Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   2007 to be hottest year on record due to global warming, El Niño, possibility of Scarlett Johansson nude scene   (news.independent.co.uk) divider line 55
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1178 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2007 at 10:00 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-01-01 06:39:39 AM  
Yes, Virginia, there really is a Manbearpig.
 
2007-01-01 09:03:53 AM  
I'm just here for the ensuing pics
 
2007-01-01 09:06:51 AM  
one to two tenths of a degrees celsius per decade

eelco.is.a.rootboy.net
 
2007-01-01 09:35:21 AM  
I enjoyed the global warming last night as we sat in our neighbor's driveway, drinking beer, talking and shooting fireworks. And not a one of us needed a jacket. It was really nice.
 
2007-01-01 09:41:36 AM  
That looks to be be one doubly hot year!
 
2007-01-01 09:50:35 AM  
Scarlett Johansson nude? Where? WHere?
 
2007-01-01 09:54:07 AM  
Yeah, just like 2006 was to be the worst Hurricane season on record. Suck it libs!

/based on Muhammad Abdullah Al-Gore's hallucinations.
//flame on
 
2007-01-01 10:13:08 AM  
panfried Yeah, just like 2006 was to be the worst Hurricane season on record. Suck it libs!

Exactly. We should all meet here next year to see how this prediciton panned out. I'm wondering if these are the same people who predicted that the Panthers and Dolphins would be in the Super Bowl.

/Nothing but fear mongers
//To think that man is so arrogant that he thinks he can affect the world's weather
///And for those of you who want to start crying about the ice shelves and increasing sea temperatures, save it. It's all happened before, long before man even thought about being around. It's a cycle, it happens, get over it.
 
2007-01-01 10:17:09 AM  
*looks outside*

*calls BS*


/Freezing Rain FTW!
 
2007-01-01 10:20:19 AM  
So if this doesn't happen we can put all this junk science to rest right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.
 
2007-01-01 10:31:17 AM  
bobbooty: The last ice age lowered average temperatures by only about 5 degrees; a 1/10 degree increase is not as trivial as it seems.
 
2007-01-01 10:52:04 AM  
I'm sure my grandchildren will appreciate pithy and sardonic quips.
 
2007-01-01 11:20:05 AM  
Your grandchildren will appreciate not having to wear a heavy coat.
 
Zel [TotalFark]
2007-01-01 11:21:05 AM  
I believe it is a cyclic, natural process. Also, at the same time, we are making the world warmer. THe difference is real, but it was going to get bad anyway, so instead of partisan politics, how about we try to figure out how to cope with the hcanging earth?

I, for one, look forward to beachfront property as the coasts are swallowed up, and lots of cute european immigrants, as half of their continent sinks underwater.

Be ready for land and resource wars as they both shrink and our population grows.
 
2007-01-01 11:24:20 AM  
Zel:

Be ready for land and resource wars as they both shrink and our population grows.

I hate to be a stickler, but...

The Antarctic ice shelf is growing, not shrinking. 90% of the worlds ice is in Antarctica. The seas aren't rising.
 
2007-01-01 11:28:30 AM  
They can't tell me with the slightest amount of accuracy what the weather will be like a week from now, but they know for sure what the entire year will be like? Shenanigans!
 
2007-01-01 11:29:11 AM  
The seas aren't rising.

Plenty of direct measurements disagree with you there.
 
Zel [TotalFark]
2007-01-01 11:40:41 AM  
Bildo The Antarctic ice shelf is growing, not shrinking.

Now i've heard recently that huge unprecedented chunks have been breaking off, and I thought that meant it was melting. I dont konw too much about it, but pjc51 seems to back up my beliefs with the link to wikipedia's image with some graphs of recent sea level activities.

Now surely they could be biased, a meterstick stuck in the sand on a beach will always show sea level rising due to constant erosion of the coastline, but in essence, this is the same thing, and just as bad.

The world is changing, the exact direction is not as important as the fact that it will be quite different in a few decades time.

I look forward a few years when I've got the opportunity to buy land at a higher elevation, as well as cooler temperatures, and as much self-sufficiency as possible (renewable energies right in my yard and a nice garden).
 
2007-01-01 11:45:45 AM  
Plenty of direct measurements disagree with you there.
Did you happen to scroll down to the "holocene sea level" graph on that very same page, or did you just stay for the tinfoil hat moment?

BTW, can you tell me the CFC levels for 8k years ago?

007 to be hottest year on record due to global warming,

Didn't they also call for 2006 to be the worst hurricane season ever?
 
2007-01-01 11:53:34 AM  
Now i've heard recently that huge unprecedented chunks have been breaking off, and I thought that meant it was melting. I dont konw too much about it, but pjc51 seems to back up my beliefs with the link to wikipedia's image with some graphs of recent sea level activities.

There's some evidence (eg. this paper) suggesting that antarctic snow cover is increasing, although as I understand it the results aren't yet considered conclusive. See this article for details and links. Note that as the article says, this increase is actually predicted by current climate change models. However, it accounts for a sea level decrease of less than 1/10th of the observed increase, so we still have a problem. It's also not the case that sea level rise is the only hazard associated with increasing temperatures - for example, there are areas where glacial runoff is needed to maintain freshwater supplies during the summer dry season. If the glaciers retreat too much then there's no water supply.
 
Zel [TotalFark]
2007-01-01 11:55:47 AM  
benmecha can you tell me the CFC levels for 8k years ago?
I think there were zero man-made chemicals in the environment 8k years ago. Therefore any effect they may have is entirely new to the ecosystem. Any tiniest measurable effect made by burning coal or burning oil or manufacturing and disposing of plastics or CFC levels is ENTIRELY new to the ecosystem.


Whatever natural cyclic warming we may be entering into can only be exacerbated by our actions. We are smart enough to adapt. Eskimos and central-Africans prove that humans can adapt to any environment. There's a reason mammals outlived the dinosaurs, and Humanity will outlive whatever is going on right now too.

We just might end up speaking mandarin after the resource wars. No biggie.
 
2007-01-01 12:01:06 PM  
the uh...global warming thing...uh....it makes weather more extreme but it all averages out to something like a half a degree per century.
 
2007-01-01 12:07:49 PM  
Did you happen to scroll down to the "holocene sea level" graph on that very same page, or did you just stay for the tinfoil hat moment?

I'm well aware that sea levels were much lower on that kind of timescale, although the rate of change today is greater than any long term trend seen in the last 7.5k years according to that graph. Given that that was just before the rise of Sumer and Egypt, I think that we should still be pretty worried about the potential affect on human civilisation, with the much higher population density and all that.

I guess your point is that as natural change on that scale has happened in the past then it's possible that current change is natural too, which is a fair point. My reason for not believing that myself is that natural change would still have some mechanism to bring it about, and I haven't seen any convincing (to me) arguments as to what that mechanism might be. On the other hand, we have models for climate change which generally speaking are making pretty good predictions.

Didn't they also call for 2006 to be the worst hurricane season ever?

If you mean 'people other than you' by 'they', then quite possibly. I can't think of any climate researchers who made that prediction, but if you have any references I'd be interested.
 
2007-01-01 12:10:45 PM  
Kevin Costner will save us.
 
2007-01-01 12:12:12 PM  
pjc51: suggesting that antarctic snow cover is increasing,

I don't doubt it one bit. But why? Antarctica is the driest place in the world. They get less precipitation than ANY other continent. Why? Because for centuries it has been too cold to snow there. Dig down in the ice and snow there only a foot and you will be digging in ice that is hundreds of years old. But now they are getting snow in shocking amounts when compared to the past history of the area. Why? Because it is no longer too cold to snow.....
 
2007-01-01 12:14:52 PM  
Isn't that Spanish for something?

/Farley
 
2007-01-01 12:15:10 PM  
Peak oil is this year too so they'll offset.
 
2007-01-01 12:17:02 PM  
God Damnit! Why are you guys debating Global Warming when you should be finding pictures of a naked Scarlett Johansson for me!
 
2007-01-01 12:30:28 PM  
Stop denying it.

www.climatecrisis.net (pops)
 
2007-01-01 01:15:18 PM  
Here in Canada, its Plus 7 celcius and mild. What snow we had melted and I love it. Fark the snow, and let the icecaps melt. Dont we have famished people in Africa, here have some water.

Fark snow, bring on the Global Warming and the heat Baby!
 
2007-01-01 01:45:45 PM  
I live 10 miles from the beach!

Global Warming = Beach 1 block away!

Property values skyrocket

Profit!
 
2007-01-01 01:50:06 PM  
2006 was a candidate for worst hurricane season ever.

Not a single one.

For these people, Hurricane's are like beer.

/Nuf said
 
2007-01-01 02:09:14 PM  
pjc51: the rate of change today is greater than any long term trend seen in the last 7.5k years according to that graph.

Are you looking at the same graph as I am? I think the present is the flat part on the right. According to your first graph, the present rate is less than 2 mm per year.

I guess I'm just not seeing this unprecedented rate of change you're talking about.

I can't think of any climate researchers who made that prediction, but if you have any references I'd be interested.

May forecast: Expected Activity - 80% chance above normal, 15% chance near normal, 5% chance below normal. "The main uncertainty in this outlook is not whether the season will be above normal, but how much above normal it will be."

August update: Expected Activity - 75% chance above normal, 20% chance near normal, 5% chance below normal

The season was below normal. But you are correct, they did not call for the worst year ever.
 
2007-01-01 02:32:49 PM  
California had a deluge a couple of years ago. They freaked out, but Im from Oregon and thought it was normal. They could use the water. Everything is so dead and depressing. And I hope some of the San Joaquin fills up.
 
2007-01-01 03:02:02 PM  
www.uploadfile.info

Habla Español
 
2007-01-01 03:06:15 PM  
pjc51: Now I'm seeing what you're talking about in those graphs. I blame the hangover. So...

i46.photobucket.com
Never mind!
 
2007-01-01 03:19:53 PM  
Here in Iowa, we just had a week of near-50 degree temperatures.

All the records for that week were in the 60s and they were set back in the 1960s.

Agreeing with the "suck it, libs!" comments.
 
2007-01-01 04:02:09 PM  
The season was below normal. But you are correct, they did not call for the worst year ever.

Yeah, fair enough - it does look like the predictions weren't great in this respect. My understanding was that temperatures had been linked to storm intensity, but not frequency, although 2006 didn't really come to much in that respect either (at least not in the Atlantic). I wonder if anyone has global data, including pacific typhoons?
 
2007-01-01 05:23:48 PM  
pjc51: Yeah, fair enough - it does look like the predictions weren't great in this respect.

No, they weren't great. They were bad.

My understanding was that temperatures had been linked to storm intensity, but not frequency, although 2006 didn't really come to much in that respect either (at least not in the Atlantic).

I don't think the point is that a calm season is evidence against "global warming." I think the point is that it demonstrates that experts can be wrong, sometimes embarrassingly so. It leads some to doubt forecasts on any time scale. Right or wrong, it is a common line of reasoning.
 
2007-01-01 05:35:31 PM  
I won't discount global warming, hell I even blame that hypocrite Al Gore for owning 2 14,000+ square foot homes in the south and the large private yacht he and his wife cruised along the European coastline with.
 
2007-01-01 05:54:07 PM  
Global Warming = Scarlett Johansson nude scene?

Wait a minute while I go raise the thermostat and turn on all my electrical appliances...
 
2007-01-01 06:05:36 PM  
JudgeItoBox

Here in Iowa, we just had a week of near-50 degree temperatures.

All the records for that week were in the 60s and they were set back in the 1960s.

Agreeing with the "suck it, libs!" comments.


pblancher

Here in Canada, its Plus 7 celcius and mild. What snow we had melted and I love it. Fark the snow, and let the icecaps melt. Dont we have famished people in Africa, here have some water.

Fark snow, bring on the Global Warming and the heat Baby!


Your local climate is the average of your local weather (over at least 30 years). A week of record high or low temperatures, or record high or low precipitation, is not going to significantly affect that 30-year average.

On top of that, your local climate is not global climate. One local climate change is not going significantly effect the global average.
 
2007-01-01 06:38:16 PM  
The extreme weather claim of the global warming hoax is the worst part. It's almost like all of the enviromental extremists got together and said "hey, let's blame every major catastrophe on global warming", and they did. It's absurd, but some people will drink any koolaid offered.

Zel:

Now i've heard recently that huge unprecedented chunks have been breaking off, and I thought that meant it was melting.

Do you understand what happens when a glacier grows? It doesn't just get thicker, it expands outward. In Antarctica it expands from several inches to several meters a day. As it expands, it calves off ice bergs.

From Nature
"Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends." and "Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change."

From Science
"We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (-20.9 gigatons per year)."

Keep in mind, scientists can't accurately predict local weather more than ten days in advance, and while they're getting better at it, they still get that wrong sometimes. You don't even question that global climate models, that are based mostly on estimates, are anywhere close to accurate?

Twenty thousand years ago, North America was covered in a solid sheet of ice. Now it's not. The only thing constant about the Earth's climate is that it is in a CONSTANT state of change. There are many reasons for this, and carbon dioxide probably isn't one of them, though that is what the environmentalists love to blame this whole debacle on. Carbon dioxide makes up .028 percent of our atmosphere, less than 380 parts per million. Water vapor (yes, clouds) is the greenhouse gas that actually has an effect on temperature. Carbon Dioxide could increase by ten times and it probably wouldn't have any affect on global tempurature. In reality, CO2 has increased less than 20% over the last 100 years, while the population of the planet has almost quadrupled in that time.

I will guarantee that the climate will be different in 100, 200, 1000, 10,000 years, but no one, not scientists, not environmentalists, not even Farkers can accurately tell you what that difference will be.
 
2007-01-01 08:35:45 PM  
Bildo: Your grandchildren will appreciate not having to wear a heavy coat.

Your grandchildren will not appreciate the spread of pest species normally kept in check by cold winters.
 
2007-01-01 09:37:09 PM  
Telos: God Damnit! Why are you guys debating Global Warming when you should be finding pictures of a naked Scarlett Johansson for me!

My sentiments exactly.
 
2007-01-01 10:10:54 PM  
unto_others:

Your grandchildren will not appreciate the spread of pest species normally kept in check by cold winters.

What, you mean like mesquitos andMalaria?

Your claim is just more fearmongering from the enviro-extremists.
 
2007-01-01 10:29:10 PM  
I come here and find NO Scarlett Johansson pics?!?!


img464.imageshack.us
 
2007-01-01 10:35:34 PM  
She's legal now, right?


Woohoooo!
 
2007-01-01 10:42:11 PM  
Bildo
The people that I know that have been to Antarctica claim the glaciers are appearing to grow because they are melting. Just like a pile of shoveled snow will flatten out as it melts. The top layers are also subliming faster than before so the space based radar altimeters will show slight increases in packed ice height but the places they go to personally visit, the top of the snow pack is rising but the packed ice is at a much lower level. The dense ice is now so low in many places that it can no longer be used as a foundation for the temporary housing and they can't use some of the vehicles they used to use.
 
2007-01-01 11:53:08 PM  
Bildo: What, you mean like mesquitos and Malaria?

I was thinking more along the lines of bark beetles and termites. There are many possible pest species. There's nothing economically sound about a future where our #1 defense against those pest species (i.e. frost) does not work properly. On the malaria front, science has determined (more or less) that the spread of malaria has more to do with the tendency of those mosquitoes to feed on people rather than animals. Mosquitoes worldwide feed on people 10 to 20% of the time; mosquitoes in sub-Saharan Africa feed on humans 80 to 100% of the time.

/Fearmongering?
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report