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.

(Labspaces.net)   Do you like your summers blindingly, blisteringly hot? The next sixty years are bringing good news for you. Everyone else on Earth, not so much   (labspaces.net) divider line 385
    More: Scary, northern hemispheres, heat waves, weather stations, tropics, Southern Europe, climate scientists, climate models, temperature records  
•       •       •

19924 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jun 2011 at 5:04 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



385 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-07 02:49:28 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Therion: 106 near Austin today. Weather Underground says normal is 89. Yay.

66 near San Francisco yesterday. Weather dot com says normal is 88.

/still running the heater and wearing winter clothes


well, it's comforting to hear temperatures are completely out of whack all over. yet the stubborn and the ignorant continue living in denial.
 
2011-06-07 02:56:49 PM

chuckufarlie: We are not denying science, we just think that your "evidence" is shaking.


Oh NickSteel, it's you. Imagine you showing up here. Sorry, but you are not interesting to me.
 
2011-06-07 03:07:32 PM
One of my favorite times was the summer in Blythe, CA. Heh, it's not really hot until your eyeballs crackle.
 
2011-06-07 03:10:04 PM

Farking Canuck: hailstorm: When I was traveling through Europe last summer I had a few conversations with people who were puzzled as to why certain Americans seem to be obstinately opposed to fairly well accepted climate change theories. The bolded sentence above explains a lot I think. The media distorts science information, political pundits distill it even further,and by the time the public digests it it seems like "junk science." So now we're fighting a petty culture war, with one side believing they're being forced to " worship at the altar of junk science." As far as I can tell the rest of the world isn't even having this debate.

The war on science is mainly constrained to the USA. We get a bit of an overflow here in Canada but the anti-science crowd are way down in the minority.

The stage was set 3 decades ago when big tobacco were being sued and they went on the "you can't be 100% sure cigarettes cause cancer" defense. They started the whole "if you're not 100% sure then your data is useless" trend. They, of course. knew that science is never 100% because it just doesn't work that way but they knew the public didn't understand that.

Jump forward to today and you've got the creationist movement in full-on attack against science. Add to that big oil and other corporations that resist any attempts to go green as it will reduce their profits. And this anti-science movement goes through the roof.

Now they jump in with both feet ... creating scientific "think-tanks" to spread disinformation and propaganda around the whole "they can't prove it 100%" crap. They've got bought off 'scientists' making 7 figure salaries convincing the ignorant masses that real scientists making 5 figure salaries are greedy bastards that will say anything for a buck.

It just makes me sad. But I figure that I have ~50 years left if I'm lucky and no kids ... so I should be OK. I feel bad for everyone else's kids though.


Well said. Meanwhile China has no problems with the conclusions drawn by their climate scientists and are actively researching technology to perhaps deal with it. Funny you mention some Canadians in the anti science camp, because I did talk to a couple guys from Alberta that were firmly convinced that climate change was nothing more than hippies trying to tell them what to do. I think the outright rage coming from this small but vocal group comes down to misinformation, fear of a changing world and a firm commitment to to a political position that won't allow a nuanced position on anything.
 
2011-06-07 03:11:55 PM
3 foot snowpack in Colorado still. It's June. Send some global warming over here please.
 
2011-06-07 03:19:22 PM

JeffDenver: 3 foot snowpack in Colorado still. It's June. Send some global warming over here please.


Weather != Climate

Global Warming != Local Warming (necessarily)

As temperatures rise towards freezing you tend to get more snow (not less).
 
2011-06-07 03:24:47 PM

JeffDenver: 3 foot snowpack in Colorado still. It's June. Send some global warming over here please.


3-foot snow in June is f;ed up. unfortunately, such freakish weather is a consequence of climate change.
 
2011-06-07 03:25:30 PM

chuckufarlie: global warming causes earthquakes??? Good to know.


well I did just see plate tectonics and ocean current changes (which are linked to the climate) mentioned in this thread.

certainly, changes in sea level would cause changes in pressure on the ocean floor, which would change stuff. god knows how big a change over how long would have how much of an effect on plate tectonics

/plus didnt the rapture happen and we were all left behind?
 
2011-06-07 03:48:01 PM

Arab Lover: StoneColdAtheist: Therion: 106 near Austin today. Weather Underground says normal is 89. Yay.

66 near San Francisco yesterday. Weather dot com says normal is 88.

/still running the heater and wearing winter clothes

well, it's comforting to hear temperatures are completely out of whack all over. yet the stubborn and the ignorant continue living in denial.


It's not comforting to know there are people deluded enough to think that if only the US would just "go green" things will be all better. The only green technology that'll make a real change is to go with as much nuclear energy as possible and have electric cars that get the majority of their electricity directly from the road. Either by overhead wires, a grid embedded in the road surface or whatever else brilliant technology the eggheads think up. Batteries are likely to always have too high of a lifecycle cost to be a viable technology for the typical commuter.
 
2011-06-07 04:00:23 PM

Arab Lover: well, it's comforting to hear temperatures are completely out of whack all over. yet the stubborn and the ignorant continue living in denial.


Temps being all out of whack all over the place is what meteorologists call "normal". For instance, here on the lower left coast we are coming out of la niña, which features cooler-than-normal temps. So far, so good. In a few years we'll be back to el niño and it'll warm up a bit.

And then there is the sun, which has been unusually quiet for several years, and the interactions of arctic highs with Atlantic and Pacific decadal occilations, and so on and so forth. Anyone who honestly expect stable weather and climate are either stupid or ignorant.
 
2011-06-07 04:23:15 PM

Kurai Kage Ryu: And what, pray tell, are we running from? Personally, I enjoy the 100+ days. The heat doesn't start bothering me until ~140 (as measured by the thermometer sitting on the ground in the sun all day, not by the airport)


Maybe a reference to the massive wildfire we've got going on in the eastern part of the state.

Those who think 100 degrees isn't hot either spends a lot of time outside in the heat or spends a lot of time in an air conditioned environment. A dry 100 degrees can dehydrate and mess a person up if they aren't prepared and adjusted to it.
 
2011-06-07 04:32:59 PM

Smeggy Smurf: The only green technology that'll make a real change


Any changes that reduce/clean-up pollution are welcome. Reducing dependence on middle east oil would be nice as well (who do you think funds all the terrorist organizations). It is not an all or nothing deal.

The deniers like to preach that we want economy killing changes implemented ... this is a blatant lie. All we want is for people to support intelligent green initiatives.

- if you don't like carbon credits then don't buy them
- if you don't think an electric car will support your needs then don't buy one
- if you think wind power will do damage to you if you live nearby - fark off because you are a moran

As an example, every time there is an electric vehicle thread there is an absolute deluge of rage posts about how EVs don't go far enough, etc. Nobody says they are perfect but, then again, first generation vehicles rarely are. But the first generation vehicles have to be made so they can improve and make the 2nd generation.

If you do not want to do green stuff then don't. But lose all the angry, anti-green posts. Hating on people that are just trying to improve things doesn't make sense.

/Just don't believe the lie that people who are trying to reduce pollution want to destroy the economy. It is a ridiculous lie.
 
2011-06-07 04:42:16 PM

Nadie_AZ: Kurai Kage Ryu: And what, pray tell, are we running from? Personally, I enjoy the 100+ days. The heat doesn't start bothering me until ~140 (as measured by the thermometer sitting on the ground in the sun all day, not by the airport)

Maybe a reference to the massive wildfire we've got going on in the eastern part of the state.

Those who think 100 degrees isn't hot either spends a lot of time outside in the heat or spends a lot of time in an air conditioned environment. A dry 100 degrees can dehydrate and mess a person up if they aren't prepared and adjusted to it.


I spent a summer working as a mason's laborer in Phoenix, AZ. And I've lived here my entire life. I think I've just developed an immunity to the heat. Just don't send me outside when it's under 50 :)

Forgot about the occasional wildfire though. ~80% of the state's population lives in one of two cities that don't have to deal with that, so I kinda forgot about it. My bad.
 
2011-06-07 04:44:46 PM
I guess you can call me a climate change denier... I consider my self a questioner. As for my background, I am a meteorologist. I have been actively forecasting weather for over 8 years now, it's my full time job, yes I get paid to do it. I have worked with people who have over 40 years forecasting under their belts, I have been in rooms where the experience added up to well over 500 years, and we still had trouble forecasting the high and low temps within 3 degrees 24 hours out. My job allows me to meet 100's of meteorologist, and I can honestly say that anytime Global warming comes up or climate change we all start laughing... not so much because it's not happening but because so many people jump on the bandwagon when there isn't enough data to confirm or deny it. When i say data i mean actual recorded weather data, not some guy using the data to prove his point. 30 years of climatological data just isn't enough to prove anything when recorded history shows cold and warm cycles over 1000's of years.



One of the easiest ways of forecasting is persistence forecasting. You pretty much find a pattern in the weather and connect the dots, then continue the pattern once you run out of data and call it your forecast. This is what a lot of climatologist and their models do. A few years back we had some warm years and Global Warming was the craze, all the coast lines where going to be underwater by 2015-2020. Then the climate cooled a bit (no thanks to humans), and all these people backed off and went with climate change.

When we forecast we use what we call a forecast funnel we start at the top of the atmosphere and work our way down to the surface. If you take a good look at the atmosphere you see waves traveling around the earth. The largest waves (long wave) are the slowest and usually the smallest/fastest being at the surface, most meteorologist also believe there are even larger waves or "cycles" where the earth goes through warmer and colder periods and a brief look through history there are mini "ice ages" and "warm periods".
 
2011-06-07 04:56:56 PM
Do you like your summers blindingly, blisteringly hot?

No, but I do like my winters blindingly, bitterly cold.
 
2011-06-07 04:57:50 PM

namatad: chuckufarlie: global warming causes earthquakes??? Good to know.

well I did just see plate tectonics and ocean current changes (which are linked to the climate) mentioned in this thread.

certainly, changes in sea level would cause changes in pressure on the ocean floor, which would change stuff. god knows how big a change over how long would have how much of an effect on plate tectonics

/plus didnt the rapture happen and we were all left behind?


You can see all sorts of bullshiat listed in these threads, it doesn't make them true.

And if you believe that the amount of sea level change that has happened (not much) would cause an earthquake like the one that hit Japan, I would like to offer to sell you a nice house in the Everglades, it is very close to a school. Let me know.
 
2011-06-07 04:59:37 PM

Farking Canuck: Smeggy Smurf: The only green technology that'll make a real change

Any changes that reduce/clean-up pollution are welcome. Reducing dependence on middle east oil would be nice as well (who do you think funds all the terrorist organizations). It is not an all or nothing deal.

The deniers like to preach that we want economy killing changes implemented ... this is a blatant lie. All we want is for people to support intelligent green initiatives.

- if you don't like carbon credits then don't buy them
- if you don't think an electric car will support your needs then don't buy one
- if you think wind power will do damage to you if you live nearby - fark off because you are a moran

As an example, every time there is an electric vehicle thread there is an absolute deluge of rage posts about how EVs don't go far enough, etc. Nobody says they are perfect but, then again, first generation vehicles rarely are. But the first generation vehicles have to be made so they can improve and make the 2nd generation.

If you do not want to do green stuff then don't. But lose all the angry, anti-green posts. Hating on people that are just trying to improve things doesn't make sense.

/Just don't believe the lie that people who are trying to reduce pollution want to destroy the economy. It is a ridiculous lie.


PEOPLE who was to reduce pollution do not want to destroy the economy. However, the IPCC certainly wants to destroy the US economy. All you need do is read their proposals to see that.

And that the chair of that group stated that the movement is political, not environmental.
 
2011-06-07 05:10:05 PM

Farking Canuck: chaddsfarkprefect: So it's now Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change/Warming?

Global Cooling was a scare in the mid-70's by a magazine which had no science behind it.

Global Warming is a correct and commonly used term describing the cause of current and future climate shifts.

Global Climate Change is a correct and commonly used term describing the effects of Global Warming on our planet. This term has always been around but became more common when the Bush administration finally decided to admit that Global Warming was a reality but thought the term Global Warming was too dramatic.

So, what was your point? Did you think your comment was somehow insightful?

/the war on science - celebrating ignorance


It's no longer science when it's activism.
 
2011-06-07 05:14:56 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Arab Lover: well, it's comforting to hear temperatures are completely out of whack all over. yet the stubborn and the ignorant continue living in denial.

Temps being all out of whack all over the place is what meteorologists call "normal". For instance, here on the lower left coast we are coming out of la niña, which features cooler-than-normal temps. So far, so good. In a few years we'll be back to el niño and it'll warm up a bit.

And then there is the sun, which has been unusually quiet for several years, and the interactions of arctic highs with Atlantic and Pacific decadal occilations, and so on and so forth. Anyone who honestly expect stable weather and climate are either stupid or ignorant.


The key is the average temperature for the planet. It's going up and there is no other explanation as to where the heat is coming from. It's pretty elementary really. Arguing the point just makes you look foolish.
 
2011-06-07 05:16:13 PM

namatad: Prevailing Wind: However, you can look at the exponential increase of global mean temperature that has occurred in the last 200 yrs and, in macro terms and absent any alteration in the conditions that caused that trend, assume it will continue along the same curve. Individual effects may be hard to assess, but the cumulative effect is obvious. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns of course, but continued and perhaps dramatic increase in global mean temp is what you might perhaps call the betting man's play.

yes and no
what caused the little ice age? given that the little ice age correlated quite nicely with the maunder minimum.

toss in younger dryas (new window) and I begin to wonder what really is going to happen in the next 20-100 years.

so no, you can not assume that the exponetial temp increase will continue. you can assume that the many different changes in the climate system will be complexly intertwined producing god knows what kind of changes.

one group is betting the increase will continue.
another group is denying this increase will continue.
another group is betting that we dont really have a clue as to what will happen and when (also called deniers)


Younger Dryas was a globally significant but not globally coherant event. By this I mean that the extreme cooling associated with the period occurred only in certain regions (simplistically often asserted as a Northern/Southern hemisphere split. The change in global mean was probably under 1 deg C. This is unlike current warming which is globally significant and globally coherant. Without emissions cuts greenhouse gas warming will have a larger impact on global mean temperature than a Younger Dryas-like event, though it would certainly have some pretty devastating regional impacts.
I've posted a link with a review of the topic upthread.

There are zero serious scientists who don't think temperatures will most likely increase over the next century. The only question is how much, but even that question is quite well constrained at this point.
 
2011-06-07 05:17:03 PM

TheWizard: James F. Campbell: Global warming is a scam perpetrated by greedy scientists -- because we all know how much money those scientists make from grants.

Some people sell healing crystals. Some sell herbal suppliments. Some sell climate panic.


Yes, but none of them approach the greed and sheer volume of sales of either oil companies or religious institutions.

You choose to believe people who are actually making obscene money off the current situation, rather than people with knowledge. Unbelievable.

Who the hell is "selling" climate panic? People eager to pry us loose from the teat of Oil, which EVERYONE agrees we need to be less dependent on (at least foreign oil). They're advocating that we invest the equivalent of a mid-level oil lobbyist's annual bonus in creating new technology that doesn't rely on committing thousands of troops overseas to protect the source of our power in someone else's country. Ain't nobody making bank on the current crop of "climate panic" industries.

Why are some folks so insistent on believing the wrong people?
 
2011-06-07 05:22:16 PM

seadoo2006: So, my question to you is what's the endgame these people are trying to achieve? You really think that the scientific community at large wants to see the very society they participate in crumble? You really think it's some diabolical plan to sell people snake oil? If so, who's getting rich off of this crap?


Al Gore, for example, has made millions. So have several others, such as our esteemed IPCC chair.

But, the big bucks are in the taxation. TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations, with "Oil for Food," or, more accurately "Oil for palaces and bribes" roughly estimated to have taken in over 50 billion dollars.

Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars. The U.N. is abandoning the idea of making it look like ecology any more. Note this comment from the IPCC co-committee-chair:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.

Also, note that there has been a huge increase in funding for climatology in general since the inception of the scam. A climatologist today, arguing that AGW is not an issue, is saying, in effect, "It's okay. AGW is not a problem, it was a math error that people latched onto. Go back to the way things were, and CUT FUNDING IN MY FIELD BY 95%." Not many people, scientists included, are THAT honest.
 
2011-06-07 05:29:21 PM

The Refudiater: I have a problem with people discounting scientists all together.

They have only been around for a couple hundred years, and they have only changed EVERYTHING. They put men on the moon using sliderulers, they demolished whole cities at once, and they made this box that I'm typing on that thinks for me and saves me the hassle.

Seriously. They may not be perfect.... but they're doing a hell of alot better than any other industry.


"As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

- Richard P. Feynman, "What is Science?", presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, published in The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1968, pp. 313-320.
 
2011-06-07 05:35:46 PM

GeneralJim: seadoo2006: So, my question to you is what's the endgame these people are trying to achieve? You really think that the scientific community at large wants to see the very society they participate in crumble? You really think it's some diabolical plan to sell people snake oil? If so, who's getting rich off of this crap?

Al Gore, for example, has made millions. So have several others, such as our esteemed IPCC chair.

But, the big bucks are in the taxation. TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations, with "Oil for Food," or, more accurately "Oil for palaces and bribes" roughly estimated to have taken in over 50 billion dollars.

Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars. The U.N. is abandoning the idea of making it look like ecology any more. Note this comment from the IPCC co-committee-chair:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.

Also, note that there has been a huge increase in funding for climatology in general since the inception of the scam. A climatologist today, arguing that AGW is not an issue, is saying, in effect, "It's okay. AGW is not a problem, it was a math error that people latched onto. Go back to the way things were, and CUT FUNDING IN MY FIELD BY 95%." Not many people, scientists included, are THAT honest.


If it comes down to 'who is telling the truth, huge corporations who have lied about the health effects of cigarettes and chemicals of all kinds for profit or scientists who have devoted their lives to finding answers and cures and solutions to problems'... dude that's a no brainer.
 
2011-06-07 05:38:20 PM

GeneralJim: The Refudiater: I have a problem with people discounting scientists all together.

They have only been around for a couple hundred years, and they have only changed EVERYTHING. They put men on the moon using sliderulers, they demolished whole cities at once, and they made this box that I'm typing on that thinks for me and saves me the hassle.

Seriously. They may not be perfect.... but they're doing a hell of alot better than any other industry.

"As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

- Richard P. Feynman, "What is Science?", presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, published in The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1968, pp. 313-320.


Science would be coming up with an alternate theory that can be proven, not barfing up pseudo scientific nonsense and out of context quotes.
 
2011-06-07 05:39:47 PM

hitlersbrain: The key is the average temperature for the planet. It's going up and there is no other explanation as to where the heat is coming from. It's pretty elementary really. Arguing the point just makes you look foolish.


Who's arguing the point? I was just agreeing with Arab Lover that temps are all over the place, and offered several contributory factors. More to the point, regional and global climate and weather have both been unstable throughout human history. Change is the only constant.

I'm intrigued by your claim that there is "no other explanation as to where the heat is coming from." On the contrary, there are in fact several competing explanations for the rise in global temps over the past 150 years or so, and considerable debate in the appropriate scientific circles about which one or more is correct.
 
2011-06-07 06:28:29 PM

Prevailing Wind: 4) Ice cores taken 1300-1500 show a massive reduction in ambient CO2. (Trees, if you recall, do this nifty thing where they convert CO2 into Oxygen)

5) From 1500 to 1800 therefor, the world had a Mini-Ice Age...which in reality was nothing but a return to climatological homeostasis as trees once again were allowed to do their thing dog.

Its not really all that complex. This is a case where the alteration on a single variable (tree growth) had a correlative effect on the atmospheric conditions that regulate global temperature.


Way too simplistic, and carbon dioxide is a FOLLOWING, not LEADING indicator. Note:


www.jupitersdance.com
 
2011-06-07 06:32:30 PM

Eleri: Eapoe6, you're "right" in that the entire scientific community does not agree with climate change, only the vast majority (about 75%).


You need POST-Climategate data. Most scientists simply assume that the peer-review process in climatology worked the way it did in THEIR field... Now, not so much. I note that ALL claims of overwhelming support for AGW among scientists are more than two years old.
 
2011-06-07 06:44:57 PM
Here we go with the grand conspiracy to redistribute the wealth and destroy the civilized world, I see.

chuckufarlie: PEOPLE who was to reduce pollution do not want to destroy the economy. However, the IPCC certainly wants to destroy the US economy.


GeneralJim: But, the big bucks are in the taxation. TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations... Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars.


chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.


chuckufarlie: The truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy.


chuckufarlie: They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world.


chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.


chuckufarlie: The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.


chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government.


chuckufarlie: Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents.


This is all essentially copypasta from David Icke's "Exposing the Dreamworld We Believe to be Real" website (new window), which has been found while following sources and clickthroughs from a number of General Jim's conspiracy blog links. The part they're leaving out of general discourse is that an extraterrestrial race of shapeshifting lizards- it appears to be an antisemitic reference- are behind it all, and have replaced various world leaders with lizardmen imposters, among them the entire UN, British Royal Family and the Bushes. They're using the IPCC and other agencies to redistribute the wealth of the world to secret locations, which they will then leave the world with and return to their home planet.

This shiat (new window) is too good to make up. (new window)
 
2011-06-07 07:07:14 PM
www.blueherald.com

www.blueherald.com

www.blueherald.com

Global Warming, Inc. and carbon credits for teh win. Assessment of solar effects on climate for teh loss.
 
2011-06-07 07:15:25 PM
Someone should tell the weather here about this. We have had nothing but shiatty, cold summers for the last 5 years (and we used to get 80+ days all June, July & August)
 
2011-06-07 07:33:03 PM

namatad: I predict that the people who predicted this wont be alive in 60 years.

I noticed that the article didnt give a prediction as to what the temp increase would be.
so they would be correct in their prediction even if the temp increases were tiny and meaningless.

I predict that NONE of the doom and gloom predicted by the global warming people will actually happen.

people will continue to live and die. there will be natural and man made disasters.

/PANIC


I predict that namatad won't be around to witness the worst effects of global warming so he can smugly spout whatever his gut tells him is correct.
 
2011-06-07 07:46:11 PM

namatad: so no, you can not assume that the exponetial temp increase will continue. you can assume that the many different changes in the climate system will be complexly intertwined producing god knows what kind of changes.


One CAN make predictions based upon reasonable data. No guarantee of being right, as we don't really know very much about climate yet. If current trends hold, we can expect about twenty years of cooling, followed by about thirty years of warming. And, overall, the trend will be about 0.26 K / century warming. Carbon dioxide effects on temperature are less than 1.0 K per doubling of carbon dioxide.

But, who knows? We could have a bolide strike that blasts us into an ice age, starting in a few minutes. The supervolcano under Yosemite could erupt, doing the same. The sun could flare, increasing output by a couple percent, heating us WAY up. Odds are low, but non-zero.
 
2011-06-07 07:55:11 PM

hitlersbrain: If it comes down to 'who is telling the truth, huge corporations who have lied about the health effects of cigarettes and chemicals of all kinds for profit or scientists who have devoted their lives to finding answers and cures and solutions to problems'... dude that's a no brainer.


Okay, I get who you DON'T like, but who are you supporting, the World Wildlife Fund, for example, that made up a claim for the glaciers all being gone soon, or the IPCC that took this outright lie, and claimed it was peer-reviewed science, going so far as calling the questioning of it "voodoo science?"
 
2011-06-07 08:02:24 PM

hitlersbrain: Science would be coming up with an alternate theory that can be proven, not barfing up pseudo scientific nonsense and out of context quotes.


No. You're misunderstanding science. You see, "science" is the best way we have to learn things. Part of the process is that everyone viciously attacks hypotheses to find the "weak" ones, and eliminate them. Having an advocacy group for a hypothesis is backwards. If the AGW debate is your intro to science, let me just point out that politics has weaseled its way into the science, and corrupted it.

One needs to FALSIFY a hypothesis. Then another hypothesis is developed. To falsify a hypothesis, it is NOT NECESSARY to have a "better" hypothesis. Falsifying a hypothesis means that the NULL HYPOTHESIS (opposite of the hypothesis) is true.

In the case of AGW, part of the hypothesis is that human release of carbon dioxide is causing a noticeable increase in planetary temperature. The null hypothesis is that humans are not causing a noticeable increase in planetary temperature by release of carbon dioxide. AGW has been falsified. Several different ways.
 
2011-06-07 08:07:57 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: Here we go with the grand conspiracy to redistribute the wealth and destroy the civilized world, I see.

chuckufarlie: PEOPLE who was to reduce pollution do not want to destroy the economy. However, the IPCC certainly wants to destroy the US economy.

GeneralJim: But, the big bucks are in the taxation. TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations... Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars.

chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie: The truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy.

chuckufarlie: They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world.

chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

chuckufarlie: The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government.

chuckufarlie: Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents.

This is all essentially copypasta from David Icke's "Exposing the Dreamworld We Believe to be Real" website (new window), which has been found while following sources and clickthroughs from a number of General Jim's conspiracy blog links. The part they're leaving out of general discourse is that an extraterrestrial race of shapeshifting lizards- it appears to be an antisemitic reference- are behind it all, and have replaced various world leaders with lizardmen imposters, among them the entire UN, British Royal Family and the Bushes. They're using the IPCC and other agencies to redistribute the wealth of the world to secret locations, which they will then leave the world with and return to their home planet.

This shiat (new window) is too good to make up. (new window)


Your idea that if some bonehead out there doesn't believe in AGW, and also believes in the lizard people, that somehow proves AGW could not be further from the truth. Let me just go straight for the Godwin... Hitler was a Green. Does that fact make all Green sympathizers NAZIs? Of course not. It is a measure of your desperation that you can't deal with what is said, but rather track back through some bizarre series of links to find some illogical way to discredit people who disagree with you. You are pathetic.
 
2011-06-07 08:21:40 PM
It's really simple. The GCMs (models) all assume that water vapor is a positive feedback of twice the amplitude of any increase caused by carbon dioxide. Without ANY feedback from water vapor, doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would create about a 1.0 K increase each time carbon dioxide doubled. Water vapor feedback is assumed, in the CGMs, to add about two K to that, for a total of about 3 K, which would, indeed, be of concern. On the other hand, lots of recent peer-reviewed literature shows that water vapor is actually a NEGATIVE feedback, because it doesn't just sit in the air, some of it forms low-level clouds, which reflect heat and light, cooling the earth underneath them. The exact magnitude of negative feedback is not, as far as I can tell, adequately measured, but even if it's zero, that leaves doubling carbon dioxide at 1.0 K, which is acceptable. And, clearly, it will be LESS than that, by some amount.

Also, the sun's output heats the planet in at least two ways, rather than just by insolation as many have assumed. Increased solar activity increases the shielding provided by the Van Allen belts, reducing the amount of cosmic rays which strike down into the lower atmosphere -- creating clouds. So, more solar activity means fewer clouds, and thus, higher temperatures. This effect was missed by early views of climate, and the "extra" warming, above and beyond the insolation, was attributed, incorrectly, to the greenhouse effect.

These two factors account for enough error to generate the outrageous errors model predictions have had at the multi-decade range. When corrected, the predictions of the models are much improved, although there is no reason to panic with correct data. And, of course, panic is the desired outcome of climate research by those funding it.
 
2011-06-07 08:22:27 PM

Kurai Kage Ryu: g4lt: namatad: I predict that the people who predicted this wont be alive in 60 years.

I noticed that the article didnt give a prediction as to what the temp increase would be.
so they would be correct in their prediction even if the temp increases were tiny and meaningless.

I predict that NONE of the doom and gloom predicted by the global warming people will actually happen.

people will continue to live and die. there will be natural and man made disasters.

/PANIC

The people in Joplin would laugh at you, but they're too busy rebuilding. The Japanese would, but they're too busy not glowing in the dark. Anyone with spitting distance of a major river in the US would laugh at you, but they're too busy sandbagging. Arizonans would laugh at you, but they're too busy running for their lives. God damn, do you have to personally be slapped in the face with a major disaster to realize that shiat'S FARKED UP, and it won't unfark during our lifetimes.

And what, pray tell, are we running from? Personally, I enjoy the 100+ days. The heat doesn't start bothering me until ~140 (as measured by the thermometer sitting on the ground in the sun all day, not by the airport)

But anyways, we don't really have weather here in southern AZ. No snow, [almost] no rain, no rivers to flood, no earthquakes, no tornadoes, rarely drops below freezing, even in the dead of winter. Stay away from anything that may have, at some point, been alive (everything seems to either have thorns or fangs) and you will be fine.


The fires...
 
2011-06-07 09:05:13 PM
Yeah just like when they said children born after 2000 wouldn't even know what snow looked like because of global warming.

If climatologists didn't change their "difinitive absolutely correct" theories EVERY YEAR, I'd be more inclined to believe them.

Until then I'll just live with the fact that I live on an ever changing planet that was changing long before man came around, and will continue to change long after we're gone.
 
2011-06-07 10:24:36 PM

GeneralJim: Your idea that if some bonehead out there doesn't believe in AGW, and also believes in the lizard people, that somehow proves AGW could not be further from the truth. Let me just go straight for the Godwin... Hitler was a Green. Does that fact make all Green sympathizers NAZIs?


The point, again, is the sources from which you pull your misinformation. Unfailingly, the great majority of them are either political or conspiracy theory blogs. The question you should ask is, if conspiracy theorists and political activists are the foundations of your narrative, and you push this narrative as your own, does that make you a conspiracy theorist/political activist?

GeneralJim: It is a measure of your desperation that you can't deal with what is said, but rather track back through some bizarre series of links to find some illogical way to discredit people who disagree with you. You are pathetic.


I have discussed with you at some length as to why (new window) your more rational positions in dissent of AGW are faulty at best, (new window) and each time after a certain point you abandon rational thought for conspiracy in the ranks of the UN, IPCC, and other 'global powers' that 'seek to redistribute the wealth of the world'.

If I happen to point out to you that your links themselves contain fradulent or altered data ripped from uncited primary sources, (new window) you dip out of the conversation altogether or start posting unrelated jpegs.

In light of all that, it appears that the most efficient way to counter your whargarbl, and maybe even to convince you to actually vet your sources and think critically about the information they present, is to let you skewer yourself with your own words and sources. Keep up the good work.
 
2011-06-08 12:30:32 AM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: GeneralJim: Your idea that if some bonehead out there doesn't believe in AGW, and also believes in the lizard people, that somehow proves AGW could not be further from the truth. Let me just go straight for the Godwin... Hitler was a Green. Does that fact make all Green sympathizers NAZIs?

The point, again, is the sources from which you pull your misinformation. Unfailingly, the great majority of them are either political or conspiracy theory blogs. The question you should ask is, if conspiracy theorists and political activists are the foundations of your narrative, and you push this narrative as your own, does that make you a conspiracy theorist/political activist?


As IF. I have put out all sorts of information from all sorts of sources, including lots of peer-reviewed literature. It doesn't matter... All the peer-reviewed literature is trash, all the people involved are either brain-dead, or shills of the oil industry -- just ask the pro-AGW mob. "Vetting" on Fark is as bad as peer-review was at its worst in climatology; the only thing that mattered was the conclusion: pro-AGW good, AGW-skeptical, bad.

And, you know, it's kind of ... no, not "kind of" ... it's just plain stupid to refer to quoting the co-chair of the IPCC working committee as "conspiracy theory." HEY, JACKASS! He is admitting it. That kind of eliminates the whole "conspiracy theory" bit -- with an admission by a prominent member, it's simply a conspiracy. Okay? If George W. Bush went on television and said that, yes, the CIA had imploded the World Trade Center to make SURE we went after Saddam, the Troofers wouldn't be wackos... they'd be correct.

Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple. Are you in denial?

And, boneheads here CONSTANTLY reference pro-AGW blogs, as if that meant something. More one-way crap: okay if WE do it.



GeneralJim: It is a measure of your desperation that you can't deal with what is said, but rather track back through some bizarre series of links to find some illogical way to discredit people who disagree with you. You are pathetic.

I have discussed with you at some length as to why (new window) your more rational positions in dissent of AGW are faulty at best, (new window) and each time after a certain point you abandon rational thought for conspiracy in the ranks of the UN, IPCC, and other 'global powers' that 'seek to redistribute the wealth of the world'.

It's just the U.N. The IPCC is part of the U.N. And, while many governments like the idea of being able to tax EVERYTHING that goes on in their country while having the excuse that it's necessary to "save the planet," it appears that the whole process is coordinated entirely by the U.N., who then call for, and get, support from various governments.



If I happen to point out to you that your links themselves contain fradulent or altered data ripped from uncited primary sources, (new window) you dip out of the conversation altogether or start posting unrelated jpegs.

"Fraudulent or altered data? Wow. I guess that makes YOU a conspiracy theorist... or is that another of those "okay if WE do it" areas?
 
2011-06-08 12:56:34 AM

Tigerpillow: Until then I'll just live with the fact that I live on an ever changing planet that was changing long before man came around, and will continue to change long after we're gone.


wait
every day is the same as the day before
every decade the same as the ones before
no wait
that is the truman show
 
2011-06-08 01:22:49 AM

shucherfase: Ninten


*shrugs* I'm from Mississippi. We have greet educational system.

/I should know, I'm a teacher.
 
2011-06-08 01:49:44 AM

CoolHandLucas: /only a fool would dismiss man's impact on the planet, but geez, a few decades ago folks were freaking out about global cooling


No.

Well... not anyone worth paying attention to.
 
2011-06-08 02:21:25 AM
Hehe, wasn't this the plot of the original Superman movie with Christopher Reeves? Jorl El says that Krypton is doomed but people just say hes monkey boat but alas, he's proven correct. Now I'm not saying the sun is going to become a red giant but something is happening to the Earth that Man is not prepared for. Random events tend to have drastic consequences and the world has created a economic model that is unsustainable at the slightest disruption of any of its key components.

Plus, the sooner we kick off the resource and new arable land wars, the sooner we can have this:

oneguyrambling.com
 
2011-06-08 07:10:12 AM
 
2011-06-08 08:02:22 AM

TheWizard: Some people sell healing crystals. Some sell herbal suppliments. Some sell climate panic.


And some, much like yourself, are idiots.
 
2011-06-08 08:56:50 AM

CoolHandLucas: /only a fool would dismiss man's impact on the planet, but geez, a few decades ago folks were freaking out about global cooling


I can't believe there are still idiots out there that still believe this lie.
 
gad
2011-06-08 09:33:18 AM

Farking Canuck: CoolHandLucas: /only a fool would dismiss man's impact on the planet, but geez, a few decades ago folks were freaking out about global cooling

I can't believe there are still idiots out there that still believe this lie.


Well, it was one of the fears at the time. I remember reading it in Newsweek and thinking it was BS at the time and idiots calling me an idiot for disbelieving this particular fear of the future. I can't believe there are idiots out there that who idiotically call other people idiots for not having faith in their particular brand of dogmatic truth.
 
2011-06-08 09:36:37 AM

Farking Canuck: CoolHandLucas: /only a fool would dismiss man's impact on the planet, but geez, a few decades ago folks were freaking out about global cooling

I can't believe there are still idiots out there that still believe this lie.


You're probably referring to Peterson et al (2008) but this has shown to be guilty of cherry picking. He doesn't cite prominent cooling proponents (e.g Lamb) and even misses out important papers from within his own organisation. Cooling *was* a concern in the 60's and 70's.
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report