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.

(CBC) Obvious Global warming "undeniable" say scientists who have clearly never read Fark   (cbc.ca) divider line 347
More: Obvious, atmospheric scientists, heat waves, global warming, National Climatic Data Center, State of the Climate, sea ice, sea surface temperature, bulletins  
•       •       •

5067 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jul 2010 at 2:16 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



347 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-07-29 11:40:18 AM
[Joker_HereWeGo.jpg]
 
rmz
2010-07-29 12:42:09 PM
Global warming is the tinfoil hat librul scientists wear to keep the free market out of their brainwaves.
 
2010-07-29 01:09:23 PM

Once again, standard argument collection; draft 0.0.6 "points" list...

1) The Earth's climate is dictated by many variables, including but not limited to incoming solar radiation, albedo (surface reflectivity), ocean circulation, GHGs (greenhouse gases).
2) Changes in these variables result in changes in the Earth's climate; such changes can either be forcings (initial drivers) or feedbacks (amplifying/dampening responses). Some variables can be both (such as CO2), while others are basically one or other (tropospheric water vapor is essentially only a feedback, solar irradiance only a forcing).
3) GHGs influence the climate by changing the planetary energy balance- short-wave radiation (light) passes through the atmosphere to reach the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and reradiated as longer wave radiation (infrared); although GHGs are basically transparent to visible light, they are not with respect to IR, absorbing and re-emitting it and thus increasing the Earth's energy balance.
4) Changes in the Earth's energy balance will result in a warming or cooling to a new equilibrium. The presence of GHGs and the resultant increase in Earth's energy balance, including positive and negative feedbacks, increased the Earth's globally averaged temperature by ~33K.
5) Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and land use have increased the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere well outside the bounds of natural variability for at least the last 800,000 and likely the last several million years, necessitating a warming to a higher equilibrium in the absence of some mitigating factor.
6) How the climate system (including feedbacks) responds to changes in forcings and feedbacks can be constrained by examining paleoclimatic (from the Earth's history), observational, and physics-based modeling evidence. This evidence provides a basis for "fingerprints" of various perturbations to the climate system.
7) Observed phenomena such as changes in/to: the surface temperature over the last century, temperature trends in different layers of the atmosphere, outgoing and incoming radiation, expansion of the tropics, etc. are consistent with the "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse warming and stratospheric ozone depletion in addition to natural fluctuations in solar, volcanic, ocean/atmosphere oscillatory activity.
8) Conversely changes in non-anthropogenic GHG forcings/ozone depleting substances alone (e.g. solar irradiance, volcanism, ocean/atmosphere oscillations, etc.) are insufficient to explain observed phenomena.
9) Paleoclimatic, observational, and physics-based modeling evidence necessitate further warming to a higher equilibrium, with concomitant changes in climatic norms like globally averaged surface temperature, precipitation patterns, sea level, etc. to which human civilization is accustomed.
10) While these changes will not be uniformly negative (e.g. high latitude NH countries like the China, Russia, Canada, the US may see an initial boost in crop productivity), the balance of evidence suggests that warming beyond 2°C will result in net negative consequences for humanity.
11) Unchecked emissions growth is capable of driving a warming of ~ 6°C in a century or two, a similar temperature change from the warmth of an interglacial to the depths of an ice age but an order or two of magnitude more rapidly.
12) Due to the immense atmospheric lifetime of CO2, emissions trajectory policies decided now matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia.
13) Although climate is dynamic, in the geologic past changes similar to those expected under unchecked emissions growth (in magnitude and rate of change) have resulted in mass extinction events.
14) Mitigation of emissions to a stabilization level of ~450 ppm CO2 or lower is technologically possible and economically feasible (i.e. will cost growth of global GDP equivalent or less than the cost of unchecked emissions growth).


Plus, for anyone who wants to keep score in the thread:

Counterarguing is an often effective resistance strategy that involves direct rebuttal of message arguments (Abelson, 1959; Buller, 1986; Cameron & Jacks, 1999; Eagly & Chaiken, 1995; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964; Jacks & Devine, 2000; McGuire, 1964; Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965; Wright, 1975; Zuwerink & Devine, 1996). Attitude bolstering, in contrast, involves support arguing- that is, generating thoughts that are consistent with and supportive of one's original attitude without directly refuting message arguments (Abelson, 1959; Cameron & Jacks, 1999; Festinger, 1957; McGuire, 1964; Sherman & Gorkin, 1980). Message distortion involves selectively processing or understanding a persuasive message in a way that favors one's original attitude (Cooper & Jahoda, 1947; Festinger, 1957; Kunda, 1990; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Pomerantz, Chaiken, & Tordesillas, 1995). Social validation involves resisting the message by bringing to mind important others who share one's original attitude (Festinger, 1950, 1954, 1957; Festinger, Gerard, Hymovitch, Kelley, & Raven, 1952). Source derogation involves insulting the source, dismissing his or her expertise or trustworthiness, or otherwise rejecting his or her validity (Buller, 1986; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964; Wright, 1975). Social validation and source derogation are responses that do not require message scrutiny, although both are likely to be coded as unfavorable thoughts in the general cognitive response approach. Negative affect involves responding to the persuasive attempt by getting angry, irritated, or upset (Abelson & Miller, 1967; Jacks & Devine, 2000; Janis & Terwilliger, 1962; Sherif et al., 1965; Zuwerink & Devine, 1996). Finally, selective exposure involves resisting persuasion by leaving the situation or actively tuning out the persuasive message (e.g., Brock & Balloun, 1967; Frey, 1986; Kleinhesselink & Edwards, 1975). - (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)
 
2010-07-29 01:11:17 PM

And for those who like pretty pictures, the (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5) stuff as a "pyramid" graphic.

img825.imageshack.us


/posted separately since img825 seems to be yo-yo-ing.
 
2010-07-29 01:50:35 PM
Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, including Canada, the report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said its analysis of 10 indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable.

If you're a Fark Climate Independent (*), this is just more proof of the global conspiracy. People on Fark have seriously argued that because all the scientific evidence points in the same direction, you can't trust any of it, because that would only happen in a worldwide conspiracy.

(*): "I don't won't understand the evidence, therefore anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist." (The judges will also accept: Al Gore is fat, therefore anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist.)
 
2010-07-29 01:59:28 PM
Get out your charts boys, it's a global warming thread.
 
2010-07-29 02:18:07 PM
But it snowed last winter. You liberals can't trick me.
 
2010-07-29 02:18:44 PM
It's hot outside. Therefore, global warming exists.
 
2010-07-29 02:19:22 PM
Our planet, our planet, our planet is on fire.
We don't want to pay so let the mother farker burn! Burn mother farker! Burn!
 
2010-07-29 02:19:44 PM
How many hot-topic flamewars are we going to have on the front page today? I feel like I'm on the Politics tab.
 
2010-07-29 02:20:05 PM
Inb4Derp
 
2010-07-29 02:20:37 PM
Ever notice how the deniers are out in full force during the winter, but most of them hide during the summer?
 
2010-07-29 02:21:34 PM
I'm not sure at this point how anyone could dispute that the climate has changed (and is changing).

The anthropogenic part? Most climatologists agree that it is anthropogenic, but hey, what do they know.
 
2010-07-29 02:21:55 PM
Suck it, Inhofe.
 
2010-07-29 02:22:20 PM
XMark: Ever notice how the deniers are out in full force during the winter, but most of them hide during the summer?

well yeah, tinfoil hats get really really hot when you're out in the sun.
 
2010-07-29 02:22:25 PM
Is anyone really arguing that it doesn't exist?
The real argument is over the solution.
 
2010-07-29 02:22:36 PM
HotWingConspiracy: But it snowed last winter. You liberals can't trick me.

Just wouldn't be a climate thread without someone taking out that old saw.
 
2010-07-29 02:22:52 PM
or if you've ever hung out in the VA Attorney General's office
 
2010-07-29 02:22:57 PM
Cant we just fight fire with fire and simply build enough air conditioners for everyone on the planet?
 
2010-07-29 02:23:11 PM
I blame it on Al Gore's hooker fetish.

/got nothing.
 
2010-07-29 02:23:34 PM
genner: Is anyone really arguing that it doesn't exist?

Two words: Energy. Lobby.
 
2010-07-29 02:24:00 PM
BillCo: Get out your charts boys, it's a global warming thread.

images.cheezburger.com
 
2010-07-29 02:24:27 PM
I can easily disprove the claims of these so called "scientists." They claim that global warming is undeniable, and yet we see people denying it right here in the comments. Ha HA!

Now, if they had said something along the lines of "At this point, the proof is so overwhelming that only mentally deficient conservative hippie-hating anti-environmentalist shills for big business will attempt to deny it," well, that is just self evidently true.

/Spun, (1352) on Slashdot
 
2010-07-29 02:24:54 PM
Since I live in North Dakota... I for one welcome our new warm overloruh temperatures.
 
2010-07-29 02:25:08 PM
Good thing the earth, as well as it's inhabitants, have the ability to adapt to change.
 
2010-07-29 02:25:36 PM
They should use Global Climate Change rather than Global Warming as their go-to terminology. The immediate effect of GCC is GW, but a wild fluctuation caused by the effects of GW could be extreme cooling, ironically.
 
2010-07-29 02:25:47 PM
I'm in favor of Global Warming. What can I do to help?
 
2010-07-29 02:25:51 PM
img2.pict.com
 
2010-07-29 02:26:50 PM
genner: Is anyone really arguing that it doesn't exist?

the entire right wing, at the behest of the energy lobby. using the same tactics the tobacco lobby used against the science that tobacco causes cancer
 
2010-07-29 02:27:10 PM
I searched the page for "man made" and found nothing, didn't read article.
 
2010-07-29 02:27:18 PM
XMark: Ever notice how the deniers are out in full force during the winter, but most of them hide during the summer?

In winter, the GWers say cold weather is a regional, seasonal phenomenon that has no bearing on global warming yet hot summers are proof global warming is real.
 
2010-07-29 02:27:28 PM
shirtsbyeric: I'm in favor of Global Warming. What can I do to help?

self immolate
 
2010-07-29 02:27:30 PM
Can we invent a new word for when something becomes undeniable but people still delude themselves into denying? "Delusionable" perhaps? Would this make opposition "Global Warming Delusioners"?
 
2010-07-29 02:27:35 PM
devilsnight: How many hot-topic flamewars are we going to have on the front page today? I feel like I'm on the Politics tab.

Is that what this is?
www.howtobepunk.com
 
2010-07-29 02:27:50 PM
devilsnight: How many hot-topic flamewars are we going to have on the front page today? I feel like I'm on the Politics tab.

i870.photobucket.com
 
2010-07-29 02:27:56 PM
We must increase the number of real pirates NOW


vis.berkeley.edu
 
2010-07-29 02:29:04 PM
genner: Is anyone really arguing that it doesn't exist?
The real argument is over the solution.


You don't pop into these threads much, do you?

Just wait for one of the Farkers I have tagged in light blue to come rocking in here, and the denial will be, well, undeniable.
 
2010-07-29 02:29:48 PM
FishyFred: genner: Is anyone really arguing that it doesn't exist?

Two words: Energy. Lobby.


No the energy lobby is too busy pretending that their "new and improved" systems don't hurt the enviroment.


www.creativereview.co.uk
 
2010-07-29 02:31:39 PM
Fake and stupid.

Why does Al Gore have two mansions (out of what, six?) right at sea level? He knows its a total scam, and the sea isn't rising.

www.westcoastgreen.com
 
2010-07-29 02:32:33 PM
chimp_ninja: People on Fark have seriously argued that because all the scientific evidence points in the same direction, you can't trust any of it, because that would only happen in a worldwide conspiracy.

And people wonder why I'm a bit cynical about humanity's future.
 
2010-07-29 02:33:48 PM
Kazan: genner: Is anyone really arguing that it doesn't exist?

the entire right wing, at the behest of the energy lobby. using the same tactics the tobacco lobby used against the science that tobacco causes cancer


So you're saying "the entire right wing" is delaying dealing with GW? If so what do they hope to gain?
 
2010-07-29 02:34:09 PM
Wayfarer's Freedom: Why does Al Gore have two mansions (out of what, six?) right at sea level?

It's an investment; those are his future float-cribs.
 
2010-07-29 02:35:12 PM
haddie: Just wait for one of the Farkers I have tagged in light blue to come rocking in here, and the denial will be, well, undeniable.

I'm pretty sure most of them are left-wingers trying to pretend to be HERP DERP tards, so their main account can be a Big Damn Hero by knocking out all their sock puppets.
 
2010-07-29 02:35:14 PM
oh great. another global warming thread.
 
2010-07-29 02:35:16 PM
img375.imageshack.us
 
2010-07-29 02:36:32 PM
Kazan: genner: Is anyone really arguing that it doesn't exist?

the entire right wing, at the behest of the energy lobby. using the same tactics the tobacco lobby used against the science that tobacco causes cancer


The energy companies are even using the same PR companies and some of the exact same scientists to whip up doubt and denial about climate change that the tobacco companies used to raise doubts about the health effects of smoking. The disinformation industry is growing. Try Googling "Merchants of doubt," "Doubt is their Product," Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, TASSC, APCO...
 
2010-07-29 02:36:40 PM
Wayfarer's Freedom: Fake and stupid.

Why does Al Gore have two mansions (out of what, six?) right at sea level? He knows its a total scam, and the sea isn't rising.


That picture looks like he might be approaching a "happy ending."
 
2010-07-29 02:37:33 PM
Wayfarer's Freedom: Fake and stupid.

Why does Al Gore have two mansions (out of what, six?) right at sea level? He knows its a total scam, and the sea isn't rising.


6/10... "at sea level", ha.
 
2010-07-29 02:37:37 PM
JavanDane: So you're saying "the entire right wing" is delaying dealing with GW? If so what do they hope to gain?

money.
 
2010-07-29 02:39:04 PM
Earth is warming. Our records go back 150 years (and much more if you count more postulated methods). Is it man or nature? If it is man what can we do, if it is nature what can we do??

/Discuss
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »