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.

(azfamily.com)   Could somebody please explain to me how this global warming is supposed to work again because there's currently a blizzard watch for southern Arizona   (azfamily.com) divider line 533
    More: Strange, Adobe Flash Player, blizzard watch, storms, snow, rains, floods, free downloads  
•       •       •

8055 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2010 at 3:39 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



533 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-20 06:24:57 PM
dwh1963: And what is the ideal temperature range of the planet which allows humans to continue to flourish?

That's the real question. Again, the planet will "survive" no matter what.
 
2010-01-20 06:27:05 PM
FlashHarry: congratulations, subtard - you're today's winner of the "i don't know the difference between weather and climate" douchebag award!

www.scottiescanvas.com

I think this award is more appropriate for subby for fishing you all in with such an obvious headline.
 
2010-01-20 06:27:24 PM
Nocens: dwh1963: j0ndas: Even radical environmentalists are shifting their language now from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", because it's so ridiculously obvious the Earth is cooling now and they were just fudging the numbers to cover it up. It's all a big scam run by people who want to use environmentalism rather than terrorism to scare the masses into submission.

This.

No, it's young morons who want to latch onto causes. Save threes, save the whales, save the dolphins, etc... Just a few of the young dumb full of cumulative movements I'be seen pass through. Don't see them much anymore. All too busy trying to pay an ARM and three kids. The animals were worthy. You can landfills of millions of plastic bags on the tree huggers.


They're a part of it, sure. But the leadership is using it to promote greater control over individual lives.

Every AGW solution involves massive wealth transfer. Control and socialism are the goals of the leadership. The tree-hugging douchebags who latch on because it's trendy and it makes them feel good are just lemmings.
 
2010-01-20 06:28:24 PM
img691.imageshack.us
 
2010-01-20 06:28:34 PM
tommygunner: Why is it when someone says "its cold here" all the pro climate people talk about how climate change is not about the "local" weather, but when they make a statement they are showing pictures of some glacier somewhere melting? My question is - isn't the melting of the glacier "local" to that area so there for I should not worry because it isn't affecting the climate?

That's different. Somehow. It just is.

You racist!
 
2010-01-20 06:31:10 PM
Dumb as a submitter can be, it still takes a fark admin to greenlight this crap.

The buck stops there, so if you wanna blame anyone, blame them.
 
2010-01-20 06:32:01 PM
Lettuce Pray: !. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

2. The more of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, the more temperatures go up.

3. Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

4. We have been burning more and more fossil fuels since the industrial revolution leading to increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which in turn leads to man made global climate change.

Climate change deniers,

Please refute any of the above points.

If you can't, STFU.


1. Carbon dioxide is but one of more than twenty "greenhouse gases". The single largest contributor is water vapor, which (according to wikipedia)

water vapor, which contributes 36-72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9-26%
methane, which contributes 4-9%
ozone, which contributes 3-7%

If you want to stop global warming, we need to reduce water vapor first, then go after Carbon Dioxide.

2. The greenhouse effect is a single "forcing" factor that may result from increased carbon dioxide. There are hundreds of other factors at work.

3. Burning fossil fuels doesn't "create" carbon dioxide, it merely releases it into the atmosphere. We can already burn fossil fuels and store the released carbon dioxide in the oceans or the ground.

4. Volcanoes (especially undersea volcanoes) have released much more carbon dioxide than all man made sources combined. Hint: the volcanoes have been around a very long time.
 
2010-01-20 06:32:37 PM
dwh1963: Every AGW solution involves massive wealth transfer. Control and socialism are the goals of the leadership.

Then protest against that. Spouting ridiculous, illogical talking points makes you sound like:

...tree-hugging douchebags who latch on because it's trendy and it makes them feel good...

(not saying "you" specifically since I haven't read all your posts)
 
2010-01-20 06:33:06 PM
Thray: stewmadness: I do not feel that something we all exhale with every breath can be classified as dangerous to the environment.shiat man didn't you ever watch Apollo 13?

.038% (atmospheric concentration of CO2) is somewhat less than 5% (directly toxic level of CO2).
 
2010-01-20 06:34:26 PM
king_nacho: The question isn't if the climate changes over time, it is if humans are speeding it up.

THIS times infinity.
 
2010-01-20 06:35:12 PM
dwh1963: .038% (atmospheric concentration of CO2) is somewhat less than 5% (directly toxic level of CO2).

Yeah, utterly different mechanics too, twas just a joke.
 
2010-01-20 06:37:23 PM
FlashHarry: congratulations, subtard - you're today's winner of the "i don't know the difference between weather and climate" douchebag award!

Well why don't you dumb it down for us, smarty-pants.
 
2010-01-20 06:39:51 PM
I just sorted my box of marbles by color... Entropy is a lie!

Leave science to those able to think past their nose.
 
2010-01-20 06:42:12 PM
sigdiamond2000: DeadZone: 1. You give money to algore.
2. algore takes your money.
3. algore profits.

That how it works.

+1 for use of the term "algore." I also would've accepted "fatgore."

-1 for no mention of "Carbonhagen"


I thought it was Jokenhagen.
 
2010-01-20 06:42:22 PM
DeadZone: 1. You give money to algore.
2. algore takes your money.
3. algore profits.

That how it works.


img63.imageshack.us

Do any of you head-in-the-sanders have any citation on how much money AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRE! has made from his book and movie?

/None from me
 
2010-01-20 06:42:32 PM
fatassbastard: dwh1963: And what is the ideal temperature range of the planet which allows humans to continue to flourish?

That's the real question. Again, the planet will "survive" no matter what.


Back in the 90s, I listened to Rush Limbaugh. He loved to air Charlton Heston's reading of a passage from Jurassic Park. It spoke of no matter how badly we destroyed the planet, life would go on. Even if we nuked it with every nuke and left the planet a bubbling cauldron for 1000s of years, life would go on.

I don't remember if Rush said it, or if I heard it at the same time- the real issue isn't whether or not we destroy the planet- it is whether or not we destroy the ability for the planet to support our species. THAT is the real battle everyone needs to keep in mind.
 
2010-01-20 06:42:34 PM
CowboyUpCowgirlDown: 4. Volcanoes (especially undersea volcanoes) have released much more carbon dioxide than all man made sources combined. Hint: the volcanoes have been around a very long time.

Right, and we, as the climatically sensitive race of mammals on the planet, would rather a large one not erupt again. Sort of sets the population back as it were.

Global warming causes the climate to change from the expected. Warmer earth, warmer water, warmer air -- all that changes the jet streams, gulf streams, cloud formations, etc. Weather may just get more intolerable for us. Check out the winter Florida is having...my orange juice is up 30 cents!
 
2010-01-20 06:42:43 PM
fatassbastard: dwh1963: And what is the ideal temperature range of the planet which allows humans to continue to flourish?

That's the real question. Again, the planet will "survive" no matter what.


Flourish where? Florida? The Yukon Territory? Brazil? Siberia? Antarctica? Your house?
 
2010-01-20 06:46:14 PM
rppp01a: codewerdna: rppp01a: codewerdna: We have snow every year and have one of the two three ski resorts open in Arizona.

Mount Lemon
Sunrise
Snowbowl

Mount Lemon has a ski resort?

The only one of the three I haven't snowboarded at, here in Arizona: Mount Lemon Ski Resort (new window)

I want to go climbing there, too. The hiking is fantastic.


Yeah, I've been there for hiking. Was great. We saw a bear :D
 
2010-01-20 06:46:27 PM
dwh1963: Flourish where?

Your question doesn't make sense to me, can you clarify?
 
2010-01-20 06:46:30 PM
fatassbastard: dwh1963: Every AGW solution involves massive wealth transfer. Control and socialism are the goals of the leadership.

Then protest against that. Spouting ridiculous, illogical talking points makes you sound like:

...tree-hugging douchebags who latch on because it's trendy and it makes them feel good...

(not saying "you" specifically since I haven't read all your posts)


I do protest against that. And are you saying that all the people who "take to the streets" with protest signs and smoke-belching '72 Volvos covered in bumperstickers are logical and well-informed?

Hint: They're not, for the most part. They're emotional and flighty, hopping enthusiastically on the cause du jour.
 
2010-01-20 06:47:08 PM
Thray: dwh1963: .038% (atmospheric concentration of CO2) is somewhat less than 5% (directly toxic level of CO2).

Yeah, utterly different mechanics too, twas just a joke.


Ahh. :hat tip:
 
2010-01-20 06:47:29 PM
Let's nuke the polar bears before they come for our ice cube trays.
 
2010-01-20 06:50:07 PM
CowboyUpCowgirlDown:
1. Carbon dioxide is but one of more than twenty "greenhouse gases". The single largest contributor is water vapor, which (according to wikipedia)

It, however is the one we are adding in vast quantities

2. The greenhouse effect is a single "forcing" factor that may result from increased carbon dioxide. There are hundreds of other factors at work.


No, there are no other factors that would contribute to an increase in average surface temperature. None.


3. Burning fossil fuels doesn't "create" carbon dioxide, it merely releases it into the atmosphere. We can already burn fossil fuels and store the released carbon dioxide in the oceans or the ground.


You are releasing carbon that was long ago stored in the earth.

4. Volcanoes (especially undersea volcanoes) have released much more carbon dioxide than all man made sources combined. Hint: the volcanoes have been around a very long time.


Are you comparing all volcanoes in history or just those during the warming? There has been no increase in the average volcanic activity of the earth in that period.
 
2010-01-20 06:52:34 PM
dwh1963: are you saying that all the people who "take to the streets" with protest signs and smoke-belching '72 Volvos covered in bumperstickers are logical and well-informed?

I'm not saying that at all. People who drive by themselves in their V8 SUVs to protest global warming are exactly as informed as Tea Partiers who protest "socialist Obamacare" while sitting in their electric wheelchair which was provided by Medicare.
 
2010-01-20 06:52:55 PM
I feel like Caption Obvious at Camp Stupid here....


El Nino.

It happens, and did so just 10 years ago.

There is actually a rain storm in California! Oh noes! It's pushing off into Arizona! On noes!

Global Warming (climate change) is bunk in the sense of human explanation. I mean, really? We are going to base the past what... 500 years (maybe) of records to dictate what happens with climate? The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old.

Get a coat.
 
2010-01-20 06:53:59 PM
Phil McKraken: Cagey B: Oh good, it went green. This retarded meme hasn't been repeated enough.

+1



I've come to think that Idiocy is the semi-official policy of Fark rather than the actual idiocy of the submitters. Fark is simply imitating the Sports Illustrated tactic of picking some third rate team to win the championship.

Yes, there are idiots who believe as the submitter would have us believe he does. But I doubt the sincerity of this one and others in the last few weeks. There have been too many obvious mis-readings and patently stupid mis-statements of the articles. I say the topics are being "salted" with teh stupid.

OTOH, many of the genius photoshoppers no longer show up. So, maybe Farkers really have become as stupid as the submitter would have us believe he is.

Dreaded conclusion: If you have to ask, the answer is "Yes. Yes, you are."
 
2010-01-20 06:56:22 PM
fatassbastard: dwh1963: Flourish where?

Your question doesn't make sense to me, can you clarify?


Humans do pretty well -- "flourish", if you will -- in Florida and Brazil. Antarctica and Siberia? Not so much.

If the planet gets much warmer, the opposite will be true. So where on the planet do you want people to flourish?
 
2010-01-20 07:00:10 PM
ITT: "skeptics"
 
2010-01-20 07:01:23 PM
Priapetic: FourtyTwo: So the majority of the worlds scientists are just making this up then what is the benefit. Do ALL of them have major holding in solar panels and wind turbines and they just want to push thier investments. Any good conspiracy would also include a motivator. I don't really see much benefit to anyone lying about us dooming the planet other than prevent the planet from being doomed.

You really don't understand the concept of "funding" or "grants" do you? Basically, most scientists have to demonstrate why it's worth it for someone to give them funding to do their research. It sure helps getting that grant money if there's a scare behind it. That's a fiscal motivator. There are also the smug douchebags who want to feel superior to others, but lack any actual talent or ability - climbing on this bandwagon lets them feel important. And there are others who have let their desire to be the hero and save the world blind them to the flaws in their reasoning, since to them the ends justify the means.


Right...every climate scientist from around the world is vying for U.S grant money. I think even the 9-11 thruthers would reject that as a conspiracy too far-fetched. What incentive does a climate scientist from China have to lie to his superiors and get on board with the liberal scientists from the west, at the expense of his nation's future success.
 
2010-01-20 07:01:33 PM
Lee Jackson Beauregard:

Do any of you head-in-the-sanders have any citation on how much money AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRE! has made from his book and movie?

/None from me


It's like if you took a Myspace picture of an XKCD reader.

Really, way to take a funny joke and make it stupid.
 
2010-01-20 07:05:34 PM
hitlersbrain: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: No, there are no other factors that would contribute to an increase in average surface temperature. None.

And what rhymes with "none"?

"Sun".
 
2010-01-20 07:06:11 PM
fatassbastard: dwh1963: are you saying that all the people who "take to the streets" with protest signs and smoke-belching '72 Volvos covered in bumperstickers are logical and well-informed?

I'm not saying that at all. People who drive by themselves in their V8 SUVs to protest global warming are exactly as informed as Tea Partiers who protest "socialist Obamacare" while sitting in their electric wheelchair which was provided by Medicare.


On that, we agree.
 
2010-01-20 07:07:28 PM
king_nacho: How do you know that the climate change is caused by humans and not some normal planetary or other cycle?

1. The heat absorption characteristics of CO2 are well known, having been calculated over 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius.
2. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased from ~280 ppm (pdf) (pre-industrial level) to ~390 ppm (current level).
3. Carbon isotope studies(pdf) show that the increased CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.

This is how we know that humans are driving climate change.
 
2010-01-20 07:08:39 PM
As a resident of Tucson, where it is currently 57 degrees and sunny, I should like to make the point that we have mountains all over the fecking place, and THAT is where the snow falls. The "valley" (IE where everybody actually lives, except those crazies up on Mt. Lemmin) gets cold rain. You'll notice the NOAA reports make mention of the snow levels at 7000, 6000, 5000 feet... Tucson is in the middle 2000's. So, yes, there will be a blizzard hanging over us, but some 90~95% of the population will only get rain.

/and wind
//the wind is actually pretty amazing
 
2010-01-20 07:14:05 PM
benlonghair: GaryPDX: No..should I?

It changed my life. Blew through it in a day.

There's three of them. Ishmael, My Ishmael and The Story of B.

The Story of B is the weakest of the three, because he tries to inject plot into the philosophy and it doesn't really work. I'm pretty sure all three are available on Scribd (at least they were a week ago) but I'd encourage you to buy them so you can pass them on to friends.


*looks those books up*

Nice!

Thanks!
 
2010-01-20 07:15:18 PM
Tricky Chicken: ZeroCorpse: Translation: "If there's even a chance that I might not make Earth uninhabitable by my actions, then I'd rather not be inconvenienced by changing. Who cares if a change would be good for the world, our health, and the economy even if climate change is bunk? My team didn't come up with it, so I'm opposed to it."

Ummm wrong again. I am totally against wasteful use of resources. I think we must find more efficient ways of producing and using energy. I believe that constantly burning fossil fuels can only end one way since we can't readily produce more. I do not however buy into the notion that we can predict with any accuracy global trends based on decades worth of data. We still have arguments on what caused the Cretaceous extinction!


Didn't Adric try and stop it?

/why yes, I am a Whovian
//feels we'll die by an asteroid or solar flare well before the "climate" turns sour.
 
2010-01-20 07:18:57 PM
Thray: stewmadness: I do not feel that something we all exhale with every breath can be classified as dangerous to the environment.shiat man didn't you ever watch Apollo 13?

that was the one with the ocean and trees in space right?
 
2010-01-20 07:24:15 PM
dwh1963: hitlersbrain: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: No, there are no other factors that would contribute to an increase in average surface temperature. None.

And what rhymes with "none"?

"Sun".


If you have evidence the sun is getting hotter or closer please share or (for the love of gawd) STFU.
 
2010-01-20 07:26:11 PM
mylonitic

This is how we know that humans are driving climate change.

keep eating everything they are feeding you.



Link (new window)
 
2010-01-20 07:26:36 PM
stewmadness: that was the one with the ocean and trees in space right?

Nah that was 2001.
 
2010-01-20 07:34:19 PM
Thray: stewmadness: that was the one with the ocean and trees in space right?

Nah that was 2001.


No that was a Yes album cover...
 
2010-01-20 07:37:31 PM
Ima10urin8: mylonitic

This is how we know that humans are driving climate change.

keep eating everything they are feeding you.



Link (new window)


So, which of the three points do you disagree with and why? Citations will be necessary, of course (from peer-reviewed journals and not Fox News).

Erroneous predictions about the exact date of disappearance of glaciers in the Himalayas have no bearing on any of the 3 facts I presented.

And here's some more information about Himalayan glaciers:
While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007). (Source, including references)
 
2010-01-20 07:38:06 PM
hitlersbrain: dwh1963: hitlersbrain: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: No, there are no other factors that would contribute to an increase in average surface temperature. None.

And what rhymes with "none"?

"Sun".

If you have evidence the sun is getting hotter or closer please share or (for the love of gawd) STFU.


Are you claiming the sun's output is constant?

If you'd like to cure your ignorance, try this (new window).
 
2010-01-20 07:38:13 PM
iansbrain.com
 
2010-01-20 07:43:50 PM
This type of headline is as stupid and overplayed as the 'Something something. Just kidding, something something' headline.

yakmans_dad: Phil McKraken: Cagey B: Oh good, it went green. This retarded meme hasn't been repeated enough.

+1


I've come to think that Idiocy is the semi-official policy of Fark rather than the actual idiocy of the submitters. Fark is simply imitating the Sports Illustrated tactic of picking some third rate team to win the championship.

Yes, there are idiots who believe as the submitter would have us believe he does. But I doubt the sincerity of this one and others in the last few weeks. There have been too many obvious mis-readings and patently stupid mis-statements of the articles. I say the topics are being "salted" with teh stupid.

OTOH, many of the genius photoshoppers no longer show up. So, maybe Farkers really have become as stupid as the submitter would have us believe he is.

Dreaded conclusion: If you have to ask, the answer is "Yes. Yes, you are."


I see it as subby wanted an easy green since pretty much any submission in this form will always get a green. Flamewars sell sadly.

rorypk: 006andahalf: I'm just here because these threads are nothing more than unabashed magnets for ad clicks.

so which amount is greater; the ad click revenue troll headlines and paid shills bring in or the amount of money lost when totalfark memberships aren't renewed because of them?


Drew don't give a shiat. A bunch of the biggest trolls here just all got TF around the same time. He doesn't care where the money comes from as long as its there.
 
2010-01-20 07:47:38 PM
bookman: vygramul: GaryPDX: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown (new window)

Doh.

And what do you conclude from reading that article?

One "little know" Indian scientist quoted from a telephone interview in a popular (i.e.: dumbed down) science magazine magically morphs into a United Nations scientific concensus.

Quite similar, actually, to the "fact" that ER visits by women magically increase during Superbowl due to beatings by enraged wife-abusing husbands. Just ain't true. See how THAT factoid started here:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

/Liberals believe in magical thinking
//So to environmentalists who actually do NOT have degrees in Environmental Science


That is the very definition of Straw Man.
 
2010-01-20 07:49:49 PM
dwh1963:
Are you claiming the sun's output is constant?

If you'd like to cure your ignorance, try this (new window).


If you'd like to cure your ignorance, try these papers:

# Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming"
# Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
# Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

Quite frankly, I'm more inclined to believe the studies performed by experts in climatology, reviewed by other experts in their field, over a deceased high school teacher with a website (John Daly).
 
2010-01-20 07:50:54 PM
"Could somebody please explain to me how this global warming is supposed to work again...


Sorry, no. At this point, you will just have to resign yourself to the fact that stupidity of a sufficiently advanced level is indistinguishable from a troll. Hence, there is no point in you ever posting on the net again.
 
2010-01-20 07:51:23 PM
No matter how much evidence comes out that shows the scam that is Climate Change, AWG or what ever else they want to call it, the faithful will still belive.

Why will the Fark Admins/Mods not green light the stories that are punching holes in the warmers claims? Not an issue of bias I am sure.

To all of the warmers, keep the faith, be strong, don't give up on your leaders.
 
Displayed 50 of 533 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