will see that if all the ice melts that is at low enough altitude to melt (as in the worst case global warming predictions come true), you have, at most, a 1 meter change in the sea level this millenia. There are places with tides larger than that! Really, the end of the world scenarios are just silly. You say that the ecosystem is fragile - BS! The ecosystem has survived catastrophes you cannot imagine!
Admit it, you are just anti change. Save the polar bears that are dying to make room for a more resilient polar bear species - what rot! People like you caused the massive public park fires of prior years by your "protectionism", and this is no different. The only constant in this world is change, deal with it.
OK, pray tell me the worst case rise in ocean level. 1 meter? Wow, I guess we better go back to canoes! If all the ice on the planet melts (hint - that hasn't happened even when it was much hotter than the 10 degrees maximum CO2 warming can provide), you see a 7 meter rise. The most likely scenario is that runaway global warming would cause a 1 meter increase in ocean levels.
There is no 100 ft wall of ocean doom! 7 meters maximum, all stop. New Orleans was lower than that, for goodness sake - and the only reason they had problems is because they skimped on the dikes that they were told that they needed!
Well, perhaps. But the maximum, worst case prediction (if we go completely Venus) is a 10 degree rise in temperature. I'm not certain that is something to go bonkers about - I mean, you say our children will miss the eastern seaboard... I'm sure the New York dikes will hold up just fine (baring the odd flooding disaster), and the midwest will love the oceanfront propperty. We are talking about change, not disaster. The argument so far is merely one that is against change.
(As long as you are not in Europe. If you are in Europe, I can see why you don't want change - you'll freeze or burn, because Europe's weather is not natural. Add in your slow economic growth [and its effects on your future discount rate], and I completely understand why you are concerned. I just don't understand why you expect me to bail you out, at my expense?)
I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car. :-)
The reason you are contributing to the problem is because you exagerate it out of proportion. Reasonable people read your rant and assume that there is nothing to global warming, just some nut cases. We need ratinal thought, and debate (to bring out more rational thought). We don't need people running around proclaiming the end of the human race.
It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes
OK, but I do not perscribe to the belief that we must maintain the status quo. I believe change has more value than stasis. If the species are worthy of survival, they will move to where they can survive. We are not the worst thing to happen to everyone on the planet, and preserving specific types of bugs, or a special brand of polar bear is not high on my list of concerns.
this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now
OK - that is something we can have a ratinoal discussion about. How much will it cost us to do nothing for 100 years? In 100 years, everyone (including everyone in China) will have personal fusion reactors for power, so the problem goes away on it's own. So what are the (relatively) short term costs of doing only what we are doing now (pushing conservation as quickly as economically reasonable)? Vs what are the costs of trying to stop the CO2 increases? What are other alternatives, that we can more easily do?
I believe that in the short term (100 years), we should continue to do what we are currently doing. We should get to the personal fusion reactor stage as quickly as possible. And, personally, I think we need to start moving people off this planet - that will open up a whole new range of options as yet unexplored.
But then, I build rockets - what did you expect me to say?!
Not me, I plan to live forever, or die trying!
Hm - I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about the credibility that you give a scientifically published article that you have 1) found yourself, and 2) somewhat understand. 1) is important because it is possible to convince someone of anything if you give them a biased sample of articles, for example the media is heavily biased to report global warming disaster stories rather than boring reports - this would lead you to believe that all global warming reports are disaster stories if your only access to reports was through the media. 2) is important because if you can't understand it, someone has to explain the "important" parts to you - and therefore that person introduces his personal bias. (And, yes, I believe everyone has a bias - there is only a question of degree)
Which brings us to my point - the question is whether that person would change his mind if he knew the outcome was different than what he was saying. This is not scientifically testable, true - but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how a normal person, not knowlegable in the subject, can make a rational decision. Most people can see someone's bias - it is a relatively normal life skill, useful in a wide variety of tasks. And this is what most people use to tell if they should alter their lives to match someone else's predictions.
but it assumes that we know the *reasons* why other approaches will not be, in the long run, as cheap
But surely I can just turn that around and say that you cannot prove that your method is long run cheaper. In your scenario, I can at least show short run cheaper and long run unknown - while you have short run more expensive, long run unknown. (And yes, I was obviously using all in costs - including all future costs) The thing is, the way our economy works is that present costs are more important than future costs (this is true as long as the economy is growing at all).
What is the metric used to determine cost? Lives? Property? Dollars?
What metric is used in the insurance business? What metric is used for car safety? This is a political question, not a scientific one.
Evaluating the impact of warming and migrating populations on these observable effects takes careful consideration and the application of scientific methods.
And this is the big one, NO! Science can tell you about processes, and other things. It can tell you nothing about value! (All you have told me are your values - there is nothing scientific about them!)
In any case, worst case warming of 10 degrees is not going to require a lot of population movement. It may require a larger energy expenditure on air conditioning, though.
Yours apparently is "makes money from". Well, that fits - but my definition encompasses more. I believe that you have a bias on this issue (just like everyone else), even though you have basically nothing at stake other than your ego (just like everyone else). For me, bias is best described by: you would not change your desired outcome even if the experiment had the opposite result.
Would you be pro-oil if global warming was eliminated tommorrow?
People like you are the problem.
this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic
OK, so what does that have to do with missing the fact the atmospheric methane is self regulating? They said "methane will continue to go up unless we kill the cows!" and methane went down instead! The same could be true of CO2, we don't know! CO2 levels have always tracked (lagged behind) temperature levels - so perhaps there is a self-regulating mechanism. I'm saying that the models are probably not valid, that's all.
Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth
I see. So the maximum possible event - worst case warming by CO2 - of 10 degrees is going to kill us all. Do you realize that Arizona is 10 degees warmer than Chicago? And they farm there - did you know that? Global warming cannot end the human race. Worst case global warming will be totally ignored by 90% of the world's species.
Don't over-hype the issue. Global warming needs to be studied, but drastic measures should not be taken without a) making them feasible (China is not going to cut CO2 production - that must be dealt with), and b) knowing that we are doing more good than harm.
with the temperature lagging the CO2 somewhat.
I'm afraid you are totally wrong and have obviously never examined the data. The reverse is quite obviously true at the merest glance at the chart in question.
We've burst outside of that envelope.
And you still think that models created using past data are valid? I'm not saying that we shouldn't study it - I'm saying that climatologists cannot predict what is going to happen. And they keep making predicitons - and then they make predictions as to how to prevent their predicitons. Madness!
I wish people would stop writing this passively defensive crap.
Unfortunately, most of the people with your convictions mode people that disagree down. Look at my posting history - you will find well-reasoned (or at least rational) posts marked troll, etc. In the last global warming debate there was a mod war over my post - it was modded up about 7 times, and down about 6.
But that is my point! The models cannot predict what is happening now if they were programmed to handle the historical data! We don't know what is going to happen!
But that is not the message of the global warming crowd (not the scientists, but the media that reports what they think the scientists said) - they say we are all going to die. There is no scientific rational for that!
From your point of view, what is the difference between effective and cheapest? From a standard economics point of view (another field of engineering, not science, IMO), the cheapest (well, least expensive all in) is always the best solution. Why is this not the case here?
Just FYI, the measured change so far is only 1 degree. The maximum change predictable by 100% CO2 spectrum absorbtion is 10 degrees.
There is a larger difference between Chicago hottest day and Arizona's hottest day than the maximum difference global warming can make. The difference between Arizona's day and night in the summer is about 3 times the maximum change. Humans will continue to thrive no matter what - the real issue is polar bears, etc. That is why the overlap between the global warming people and the green people is 99%.
Especially when those that research it at all finally get down to the nitty-gritty: a 1 degree change measured so far.
What?!?! Those global warming guys keep telling me how it is global warming every time we hit a record temperature, and the real event is one degree?!? You can't even feel the difference!
Pretended science has always been a tool to the liars, politicians, charlatans, soothsayers and those that benefit from general ignorance.
There, fixed that for you. There is much more science used to promote agendas than anti-science used to promote them.
Think about it - even anti-evolution people use "science" to promote their agenda.
provided the authority is competent and unbiased
And you honestly think the global warming crowd in unbiased?
I think both sides are equally biased - but only one side is trying to use the government to make me obey their rules. The other one gives me a free choice.
As a scientist, I am sure that you have studied statistics - but you may have fallen into a common trap of those with a scientific mind. That is, to create a model based on past data and then to believe it when it makes predictions wildly divergent from said past data. When the model is making predictions that are outside of it's experience you are in a danger zone.
For example - I know that the complex models you describe are missing at least one critical element: Methane has stopped increasing for unknown reasons. Methane is an important green house gas, and not modelling this behaviour may invalidate the model. Why did we not forsee this? Because the model was based on past data, which has never included humans farming at the level we are today. Are they completely invalidated? Who knows!
Your branch of science is much further developed - because people made predictions based on past data, and then verified those predictions! Even then, the predictions are not always correct, even after a millenia of improvement. (For example, rocket fuel formulations almost never work exactly as predicted - they are all on the edge of stability, and without actual testing you cannot know which side of the edge they are on).
Making models and running past data through them until the output matches is not science. That approach suffers from a form of survival bias - you keep changing the model until it matches, but that doesn't mean you can predict the future.
The stock market exhibits the same behavior. Many people come up with algorithms to predict the markets using past data. They all fail when run on future data. It's just not science!