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.

(NewsMax)   "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change... attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly"   (newsmax.com) divider line 544
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

12411 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2007 at 1:12 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



544 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-11 02:17:11 PM
I completely believe what an Electrical Engineer tells me about atmospheric conditions on Earth.

Now, if you would excuse me, I have to ask Wayne Gretsky his expert opinion on who will win the NBA title this year.
 
2007-12-11 02:17:50 PM
Crosshair: The problem is that we simply do not know enough about how the planet works to construct a reliable simulation. We are making educated guesses at everything we do as there is simply no way to run anything other than a computer model that may or may not have every factor calculated in.

BINGO!

It's a chaotic system, people. We can't predict the weather in Dubuke, Iowa next week, let alone what the fark's gonna happen in 10 years to the entire EARTH.
 
2007-12-11 02:18:09 PM
Noam Chimpsky: What Venus does is irrelevant to the fact that CO2 in the Mars atmosphere is 15X more dense than the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Where is the runaway global warming?

Venus has a similar MASS of atmosphere to Earth (more, actually).
Mars has significantly less atmosphere than Earth.

If you don't have enough atmosphere to actually hold any heat to begin with, how much CO2 happens to BE in the atmosphere is pretty much a moot point.
 
2007-12-11 02:18:29 PM
Damn, Newsmax has figured out that Global Warming is a Hoax? Well isn't that a switch. They must've found some really compelling evindence to make a 180 degree change of opinion like this. This is earth shaking, and potentially bigger news that global warming itself.

What?

They've been parroting neocon drivel all along? Newsmax? Really?

/ nevermind
// It's like worldnet daily for the nearly sane
 
2007-12-11 02:18:32 PM
atate_esq: Of course CO2 can cause a "greenhouse" effect. The real questions presently are:

Great lets first then stop these people attacking anyone from saying these things are true FIRST and then people will be able to openly debate the other aspects.

What are you doing to help inform these others that they are wrong so we can have a real discussion on what needs to be done?
 
2007-12-11 02:19:12 PM
Corvus: That's why you are called "deniers" because you refute anything that supports MGW even if its a proven scientific fact.

I've always had a problem with this label...not because I don't like being labeled, but rather, because it is the term used for truly distasteful people.

There is no law requiring the recognition of all scientific data and theories related to global warming. "Deniers" is a term of art that should be reserved for what it was originally intended to denote....people that deny the Holocaust.

The appropriation of the term by MSG supporters is fairly disgusting, but I wouldn't even mind it so much if it were reserved for people that actually deny the "given" things...like that CO2 is capable of causing global warming. Rather, it is being used liberally to describe anyone that questions anything relating to the MSG movement...without regard to the legitimacy of the question.
 
2007-12-11 02:19:38 PM
baby_hewey: I sure am glad to see Jon Snow in this thread. I been missing you buddy. Now, is in the International Journal of Climatology, which is a peer reviewed journal, and it cites other peer reviewed work as further proof of its validity. Now where is your god algore? Further more, this particular research took on the GW models and showed where they are wrong in their guesses of upper atmospheric temps, so what type of crap are you going to say about these guys? I happen to work with one of them and I have been dieing to see this hit the Fark main page.

Come on Jon, what do you say?



He already said it, and it was very very predictable:

Jon Snow: I'll just repost this from a previous thread.

It's important to know a bit of background on the authors and the particular issue here.
 
2007-12-11 02:19:38 PM
60-70's we were heading into another ice age
2000 we are heating up? Scientists know squat
 
2007-12-11 02:20:09 PM
...atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.

Haven't these guys ever gotten in a car with black plastic seats in the summer?

I hope the "demand" in the second sentence isn't in the original text. I'd wager there are some greenhouse models that don't demand any such thing.
 
2007-12-11 02:20:24 PM
NeoAnderthal: So you're saying that both sides are tainted by the source of their funding? Which was the first side to jump to any kind of a conclusion?

That's why peer-reviewing is such a big deal. The report that NewsMax is referring to is only really generating some small waves about the possible inaccuracy the IPCC's data is based on one scenario where the expected (modeled) behavior doesn't match up with the observed behavior. NewsMax is the one that is spinning he story to say that all GW is being debunked by the report.
 
2007-12-11 02:20:26 PM
Corvus and yakmans_dad

Thanks for the help.
 
2007-12-11 02:20:54 PM
Dances-With-Lobster: WHAT!? An article with a clear conservative bias gets greenlit!? On Fark!?

I blame the advertisers.
 
2007-12-11 02:21:56 PM
Sampsonhammer: 60-70's we were heading into another ice age

img117.imageshack.us

Released in 2002. They were right! :D
 
2007-12-11 02:22:03 PM
Corvus: What are you doing to help inform these others that they are wrong so we can have a real discussion on what needs to be done?

1. Since when do I have a responsibility to inform people of anything...other than the people around me? I talk about it with my friends. I demand that they know why the believe what they believe....that's all I'm going to do.

2. You pressume too much. I am not on your side, because I am not yet convinced that anything needs to be done (or better stated...that anything we do will make a meaningful difference).
 
2007-12-11 02:22:28 PM
atate_esq: Sure is too bad that all those cars on Venus ruined the planet.

Why do I think you are not being honest when you say you are against lying about science but then try say that cars are the only thing that produces CO2.

You do know that not only cars produce C02 right?

What do you make statements that you know are scientifically wrong?

Why?

Do you think only cars can produce C02? Why must you lie?

Is it you know you are wrong so the best you can do is confuse people with arguments you know to be untrue?
 
2007-12-11 02:22:29 PM
Sarcasticus: It's a chaotic system, people. We can't predict the weather in Dubuke, Iowa next week, let alone what the fark's gonna happen in 10 years to the entire EARTH.

Cool... I'm all about copping out and not doing stuff anyway.
 
2007-12-11 02:22:31 PM
Dances-With-Lobster: WHAT!? An article with a clear conservative bias gets greenlit!? On Fark!?

Maybe Drew's trying to trademark "conservative bias". ;)
 
2007-12-11 02:23:15 PM
We thin out the DEER population for a REASON.

Who do we think we are to assume Nature would treat us any different?

Bring on our ever changing Global Environment, I welcome thee in my big fat hummer.
 
2007-12-11 02:23:15 PM
IXI Jim IXI: LukeA: LukeA:
Oh, I see now. The number you cited is total atmospheric pressure, not partial pressure of CO2, making it not incorrect, but irrelevant to your context.

FTFM

Perhaps you should go back to the comment I was responding to, and see how it was, in fact, relevant.

Because, you've already corrected yourself once, you mind's well go the whole way.


I may be sick and on cold medicine, but I'm not stupid. You quoted a ratio of cardon dioxide concentration on mars to that on earth, and replied with two numbers that seemed to refute that ratio, giving no indication that the two numbers you posted describe total atmospheric density rather than CO2 concentration, leaving a sane person to assume that those two numbers were a refutation of the quoted ratio, not two numbers that describe something entirely different. Hence 'irrelevant'.
 
2007-12-11 02:23:47 PM
IXI Jim IXI: Maybe Drew's trying to trademark "conservative bias". ;)

Approves:

i232.photobucket.com

/stole it from the Buckethead thread
 
2007-12-11 02:24:14 PM
2 simulposts in one thread
 
2007-12-11 02:25:02 PM
GodLovesBeer: Bring on our ever changing Global Environment, I welcome thee in my big fat hummer.

Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well I say, hard cheese.
 
2007-12-11 02:25:39 PM
Afternoon_Delight: Fark is boring today.

And you're boring all the time, what's your point?
 
2007-12-11 02:25:49 PM
atate_esq: 1. Since when do I have a responsibility to inform people of anything...other than the people around me? I talk about it with my friends. I demand that they know why the believe what they believe....that's all I'm going to do.

Exactly you help to promote the lies that you know are untrue when they support your point.

This is why people label you as "Deniers" because according to you Global warming is NOT real and it is real and is not caused by man.

To anyone they can see that these opinion are exclusive. It is like those who believe the holocaust never happened BUT if it did it wasn't that bad.

Those are called deniers too because they have mutually exclusive positions, just like you do.
 
2007-12-11 02:26:06 PM
Well hell, I guess all I can do now to save the planet is vote Democrat. But then who will protect me from terrorists?
 
2007-12-11 02:26:37 PM
The_Gallant_Gallstone: GodLovesBeer: Bring on our ever changing Global Environment, I welcome thee in my big fat hummer.

Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well I say, hard cheese.


Quit? ...You must be confused, I think she is just getting started.
 
2007-12-11 02:27:25 PM
One of the researchers is Fred Singer. Yes, Fred Singer, where have a heard of him???.....

Oh that's right he was the guy who wrote a 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science".
He was paid $20,000 by Phillip Morris.

So the guy who got paid to make up science for tobacco companies should be trusted when he makes up science about global warming??

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me! Why do you libtards insist on questioning him???
 
2007-12-11 02:27:33 PM
Corvus: So they are now using reports the support MMGW to say it does not exist.

No they are not. They are using the reports to question the extent to which human activities are responsible.

If the bulk of the warming is actually being caused by natural forces (changes in the Sun and cyclical changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanic activity), then how much difference can we make in the warming trend by eliminating the greenhouse gases created by human activity?

If completely wiping out all man made greenhouse gases will only reduce the effect by some vanishingly small amount, then is that worth the cost?
 
2007-12-11 02:27:39 PM
LukeA: I may be sick and on cold medicine, but I'm not stupid. You quoted a ratio of cardon dioxide concentration on mars to that on earth, and replied with two numbers that seemed to refute that ratio, giving no indication that the two numbers you posted describe total atmospheric density rather than CO2 concentration, leaving a sane person to assume that those two numbers were a refutation of the quoted ratio, not two numbers that describe something entirely different. Hence 'irrelevant'.

Ok...follow along, if you can in your drug addled state.

Noam Chimpsky: Mars has 15 times the density of CO2 as Earth and no global warming. Inconvenient...that.

My response:

IXI Jim IXI: Mars atmosphere:
Surface density: ~0.020 kg/m3

Earth atmosphere:
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3


My point being that he was comparing the density of co2 in atmospheres that were of vastly different densities themselves.

Considering that a couple of other people seemed to get that point, I wouldn't be so fast to blame it on the NyQuill. ;)
 
2007-12-11 02:29:06 PM
Space_Poet: Afternoon_Delight: Fark is boring today.

And you're boring all the time, what's your point?


Zing!
 
2007-12-11 02:30:36 PM
atate_esq: If completely wiping out all man made greenhouse gases will only reduce the effect by some vanishingly small amount, then is that worth the cost?

So now you are saying it DOES exist!

I will not answer your question on what should be done about it until you admit that Global Warming DOES exist.

I will not play your denial game. Prove me wrong admit global warming DOES exist.


Why should I answer you what we should do about it if you think it is made up?
 
2007-12-11 02:31:23 PM
atate_esq: No they are not. They are using the reports to question the extent to which human activities are responsible.

Correct. They are saying the human activities DO contribute.
 
2007-12-11 02:32:35 PM
txlewis: Why do the greenies hate trees and algae?

They consume CO2, why do we want them to starve?


I don't mean to be insulting, but I think this is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read on Fark.

/I've been here a while too.
//It's not something you should be proud of. You really are stupid, so I had to be sure to point that out.
 
2007-12-11 02:32:39 PM
IXI Jim IXI: Noam Chimpsky: What Venus does is irrelevant to the fact that CO2 in the Mars atmosphere is 15X more dense than the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Where is the runaway global warming?

Venus has a similar MASS of atmosphere to Earth (more, actually).
Mars has significantly less atmosphere than Earth.

If you don't have enough atmosphere to actually hold any heat to begin with, how much CO2 happens to BE in the atmosphere is pretty much a moot point.


Mars has 15X the desity of CO2 molecules in its atmosphere as Earth does. Do you admit or deny it?

2nd question: If the atmospheric CO2 levels of Mars increased 7% from today's level, would they experience runaway global warming? Explain your answer. ( hint: a 7% increase would be like taking all of the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and putting it in Mars's atmosphere )
 
2007-12-11 02:32:57 PM
This link usually addresses the the most stupid points skeptics bring up about global warming.
 
2007-12-11 02:33:14 PM
We're going to feel awfully silly if this global warming thing turns out to just be some aliens farking around with the thermostat while their parents are away giving anal probes...
 
2007-12-11 02:33:33 PM
Corvus: Exactly you help to promote the lies that you know are untrue when they support your point.

No I don't. Calling me a liar doesn't make you right.

This is why people label you as "Deniers" because according to you Global warming is NOT real and it is real and is not caused by man.

Thanks for adding me to a group to which I do not belong. According to me, global warming is possible, CO2 can cause it and it is something we should be concerned about. In addition, numerous natural forces contribute, forces we can not control, and I wonder what percentage those forces increase the temperature.

Those are called deniers too because they have mutually exclusive positions, just like you do.

They are called deniers, because a law exists making denying the Holocaust a crime.

You're just ranting now. If you can't take the time to respond to my actual posts....as opposed to simply ranting, placing me into categories that I don't believe, and then railing against the beliefs that you've attributed to me, then stop responding to my posts.
 
2007-12-11 02:34:03 PM
Corvus: Prove me wrong admit global warming DOES exist.

Prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong...
 
2007-12-11 02:34:03 PM
IXI Jim IXI: LukeA: I may be sick and on cold medicine, but I'm not stupid. You quoted a ratio of cardon dioxide concentration on mars to that on earth, and replied with two numbers that seemed to refute that ratio, giving no indication that the two numbers you posted describe total atmospheric density rather than CO2 concentration, leaving a sane person to assume that those two numbers were a refutation of the quoted ratio, not two numbers that describe something entirely different. Hence 'irrelevant'.

Ok...follow along, if you can in your drug addled state.

Noam Chimpsky: Mars has 15 times the density of CO2 as Earth and no global warming. Inconvenient...that.

My response:

IXI Jim IXI: Mars atmosphere:
Surface density: ~0.020 kg/m3

Earth atmosphere:
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3

My point being that he was comparing the density of co2 in atmospheres that were of vastly different densities themselves.


Then you should have noted that your numbers described something different from what you implied that they described. It's not inconceivable that Mars' atmosphere could contain 15 times the concentration of CO2 as earth's. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Considering that a couple of other people seemed to get that point, I wouldn't be so fast to blame it on the NyQuill. ;)


Why? Are they all taking cold medicine, too?
 
2007-12-11 02:34:22 PM
xenophon10k: Aren't these the Exxon-funded guys who come out with variations of the same "report" every other year or so?

Yup. Gotta keep the propaganda going right?
 
2007-12-11 02:34:42 PM
Noam Chimpsky:

2nd question: If the atmospheric CO2 levels of Mars increased 7% from today's level, would they experience runaway global warming?

"They" being, of course, the little green men that live on Mars.
 
2007-12-11 02:34:45 PM
atate_esq: If the bulk of the warming is actually being caused by natural forces (changes in the Sun and cyclical changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanic activity), then how much difference can we make in the warming trend by eliminating the greenhouse gases created by human activity?

These models have been run thousands of times and all show that the current trend could not be caused by these factors.

Are you that uneducated about this subject?

In the history of the planet there has not been this fast of a climate change without some cataclysmic event.

Are you unaware of this?
 
2007-12-11 02:34:46 PM
mongbiohazard: He already said it, and it was very very predictable:

It is predictable to anyone who is familiar of the ongoing research of mid latitude tropospheric temperatures and the positions of Singer, Christy, etc.

They have done this for years-

1. Take an actual scientific question.
2. Cherry pick data on it.
3. Reach a dubious conclusion.
4. Greatly exaggerate the results while combining them with contrarian talking points.

Papers like Fu and Thorne's don't get press because they are pretty much what one expects (not really enough data to make a call) while Singer and Christy are willing to make continents out of molehills and give the media the dog and pony show it wants.

There is a legitimate issue with possible discrepancies between models and observed tropospheric temps. This has been an issue for years. It has been used for years to reject AGW by contrarians while further study has gone a long way in reconciling the observed and modeled temps. However there is not enough data to make a call

I don't object to Douglass et al's choice of topic- it is one that needs to be addressed. My problem is that it looks like the cherry picked some data that didn't fit their conclusion and that their conclusion is that the question is answered when it obviously needs further study.

On top of all of that many of their claims in TFA have for the most part nothing to do with the paper in question and they are depending on the scientifically incurious/illiterate to assume that they have published in peer-review what they are only claiming to Newsmaxx.
 
2007-12-11 02:34:56 PM
This thread is simulpost-ridden, at least for me.
 
2007-12-11 02:35:45 PM
Any report with Fred Singer's name on it is going to be bullshiat. The guy is a quack. He is a perfect example of why tenure can be the worst thing to happen to a university.
The Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at University of Virginia doesn't believe in a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. He doesn't believe in a link between CFC's and ozone depletion. He thinks that UV rays and skin cancer have nothing to do with each other. If there are factors other than CO2 that cause global warming, let's see some scientific evidence that explains the much greater RATE of change than in the past cycles.
 
2007-12-11 02:35:51 PM
atate_esq: Calling me a liar doesn't make you right.

It doesn't? There goes my secret weapon...
 
2007-12-11 02:36:25 PM
Never mind global climate change, climate changes, it has for 3.5 or so billion years.

What people need to concentrate on is that fact the pollution of any kind is bad. Stop worrying about what the climate may be in 10 years and worry more about what is happing now like the increase rates of asthma and water pollution destroy water habitat and disrupting the food chain.

People, as a group, are short sighted, only looking at the immediate future, it's in our nature (as with any other animal species). If a report comes out and says that in 50 the sea level could rise 20 ft people are like, meh, maybe we should do something, but if a report comes out saying that a chemical plant has polluting a near by lake and it's no longer safe to swim and most of the fish have died, then people stand up and take notice and demand the plant shut down, or have better pollution control placed on it. The media needs start focusing more on the problems in the hear and now and then maybe things will get done to clean up our act.
 
2007-12-11 02:36:46 PM
atate_esq: According to me, global warming is possible, CO2 can cause it and it is something we should be concerned about.

Saying "is possible" and saying "is happening" are not the same.

You can't even accept the almost unanimous scientific accepted fact that Global warming is happening.
 
2007-12-11 02:37:08 PM
Noam Chimpsky: Mars has 15X the desity of CO2 molecules in its atmosphere as Earth does. Do you admit or deny it?

Actually, from the looks of the numbers, Mars has much more than 15x, but yes, you are correct.

2nd question: If the atmospheric CO2 levels of Mars increased 7% from today's level, would they experience runaway global warming? Explain your answer. ( hint: a 7% increase would be like taking all of the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and putting it in Mars's atmosphere )


No. Because even if you doubled the amount of co2 in mars' atmosphere, the atmospheric density as a whole would be much too low to support warming.

On earth, that is not the case.
 
2007-12-11 02:38:19 PM
Noam Chimpsky: "They" being, of course, the little green men that live on Mars.

Considering they're probably suffering little green melanomas as it is, I don't think they'd mind :D
 
Displayed 50 of 544 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report