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.

(Popular Science)   Global warming alarmists change some assumptions in their computer models and claim global warming twice as great as before. With bonus spiffy color graphs   ( popsci.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11078 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2009 at 7:20 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments     (+0 »)
 


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

 
2009-05-26 07:48:24 PM  
As the earth warms, we burn less fuel to warm ourselves. It's a self-correcting system.
 
2009-05-26 07:48:46 PM  

Baryogenesis: At what point can the winning side say "I told you so!" ?


That's just it - the Global Warmists have a non-falsifiable theory on their hands. They can just continue to push out the timeline as far as they want and can never be proven wrong.
 
2009-05-26 07:49:09 PM  
defactor:
Poor poor kevin72, if only he knew the multiplier effect of greenhouse gases.


That's part of the problem, though...

The big-name predictions of global warming assumed a multiplier that's somewhere between two and ten times anything they can justify with physics or math. There's a massive amount of handwaving going on there.
 
2009-05-26 07:49:11 PM  

Brockway: Except for that inconvenient truth that even according to NOAA's own data, the temperature trend for this entire century is for COOLING (note slope on trendline equation), not warming.

But hey, why let a little thing like the, you know, actual scientific data get in the way of your religion, Chicken Little.


The entire century? All 8 years and 5 months of it? Why would you use the word "century" to describe something less than a decade?
 
2009-05-26 07:49:13 PM  
Most people aren't looking at the issue correctly. We've apparently somehow been split into alarmists and deniers. As soon as you've declared such a distinction you've completely missed the whole thing. Fact is that climate change is real, and it's been going on for billions of years, and tons of lifeforms have died because of it. Another fact is that those species were not prepared to handle the extreme changes. And neither are we. This is because we are spending all our time aruging about whose fault it is and pretending that we can somehow fix it. It is this hubris that will end us. We need to acknowledge that the global climate is changing in ways that are going to affect how future generations survive, and that's what we need to plan for. Trying to hold in our farts, or come up with graphs showing how many farts need to be contained, is not going to provide us with what our descendants will need. We'll just be a race of bloated, gassy people freezing to death.
 
2009-05-26 07:49:34 PM  

wademh: Global warming deniers remind me of creationists.


Please Jesus tell me those guys are trolling.
 
2009-05-26 07:51:06 PM  
The best way to kill your department's funding is to release findings that the financiers do not want.

Not much anti global warming money out there, I wouldn't think.
 
2009-05-26 07:51:09 PM  
but, but, but........ those MIT guys have cool looking roulette wheels to show us morans what is going to happen. It's gotta be real.
 
2009-05-26 07:51:41 PM  
Who the hell is going to believe a bunch of scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field, when the likes of the all knowing all seeing Rush Limbaugh is here to set us straight?

You "deniers" are just bat ass crazy to dismiss the evidence, just like evolution...

Here's a question for you deniers...

What if you play it safe and assume climate change is REAL, then you might actually help in solving the issue.

If you were right, we're all living in a little cleaner world! No harm done...

Its win win here you morons!

the alternative may be the end of the race, or at least a bad aweful, terrible, no good, very bad day for your great grand kids!

And these same people buy insurance???
 
2009-05-26 07:51:54 PM  
I blame declining piracy.
 
2009-05-26 07:52:29 PM  
Just remember:

Speculation about effects of global warming Science of global warming

Just want to be sure that's out there right away. It seems the deniers always like to conflate the two.
 
2009-05-26 07:52:30 PM  
Nakito
As the earth warms, we burn less fuel to warm ourselves. It's a self-correcting system.

Interesting.

All i know is that my stupid libbie teachers back in 1986 taught Global Warming as fact, because it was on the cover of Time Magazine, so it simply HAD to be true. No one questioned it.

I'm glad we question it. Also, i'll point out that every 20,000 years or so, there is an Ice Age, thus, i'd welcome our new sun overlord.
 
2009-05-26 07:52:35 PM  

Nakito: As the earth warms, we burn less fuel to warm ourselves. It's a self-correcting system.


or

Largest sources of pollution will be flooded when the polar ice caps melt.

same thing either way.
 
2009-05-26 07:53:09 PM  
Bah, filter pwned.

Should read: Speculation about effects of global warming (not equal to) science of global warming
 
2009-05-26 07:53:13 PM  

sonofagunn: Why would you use the word "century" to describe something less than a decade?


When do you think this century began, Einstein?
 
2009-05-26 07:55:03 PM  

cirby: defactor:
Poor poor kevin72, if only he knew the multiplier effect of greenhouse gases.


That's part of the problem, though...

The big-name predictions of global warming assumed a multiplier that's somewhere between two and ten times anything they can justify with physics or math. There's a massive amount of handwaving going on there.


I've heard that at least one of the models used an infite layer of green house gasses to make the math solveable. The assumption being that it will be close enough to reality so it won't matter.
 
2009-05-26 07:56:00 PM  

Sudlow: those MIT guys have cool looking roulette wheels to show us morans what is going to happen.


Good for you!

Getting over denial is the first step to recovery...
 
2009-05-26 07:56:31 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: What if you play it safe and assume climate change is REAL, then you might actually help in solving the issue.

If you were right, we're all living in a little cleaner world! No harm done...


Wow, Pascal's Wager in a Global Warming thread?

And no, it's not win-win, because in "solving" the non-existent issue you're drastically going to affect people whose lives depend on industry, like the auto makers. If you force them to move away from ICEs and to hybrids, then the management will be forced to increase automation because of the increased cost of labor on these specialized engines. That leads to an even further decline in US manufacturing and more unemployment.

And what of all the people who work mining coal? Their jobs will be gone. And transporting that coal? And converting that coal to energy in power plants? And cleaning up the residue left from the coal?

It affects real people in ways that you liberals just can't get a hold of, all for a lie.
 
2009-05-26 07:56:32 PM  
Uh-huh. Twice nothing is still nothing, you farking idiots.
 
2009-05-26 07:57:32 PM  

bberg: Baryogenesis: At what point can the winning side say "I told you so!" ?

That's just it - the Global Warmists have a non-falsifiable theory on their hands. They can just continue to push out the timeline as far as they want and can never be proven wrong.


Right....there's absolutely no evidence or computer model counter that could ever disprove the current consensus. Off the top of my head....how about glaciers growing back (ex. Mt. Kilimanjaro), or how about species that have been migrating north due to warmer weather ceasing their migrations or even reversing them or how about a few straight years of much cooler average temperatures, you know, outside of the top 25 hottest years recorded.

Any one of those would be a good start.
 
2009-05-26 07:57:44 PM  
CO2 is harmless.

/revs his SUV
//and again
///and again
 
2009-05-26 07:57:54 PM  
when we institute these crippling energy policies and all the doomsday predictions turn out to be wrong, global warming does become quite a convenient avenue for instituting socialism on and destroying the world.
 
2009-05-26 07:58:15 PM  
Government funded science says that government needs more power over people's lives and more money collected in taxes.
 
2009-05-26 07:58:31 PM  

Lenkyl: i love global warming threads. so many people think that their outrage and sharp one liners will change the views of anyone. the people that don't believe won't believe unless it actually happens. the people that do believe cannot be convinced otherwise no matter how long it takes. global warming is the leftist's second coming of christ.

there. i believe that's more than one line to exclude me from my initial statement =p


Agreed. Either you are a believer, or you're sane.
 
2009-05-26 07:58:33 PM  
img131.imageshack.us
/Excellent book BTW
 
2009-05-26 07:59:06 PM  

bberg: And no, it's not win-win, because in "solving" the non-existent issue you're drastically going to affect people whose lives depend on industry, like the auto makers.


Right, because America can never innovate new forms of energy, we are all too stupid to come up with a better solution!

BTW, where exactly did you get your doctorate in Geo-Physics?
 
2009-05-26 08:01:05 PM  

T.rex: Nakito
As the earth warms, we burn less fuel to warm ourselves. It's a self-correcting system.

Interesting.


That's not interesting. It's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard on this topic, and that's really saying something. Do you guys actually listen to yourselves? Ever?

Just remember: you're not a skeptic, you're a denier. (new window) Skeptics question claims based on evidence or lack thereof. Deniers question claims based on politics or ideology, not science.
 
2009-05-26 08:01:18 PM  
To all you global warming deniers:

Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.

I am talking *real* evidence. No crap about how Al Gore is the antichrist or carbon credits suck.

I want real scientific evidence that can be tested and falsified in a lab. I also would like to see any scientific papers that are published in a respectable scientific journal.

/not trolling
 
2009-05-26 08:01:21 PM  

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: Chicken Little is an allegory.

Petition of experts who do not believe (new window)

Fark it, blame it on global warming! (new window)


Research that petition before you claim it as proof of anything.

The "experts" are not climatologists... they most often work in non related fields. The only true requirement to sign was a Bachelors of Science. They only released how many people signed, not how many people did NOT sign out of how many they sent out. The petition is worthless.

So in other words - a bunch of people with some education in unrelated scientific fields with no background at all in climatology have signed a petition. Consider the public response in the trades if a bunch of roofers signed a petition against new complex electrical codes for city power grids. We'd disregard it. As we should with this.
 
2009-05-26 08:01:33 PM  

SlothB77: when we institute these crippling energy policies and all the doomsday predictions turn out to be wrong, global warming does become quite a convenient avenue for instituting socialism on and destroying the world.


I see a future in which *we* all work in call centers for pennies an hour while India designs and builds useful products for a high wage.
 
2009-05-26 08:01:33 PM  
You deniers are standing in the way of trillions of unregulated dollars that can be scammed in the 'carbon economy'.

/stop it.
//step aside.
///pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
 
2009-05-26 08:01:50 PM  

Baryogenesis: how about a few straight years of much cooler average temperatures, you know, outside of the top 25 hottest years recorded.


I've bolded the important part. How do we know that ice on the poles is how the planet is "supposed" to be? Just because it's all we've known doesn't make it "normal". Maybe we're not supposed to live near the equator because of its extreme temperature. Maybe that's why the majority of the land mass is above or below the tropics.

Look at Brockway's chart of this century. That's a pretty damn flat line right there, telling me that the NOAA data has flattened out and warming is no longer an issue.

Now, if we continue mucking about we could bring about another ice age if we keep reducing the temperature.
 
2009-05-26 08:03:39 PM  
If you believe that then I have a Higgs particle for sale to you.
 
2009-05-26 08:03:44 PM  
karmachameleon: It's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard on this topic, and that's really saying something.

Well of course it was. Score!
 
2009-05-26 08:03:46 PM  

mellon101: Not much anti global warming money out there, I wouldn't think.


Certainly not! Oil, gas, and coal companies have absolutely NO vested interest in the status quo.

I hate to compare climate change skeptics to alchemists or phrenologists, but I don't see a lot of grant money awarded to those people either.

I'm sick of the assumption that the vast majority of scientists go where the money is (as if scientists made big money anyway) and just give results that their financier wants.
 
rpm
2009-05-26 08:04:16 PM  
documentary?

ecx.images-amazon.com

/Hot, like global warming
 
2009-05-26 08:04:38 PM  
Global Warming has lost it's cool... ecoweenies are being made fun of regularly.

But they have to ratchet up the fear now....keep them checks coming in from the do-gooders.

Suckers.........
 
2009-05-26 08:04:51 PM  

rikkitikkitavi: Either you are a believer, or you're sane.


Fine. Show us the science that disproves anthropogenic global warming. I mean, that's not so hard, is it? That's how science works - show us the work that's been done that shows the theory of anthropogenic global warming is wrong, and it'll be accepted, I guarantee it. The theory will be discarded.

Show us that work. Show us. Please, get it over with. I'm waiting.
 
2009-05-26 08:05:38 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: Right, because America can never innovate new forms of energy, we are all too stupid to come up with a better solution!

BTW, where exactly did you get your doctorate in Geo-Physics?


The Ohio State University, and it was Engineering Physics, not Geo-Physics.

And since you totally missed the point, what I'm saying is that our economy is on the brink of a huge global disaster right now. Our economic house is on fire and you're worried that the grass out back might someday give somebody allergies. We've got to deal with the economy first, and that means no change in the status quo.

Big, coal burning power plants and gas-guzzling SUVs are what we need to get back on track. Then, 50, 100, 200 years down the line (when still nothing bad has happened from this shamockery they call "global warming") we can start cleaning things up.
 
2009-05-26 08:05:56 PM  
img18.imageshack.us
 
rpm
2009-05-26 08:05:57 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.


Logic, you fail.

Positive statement, you provide the proof.
 
2009-05-26 08:06:16 PM  

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: Petition of experts who do not believe


If they're experts, they should be able to publish their evidence against it in scientific journals. Especially since being an expert in a scientific field typically means that you publish articles in that field. I wonder what surveys of published articles and publishing scientists (redundant, I know) would say?

Survey of published articles:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the [IPCC] position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Survey of published Earth scientists [PDF]:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
...
Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered "risen" to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
 
2009-05-26 08:06:26 PM  

Brockway: sonofagunn: Why would you use the word "century" to describe something less than a decade?

When do you think this century began, Einstein?


Anyone have the "Obvious troll is obvious" image handy?
 
2009-05-26 08:07:29 PM  

The Madd Man: make me some tea: Boy, those MIT nerds are stupid. Everyone with half a brain knows that global warming is a lie.

Yes, but what do the people with a whole brain think?


Ah, very good.

+1 internet for you.
 
2009-05-26 08:07:46 PM  
It calls for subsidies to help people deal with the higher energy costs while it is 17% reduction in emissions over 15 years. The only Winner here is the Energy Companies who will reap profits from the higher energy prices they charge you.
 
2009-05-26 08:08:03 PM  

chimp_ninja: Of course, this being Fark, this will soon degenerate into general attacks on the efficacy of science, such as:

Spitzer wannabe: Your days are numbered, the truth is on the internet. Keep your peer reviewed publications. I prefer mass media AND the truth

nicksteel: "Creationists read the bible and Jon Snow reads scientific magazines, what is the difference?"


Neither know we have no working global climate model? So our predictions are... crapola. Evidence says its getting hotter. Without a good model we cannot accuratly determine WHEN the warming period began. Let alone its causes or probable intensity. I fully admit it COULD be carbon dioxide in the air. But I also fully admit I DO NOT HAVE A SOLID CLIMATE MODEL. I couldn't tell you why the 11th century warm/cold freakout happened, and neither can anyone else. Theroy's abound, but there is JUST as much evidence for sunspots causing global warming as there is for CO2, the sad sad thing is, without a working model in formula we CANNOT get it on with the prediction, just observation and guessing. Just for eg, there is still a debate with some at NASA as to HOW to calculate the total volume of earths atmosphere, that data is critical to determining Co2, Volcanic Action, Sunspots, or any of the many other theroys is correct. Scince they all point to increasing temps Earth just getting hotter doesnt prove any of them. CO2 and Temp does not have a 1:1 relationship in any graph beyond 1000s of years. Furthermore if you are looking at a climate graph of a planet and your graph is only a few 100yrs, you better know that is like 1/100th of a SINGLE frame from a whole movie. You seriously can tell how a movie is going to end from a 100th of a frame? If the climate graph you're looking at isnt in 1000s of yrs Its worthless. We only have SOLID climate data from last few 100 yrs or so, but we can still get a good idea what temps were before that by averaging observations and looking at other observed indicators (no and length of growing seasons have been recorded scince oldschool Egypt) This is how you should look at global climate. You will notice it has been getting warmer, you will also notice just a little while ago it was even warmer than it was now, that spike is the medieval warm spell, it made greenland green and marked a time in the UK where there was only a few days of the winter where you needed a fire and shelter. The world did not end in this heat, the oceans were not purged of life, every frog did not drop dead. The best part is, nobody is really sure WHY that warm spell happened or why it snapped so cold afterwards. That little lesson from earths climate history should put some perspective on this madness. Oh and lets not forget, the evidence CLEARLY shows, Earth is getting warmer right now. I contend we do not understand the mechanics of Global climate enough to make ANY guesses at all, our guesses are actually destructive at this point much like the "global cooling" idiot in the 70s still causes issues today. Our current global climate science is just NOW getting to the point where its more accurate in its predictions than farmers almanacs and chicken entrails. We NEED a real WORKING global climate model, even one that worked a few yrs in advance with at least 75% accuracy would show that we had at least merged the new understandings of water torsion formulas with old global ocean datas. Which we have not done yet, even though the revelations about water torsion formula were made years ago. (Those discoveries are perhaps the secret to making a computer model of earths oceans BTW)

the predications are crap, the media presentation of this very serious issue is crap, and the term Global Warming is crap. It needs to be shiatcanned and replaced with "Global Climate Disruption", once we give this problem its REAL name maybe we can start getting to work on it instead of running around like chickens with our heads chopped off ignoring freshwater pollution and massive global starvation.

Oh and lets not forget, when the climate rapidly altered last time, it pretty much farkED Africa TO DEATH. The Nile shrank 50% in a very short time, too short a time for people to adapt grazing rites. So war and famine destroyed pretty much the whole farking place. Climate change can ruin your civilization as sure as it did to the river people of the Indus.
 
2009-05-26 08:08:23 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.


Do you mean that temperatures don't go up or that CO2 doesn't drive temperature? The later is rather sensible to anyone who isn't religious about the subject and calls people who don't believe as they do 'deniers'. But that requires knowing things like correlation != causation and how to read graphs and know that computer models are only as good as their assumptions.

Some people even think we are heading towards an ice-age driven by reduced solar activity and other factors: http://www.iceagenow.com/ they've got a pretty good list compiled.
 
2009-05-26 08:08:43 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: wademh: Global warming deniers remind me of creationists.

Please Jesus tell me those guys are trolling.


It is from the onion
 
2009-05-26 08:08:49 PM  

Kevin72: To Jon Snow, the sun, the sun, the sun. The sun influences all climate infinitely more than man can. Carbon taxes and carbon credits will not change the sun's mind any more than sacrificing your firstborn.


Irradiation. Congradulations. Now discuss Earth's albedo respective to absorption, conduction, convection, heat capacity, atmospheric gases (especially H2O dynamics) and black body radiation.
 
2009-05-26 08:09:07 PM  
All these global warming scientists just make up stuff to get their pictures in Popular Science. It's a big scam.
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments


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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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