Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-16 01:45:30 PM:

To his credit he seems to have stopped the outright lying this thread.

I love that I come into these threads, and post the actual climate "scientists" data straight from their own website and give the URL citation, and yet somehow I might be lying.

/LOLZ!

Zafler, thanks for the article.

I see in the comments there are plenty of points made for and against the article.

They could focus on the more obvious problem of Earth's polluted waters.

szyska: Damnhippyfreak: szyska: I believe we should use what resources we have wisely but the planet is going to change no matter what humans do. The planet is not static, it's in constant change. Even if we lived in cities that floated in orbit, recycled everything, took nothing from the planet and we still saw climate change, we'd think, "Oh my god, what did we do?".


Be careful not to construct a strawman here. Nobody has been claiming that climate is static. The claim seems even more ridiculous when one looks at the body of work already done to catalogue past changes in the first place.

What is of concern is the rate of change.

Has any one been around long enough to know what the "normal" rate of climate change is? We'd have to stop all man made CO2... etc. going out for a long time to see what's what.

I'm asking that if we backed away from fossil fuels, put nuclear back on the table, as a whole went green and recycled everything would we still be screwed because of naturaly caused climate change? It seems to me that everybody screaming, "We're all gonna die" has some sort of vested interst in keeping the climate going. It looks like those are sounding the alarm bells are being paid to ring loud and often. Where would all these enviromental groups go it if was found out that the plant is doing just fine?


You bring up some good points. First off, you're quite right in that people, or at least scientists, haven't been around all that long. What is used to infer past climate conditions is various proxies - I think ice cores have already mentioned in this thread. Paleoclimatology does exist as a field.

Now, as for your "would we still be screwed" question, all I can say is that any amount of change is going to require adaptation. But a rate of change not radically affected by ACC is going to be easier - whether we're screwed or not, as always, depends on what we do. When I say "easier", it's especially important to consider the concern that the response to forcing is most likely non-linear - there may exist a so-called "tipping point".

As for your concern about environmental groups, be aware that the scientific basis for ACC isn't being researched or presented by them. Be aware of that difference. Second, there are plenty of other concerns besides ACC to worry about, from the collapse of much of the world's fisheries to habitat and biodiversity loss, to persistent organic pollutants - there's other things that should be on our slate as well as climate change. And third, if one can accuse people in environmental NGOs of anything, it's not being in it for the money. Believe me.

Pxtl: Only Brockway can produce graphs that completely refute his own conclusions and not realize it.

Brockway's a gimmick to make global warming deniers look like morons.


/right?

AlGore will not tolerate this dissension.

make me some tea: Pxtl: Besides the fact that a lot of green products (ie batteries) require some pretty severe chemical stuff to happen.

Fighting CO2 output is not always synonymous with environmental protection.

Indeed, the manufacture of solar panels creates quite a bit of toxic waste.

I'd love to learn more about this toxic waste solar panels create.

The most detailed story I've read came from a March 2008 article from the Washington Post about silicon tetrachloride dumping in China. The 'problem' with that article is that silicon tetrachloride is a feedstock for the manufacture, not a byproduct.

I read this explanation from a silicon manufacturer.

"At high temperatures with the addition of H2, STC decomposes to high purity polysilicon and HCl which is recycled to create more STC. When exposed to oxygen and water, STC breaks down into Silica and HCl. The HCl is what makes the soil acidic and causes lung damage if inhaled. STC is never intentionally dumped as it is the valuable feedstock for the process.

What can happen is that STC is released in an aborted batch of polysilicon production. This is extremely rare in North American and European plants because safety systems will contain releases. It sounds like the plants in China are operating without such safety systems."

Most PV silicon in the world is mined in Washington State by REC, at sites where 100% of the electricity is powered by hydro. Link (new window) That material is made into silicon wafers at hydro powered facilities in Norway or Quebec Canada, then shipped to final manufacturers around the world. Other than the transportation costs, the manufacture seems quite clean to me and I don't think Canada or Norway have lax pollution standards.

attackingpencil Why are there no ethical climatologists publishing about the "myth" of global warming?

Maybe it's because they are branded as "unethical" because of the content of their findings.

attackingpencil 2009-03-16 01:58:50 PM:

Why are there no ethical climatologists publishing about the "myth" of global warming?

Dude, just look at the NOAA data. It shows present cooling, not present warming. It is as if you expect a need for some "ethical" climatologist, when in fact, just take the word of ALL the climatologists. Their data show present cooling.

Brockway: Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-16 01:45:30 PM:

To his credit he seems to have stopped the outright lying this thread.

I love that I come into these threads, and post the actual climate "scientists" data straight from their own website and give the URL citation, and yet somehow I might be lying.

/LOLZ!


Hence the word "stopped". But for the umpteenth time, there is a difference between quoting data and cherry-picking part of it, ignoring the rest, and doing shoddy analysis on the rest. I would consider the latter dishonest, and apparently I'm not alone. However, if you're claiming that all you're doing is quoting data, then you are lying - and the fact that the difference between data and analysis has been pointed out to you repeatedly lends credence to that assertion.

Donald_McRonald 2009-03-16 02:04:09 PM :

Brockway's a gimmick to make global warming deniers look like morons.

Well, since I am posting NOAA figures right from their own website, I guess you can include NOAA in the deniers camp.

MFL: attackingpencil Why are there no ethical climatologists publishing about the "myth" of global warming?

Maybe it's because they are branded as "unethical" because of the content of their findings.

So, an ethical scientist would refuse to publish date contrary to the mainstream scientific consensus out of fear of being called names? Instead, what?, they'd just fake the data in their studies (I mean they can't not publish, or else you lose your job generally)? That's not very ethical.

Damnhippyfreak: Hence the word "stopped". But for the umpteenth time, there is a difference between quoting data and cherry-picking part of it, ignoring the rest, and doing shoddy analysis on the rest. I would consider the latter dishonest, and apparently I'm not alone. However, if you're claiming that all you're doing is quoting data, then you are lying - and the fact that the difference between data and analysis has been pointed out to you repeatedly lends credence to that assertion.

Lends credence to my assertion, you mean.

Brockway: Well, since I am posting NOAA figures right from their own website, I guess you can include NOAA in the deniers camp.

I'm not biting. You've taken this gimmick as far as it can go.

Seriously guys, there's a way hugier problemz than teh warmingz, the interwebz! Does anyone have any serial clue as to how many 1s and 0s there are I drawled a graph and used a predictive modulator to show you guys how many 1/0s have been stored in Cyberspace over the past 100,000,000,000,000,000 years and I'M SUPER SERIAL! There has been a recent spike. Most of it is coming from the United States cuz they're evilz and refuse to explore alternatives to 1/0s. Please help me fight these rich bastards who are going to cause the earth to implode on itself by overloading it with so much data! Please feel free to donate to my cause, with a few dollars you can offset your 1/0s and test your 1/0 footprint on my new website I built.

I encourage all of you to use civil disobediance so I can hopefully get a Nobel Peace Prize and some emmies after I read a bunch of crap I writez about it

No Body is listening to me! You Guys I'm super Serial!

Donald_McRonald: Lends credence to my assertion, you mean.

Whoops. Quite right, and thanks.

Subby: "Me no like book words. Hit hed with rok. Yay! Rok!"

Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-16 02:07:45 PM

Hence the word "stopped".

False premise. I never started.


But for the umpteenth time, there is a difference between quoting data and cherry-picking part of it, ignoring the rest, and doing shoddy analysis on the rest.

Cherrypicking? For the brazilionth time, Einstein, it is ALL that is to say exactly 100% of the data that is from this century.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand, oh wait, I do...anyway....the other data, as you describe it is from last century and the century before last.

Again, nobody is saying that the world NEVER warmed. The question is whether it is STILL happening, and you don't get a good measure of what's happening now by comparing to the FARKing century before last. It is cooling NOW, that's why 2008 was cooler than 1998.

2008 wasn't the coolest year this century because it keeps getting warmer.

So here is a summary for all you Chicken Littles:

When the temperature goes DOWN over time, that's called cooling, not warming.

Damnhippyfreak: Donald_McRonald: Lends credence to my assertion, you mean.

Whoops. Quite right, and thanks.

Actually, that whole comment of mine wasn't as clear as I thought - time for lunch.

HeartBurnKid: FTFA:



You know, I'm not so sure this is a fair and unbiased source.

HAHA! There's no way I'm clicking the link to TFA now. Not supporting the ad revenue of retards. Not yours.

/Based on the above pic, what do neo-Cons and teh Ayrabs have in common?
//Death to America!

StarlingFive: Zafler: It is basic highschool level chemistry and physics.

You have to factor in that a high school education isn't exactly widespread in some parts of our nation. Even the ones that get the ticket forget everything they know asap.

I have problems explaining the whole thing to these people, mostly I just give up and talk to someone who can hold a conversation without shouting about sky monsters. Grandparents, however, take a bit of finesse. You cant tell them to shove off - and you cant let them keep being stupid about it either.

Two things I always mention when it comes to "climate talk":
1: We all know what happens if you sit in a running car inside a closed garage, right? The planet is a lot like that garage, it just takes longer to fill up with noxious fumes and
2. It took MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of years before the planet was "livable" by human standards, a big reason being carbon removal from the atmosphere due to natural oil deposits, fossils and swamps/marshes. We have been digging that stuff up and burning it for close to 150 years now and we're RUNNING OUT! What took the earth millenia to store, we've released in less than 200 years. Logically, we are impacting the planet's balance.

/Even grandpa should be able to grasp that

Brockway: Cherrypicking? For the brazilionth time, Einstein, it is ALL that is to say exactly 100% of the data that is from this century.


And what you refuse to provide is a justification of why you believe that a span of ~8 years means "now" in terms of climate (when ~30 years is the accepted norm to account for variability), or why 2001 is an meaningful time to start besides any other year, or a justification for simply ignoring the rest of the data set.

You have provided none of these. Your choice is arbitrary, and has more to do with your preconceived notions than any sort of physical basis.

The climate does not really care about what "century" it is under the Gregorian calendar.

make me some tea: MFL: Have any of you noticed the libs don't call it "Global Warming" anymore. It's now "Climate Change".

So the "crisis" lives on no matter wtf happens.

Theories tend to evolve as more facts are acquired? Oh wait, I said evolution, never mind.

Enjoy your neverending Global War on Terror.

I thought Obama changed the name to Regional battle of dissenters?

In all seriousness, not a believer in global warming/climate change. Just seems like when predictions are portrayed as facts, then the predictions are wrong, these scientists shout out "That proves our point!!!" Seriously WTF?

That being said, I have no problem with researching alternative energy, but not to the point where our economy takes it in the ass because of it, or the greens force us into these before they are ready and cost effective. It will be cost effective and very cool in about 10-20 years. Until then, please make them efficient. I am on board, just please don't jam your theories and your not ready for prime time technology down my throat...I cannot afford it.

Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-16 02:24:15 PM:

And what you refuse to provide is a justification of why you believe that a span of ~8 years means "now" in terms of climate (when ~30 years is the accepted norm to account for variability arbitrarily selected length of time to best make the fearmongering case from the data), or why 2001 is an meaningful time to start besides any other year, or a justification for simply ignoring the rest of the data set.

FTFY

Brockway/Bevets OTP

/Someone alert the slashfic writers.

Why is there such frothing for Nuclear? You know if a plant was to be placed in most of these people pushing so hard for it, would throw a fit or move. But only after lobbying hard for it and screwing the people that couldn't afford to move. Then there are the security threats that will increase and the lowering of property values from the perception of nuclear capability.
Now I am for Nuclear power to be used for space applications, but I don't want to have to pay more in taxes to guard and secure waste as well as pay for the electricity.
We have GeoThermal, Solar, Wind, Thermal Exchange, Wave, Hydro-Electric, bio-energy (from trash dumps) currently and they do not have to have the security and safety concerns for the waste. And when we finally get the technology cheap enough to capture the vibrations from our movements (buried in Streets and sidewalks) we'll get even better energy. Also, if we take the lead in these technologies, we can sell it for profit to others.

fudgefactor7: "I believe that global warming is mostly a bunch of paranoid bullshiat"

As opposed to believing that it's a communist conspiracy? That would be less paranoid?

Lee Jackson Beauregard: If 1998 hadn't been the outlier that it was, you right-wing denialist bullschitters would have to make it up.

'08 looks like a pretty far-off outlier too on that graph, assuming '08 is the last bar.

Lee Jackson Beauregard 2009-03-16 02:33:23 PM

If 1998 hadn't been the outlier that it was, you right-wing denialist bullschitters would have to make it up.

Lee Jackson Beauregard 1999-03-16 02:33:23 PM

This last year was a sign of things to come. This is just the beginning. It's only gonna get hotter from here.

I love how 1998 was the new normal to Chicken Little in 1998, but now it's an "outlier", to be discounted from data. What a difference a decade makes, huh, Chicken Little?

/RUN from the data, Chicken Little
//LOLZ!

Why is this wingnut crap even appearing on Fark?

itazurakko: vartian: Well, people could stop having so many children. Zero population growth is still a damn good idea and would do wonders for the environment.

Problem is, that conflicts directly with "be fruitful and multiply," the original mandate from God himself. Children are a blessing and you should have as many as you can.

Similarly, ideas that we humans can affect the climate or the planet or the future of the Earth or whatever it is, go against God, God provided the Earth and put it under the dominion of Man and we are to use it for industry, if it (and we) are saved or not is fully up to God alone, to say otherwise is to deny His authority.

/or so it goes

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it."

Pxtl 2009-03-16 02:35:51 PM :

'08 looks like a pretty far-off outlier too on that graph, assuming '08 is the last bar.

Yeah, let's get rid of that, too. By golly, let's just get rid of all the data we don't like. If the data don't fit, we'll MAKE IT fit!

attackingpencil: "So, my question is this: Why, anyone who doesn't believe that in global warming caused by humans, is this the case? Why are there no ethical climatologists publishing about the "myth" of global warming?"

Well, this fellow isn't denying global warming, but he avers that his models show all the global temperature fluctuations of the last 100 years were natural:

Earth's climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat. "This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one." Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate. In 1997 and 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean warmed rapidly in what Swanson called a "super El Nino event." It sent a shock wave through the oceans and atmosphere, jarring their circulation patterns into unison. How does this square with temperature records from 2005-2007, by some measurements among the warmest years on record? When added up with the other four years since 2001, Swanson said the overall trend is flat, even though temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees Centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time. The discrepancy gets to the heart of one of the toughest problems in climate science - identifying the difference between natural variability (like the occasional March snow storm) from human-induced change.

But just what's causing the cooling is a mystery. (new window)

Some perspective....the last 2 billion years

However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.

Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs. (new window)

I_C_Weener: Remember when we were kids and you heard of the families with 5, 6, 7, 8 or more kids? Well, you don't get that much anymore.

I just spent the weekend in Salt Lake City so I'm amused by your reply...

JimBobMcClan: "We have GeoThermal, Solar, Wind, Thermal Exchange, Wave, Hydro-Electric, bio-energy (from trash dumps) currently and they do not have to have the security and safety concerns for the waste. And when we finally get the technology cheap enough to capture the vibrations from our movements (buried in Streets and sidewalks) we'll get even better energy. Also, if we take the lead in these technologies, we can sell it for profit to others."

People who favor the renewable-only approach have rarely looked into how weak these sources really are. We don't "have" them, we understand how to build them. They aren't a given until we build them, and you'd have to build an awful lot of solar/hydro/geo plants to satisfy the same energy requirements that could be met with a single sizable nuke reactor.

Keep in mind, you can't build renewable energy facilities just anywhere. There are only a few places you could build effective geothermal plants, only so many dams you could build hydro facilities into, only so many places in the country where solar plants would make sense. Nuclear works anywhere.

Moreover, unlike this imaginary preexisting network of renewable energy facilities, we're already paid for and begun the construction of the nuclear waste disposal infrastructure, with Yucca mountain as the central repository.

If we went full nuclear, there's enough fissible material mined, refined and ready to use for the entire nation to continue along its current exponential energy usage path for several decades, and if you combine that with known veins of ore waiting to be mined, that expands to several centuries.

I favor a mixed approach. Renewables where they're appropriate, nuclear where they aren't.

Brockway: Pxtl 2009-03-16 02:35:51 PM :

'08 looks like a pretty far-off outlier too on that graph, assuming '08 is the last bar.

Yeah, let's get rid of that, too. By golly, let's just get rid of all the data we don't like. If the data don't fit, we'll MAKE IT fit!

If you look at the curves, it's obvious that they take the outliers into account. By "outlier" we mean "not a good example of a typical year" where "typical" means something close to the trend-lines. The outliers are still treated as legitimate data, but they're data that is jittery and far away from other samples that surround it, indicating that something strange happened at that point, so they shouldn't be treated as a good example when talking about a single data point... but they ARE used in the analysis, not thrown out.

You're an idiot.

Ye gods, I love a good flame thread. Glad I was passing by.

Brockway: arbitrarily selected length of time to best make the fearmongering case from the data)

And Brockway proves why he's either a moron or an outright troll.

Tell ya what, bunky. You go ahead and show me, cut and paste, make a graph, whatever you need, that you understand the reasons why a 30 year range is used, and I'll stop outright laughing at you.

You can do whatever you want after that, Sparky. "Disprove" why they use a 30 year data set, come up with whatever magical sparkling Truthier conspiracy you're sure is 'The Facts'. But until you can detail the basic reasoning behind the concept, your interpretation of it doesn't mean shiat. And you know what? I bet you can't. Even with only a few years of early college science classes that only went into it as an example of statistical relevance I could give you the basic gist of it, but you really don't care about facts in any way shape or form, do you?

You're a sad little man, Cubby. Either an elaborate joke that even Kaufman would roll his eyes at, or a deluded crusader tilting at windmills. And not even because you see the windmills as monsters, or some other noble delusion, but because you're so stupid you're worried they'll blow your house down.

Your understanding of the subjects on which you speak is laughable at best, and your 'analysis' based on your utterly contemptible understanding worth far less than that. Face it, Tiger, even if it turns out that the current models are entirely wrong, you'll still be an absolute idiot. I'm sure there are plenty of other idiots who join you in crowing about your 'great victory', but at the end of the day, I want you to understand one thing, Sport. You're an idiot. If, by the grace of a kind god, you end up being correct that climate change is all a myth, some fantastical boogeyman designed to destroy the world economy and eat good capitalist children, it will have been *ENTIRELY* by accident that you were correct. It will have no more relevance to anything you said than if a blind monkey flung it's crap at a typewriter and managed to bang out the exact drivel.

NOTHING you have ever said has come close to actually being relevant, useful, or even connected to reality. Your *entire* history of discourse is as factually based as the typical wacky morning zoo DJ's winter pronouncement of "Cold out, eh? How about that global warming? hyuck hyuck hyuck." I could only have *less* respect for your ability to coherently interpret and analyze information if after every post you made someone played a HI-larious flushing sound effect, followed by a slow Waa-waa-waa horn.

Scooter, I'm thinking this may have all been too complex for you. So let me 'boil it down' for you. I'd make a graph, but I'm honestly not sure it would help. Simply put, you either have no idea and are spouting bullshiat, or you're a crank and a troll and are spouting bullshiat. Either way if I were a better man you would be deserving of my pity, but as things remain I can offer only my disdain.

LowbrowDeluxe: Brockway: arbitrarily selected length of time to best make the fearmongering case from the data)

And Brockway proves why he's either a moron or an outright troll.

Tell ya what, bunky. You go ahead and show me, cut and paste, make a graph, whatever you need, that you understand the reasons why a 30 year range is used, and I'll stop outright laughing at you.

You can do whatever you want after that, Sparky. "Disprove" why they use a 30 year data set, come up with whatever magical sparkling Truthier conspiracy you're sure is 'The Facts'. But until you can detail the basic reasoning behind the concept, your interpretation of it doesn't mean shiat. And you know what? I bet you can't. Even with only a few years of early college science classes that only went into it as an example of statistical relevance I could give you the basic gist of it, but you really don't care about facts in any way shape or form, do you?

You're a sad little man, Cubby. Either an elaborate joke that even Kaufman would roll his eyes at, or a deluded crusader tilting at windmills. And not even because you see the windmills as monsters, or some other noble delusion, but because you're so stupid you're worried they'll blow your house down.

Your understanding of the subjects on which you speak is laughable at best, and your 'analysis' based on your utterly contemptible understanding worth far less than that. Face it, Tiger, even if it turns out that the current models are entirely wrong, you'll still be an absolute idiot. I'm sure there are plenty of other idiots who join you in crowing about your 'great victory', but at the end of the day, I want you to understand one thing, Sport. You're an idiot. If, by the grace of a kind god, you end up being correct that climate change is all a myth, some fantastical boogeyman designed to destroy the world economy and eat good capitalist children, it will have been *ENTIRELY* by accident that you were correct. It will have no more relevance to anything you said than if a blind monkey flung it's crap at a typewriter and managed to bang out the exact drivel.

NOTHING you have ever said has come close to actually being relevant, useful, or even connected to reality. Your *entire* history of discourse is as factually based as the typical wacky morning zoo DJ's winter pronouncement of "Cold out, eh? How about that global warming? hyuck hyuck hyuck." I could only have *less* respect for your ability to coherently interpret and analyze information if after every post you made someone played a HI-larious flushing sound effect, followed by a slow Waa-waa-waa horn.

Scooter, I'm thinking this may have all been too complex for you. So let me 'boil it down' for you. I'd make a graph, but I'm honestly not sure it would help. Simply put, you either have no idea and are spouting bullshiat, or you're a crank and a troll and are spouting bullshiat. Either way if I were a better man you would be deserving of my pity, but as things remain I can offer only my disdain.

Does it make one bit of difference how many years are used?? You use this argument as a way to avoid dealing with the truth - man made global warming is a farce.

How many years of data would you like, douche bag??