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.

(Slashdot)   Good news: We're nowhere near a global warming worst-case scenario. Bad news: We're doing much worse   (news.slashdot.org) divider line 418
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

11951 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2011 at 8:55 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



418 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-08 09:26:56 AM  

weeha: (I especially like the part when he calls her an ignorant slut)


Did you like it when SNL coined the "Jane, you ignorant slut" gag 30-some-odd years ago?
 
2011-11-08 09:27:22 AM  
Time for popcorn....
 
2011-11-08 09:28:02 AM  

nunoyo: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

...that graph goes past 2000. It goes almost to 2010, looks like about 2008 to me.


Yes, as I clearly pointed out in my post, the data extends beyond 2000. You can see how it's flattened out and it would be even more obvious if it was extended to 2010.
 
2011-11-08 09:28:29 AM  

Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.


I used the graph directly from BEST, which was the site you chose. Really, go check the URL.

(I mean, assuming you actually give a shiat about what the data actually shows instead of just trying to forward your usual evangelical-right agenda, you worthless political hack.)

Given that 2010 was the warmest year on record, and that 2009 was the 2nd-warmest year on record (now 3rd, having been displaced by 2010), I don't think that your argument that "that graph only goes to 2008" is going anywhere.

You know this of course, because it's been pointed out to you before, but you continue to repeat the same lies, because you're a worthless political hack.
 
2011-11-08 09:32:00 AM  

Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

...that graph goes past 2000. It goes almost to 2010, looks like about 2008 to me.

Yes, as I clearly pointed out in my post, the data extends beyond 2000. You can see how it's flattened out and it would be even more obvious if it was extended to 2010.


That's not what you said.
 
2011-11-08 09:32:14 AM  
Thanks China!
 
2011-11-08 09:32:32 AM  
And one of, if not the biggest man made cause of the CO2 problem: Vehicles. Yet drive a anywhere and look around at the other drivers. 80%+ are driving alone. We blaem everything but ourselves. We're doing it wrong.
 
2011-11-08 09:33:41 AM  
This thread again? No one ever gets swayed by this. The willfully ignorant will always choose to remain willfully ignorant because it's too scary to even consider that they may be wrong.

But there's one thing I'm quite sure of. Making the assumption that the climate is indeed warming and changing (which the data supports), in 20-30 years, the group that is screaming, "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT THIS" the loudest is going to be the same group of people denying it today.
 
2011-11-08 09:34:28 AM  

chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

I used the graph directly from BEST, which was the site you chose. Really, go check the URL.

(I mean, assuming you actually give a shiat about what the data actually shows instead of just trying to forward your usual evangelical-right agenda, you worthless political hack.)

Given that 2010 was the warmest year on record, and that 2009 was the 2nd-warmest year on record (now 3rd, having been displaced by 2010), I don't think that your argument that "that graph only goes to 2008" is going anywhere.

You know this of course, because it's been pointed out to you before, but you continue to repeat the same lies, because you're a worthless political hack.


Did you read either of my links? If you did and you still refuse to admit that the temperature has stagnated then I have to ask, why do you hate science? Even the climate-gate emails showed the scientists knew this was happening and were perplexed by this issue. They have no answer for it atm.
 
2011-11-08 09:35:02 AM  

Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.


And I guess your point is that you can't farking read, you worthless political hack. Here's the graph again.

berkeleyearth.org

Do you see where the year 2000 is? Spoiler alert: It's made up of a "2", followed by a "0", then another "0", and then yet one more "0".
 
2011-11-08 09:37:15 AM  

chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

And I guess your point is that you can't farking read, you worthless political hack. Here's the graph again.

[berkeleyearth.org image 525x413]

Do you see where the year 2000 is? Spoiler alert: It's made up of a "2", followed by a "0", then another "0", and then yet one more "0".


I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read? If you could, you would have seen that I pointed out that that data shows the temperature has stagnated. Can you not see that from around 2000 on that it's leveled off?
 
2011-11-08 09:39:01 AM  
There was some denier scientist the other day that actually examined the data, and joined the real world. Anybody else see that? The other denier scientists were plenty mad at him. Thought it was in the daily fail, but I'm not seeing it.
 
2011-11-08 09:39:16 AM  

Brubold: Did you read either of my links?


You linked a Daily Mail article, and then someone's blog where they point out how they were misquoted in that article. Nice sources, hack. No wonder you're so confused.

Scroll up and read the JGR article. It quantifies a very simple point about signal and noise that you're ignorant of.

(Just stick to the text, given your inability to read graphs. If you do try to read the graph above again, remember that time goes left to right.)
 
2011-11-08 09:39:36 AM  

Brubold: chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

And I guess your point is that you can't farking read, you worthless political hack. Here's the graph again.

[berkeleyearth.org image 525x413]

Do you see where the year 2000 is? Spoiler alert: It's made up of a "2", followed by a "0", then another "0", and then yet one more "0".

I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read? If you could, you would have seen that I pointed out that that data shows the temperature has stagnated. Can you not see that from around 2000 on that it's leveled off?


You still said that it stops at 2000. You can't change the fact that you said that. You could have just said "whoops, I guess I made a little mistake when I first looked at the graph," but you didn't. You're trying to convince us you didn't say what you said, with your original quote still at the top of each post.
 
2011-11-08 09:40:48 AM  

Gunther: Brubold: And yet BEST's own data shows that temperature hasn't risen in over a decade. Imagine that.

That talking point is outdated, bro. The current one is "You can't PROVE the rising temperatures are caused by C02!". If you want to stay ahead of the pack, I recommend "OK, it's warming and we're causing it, but it's too late to do anything about it!".


Unfortunately, from a realistic standpoint I think your comment is true. Places like China aren't interested in the environment, they'll just keep pouring it out and we're going to fry no matter what we do.

trofl: chimp_ninja: Brubold: And yet BEST's own data shows that temperature hasn't risen in over a decade. Imagine that.

So here's the BEST temperature record, overlaid with temperature records from three other major groups:

Even better link showing warming (and "cooling") in the BEST data (in animated gif format, no less).


Thank you. That graph does a very good job of demonstrating what I've been saying for years.
 
2011-11-08 09:41:46 AM  

Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.


Brubold: I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read?


Please, tell us more. You're looking very smart so far.

(Protip: People can click on the links or just scroll up and look at what you wrote before. As a further reminder, "before" is to the left on the graph above.)
 
2011-11-08 09:42:24 AM  
Given that 2010 was the warmest year on record, and that 2009 was the 2nd-warmest year on record (now 3rd, having been displaced by 2010), I don't think that your argument that "that graph only goes to 2008" is going anywhere.

Okay, cool. When will I see dire consequences from this warming, given that we are doing jack all about it? I don't mean vague consequences like "slightly more hurricanes" or "less polar bears" or "ice caps melt a bit"--I mean the dire consequences like cities underwater, famine, and road warrior gangs? I heard about these problems 20-30 years ago but nothing has really changed yet.
 
2011-11-08 09:43:35 AM  

nunoyo: Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

...that graph goes past 2000. It goes almost to 2010, looks like about 2008 to me.

Yes, as I clearly pointed out in my post, the data extends beyond 2000. You can see how it's flattened out and it would be even more obvious if it was extended to 2010.

That's not what you said.


Reading comprehension, did you study it?
 
2011-11-08 09:43:45 AM  
Wouldn't the same gasses that keep heat trapped in the atmosphere also prevent heat from entering the atmosphere, thereby cancelling the effect out, Or is CO2 some sort of one-way mirror in the atmospheric gas world?

Also if global warming is man made, what explains the "Medieval warm period" when there were a lot fewer people and a lot less industrial activity?
 
2011-11-08 09:45:09 AM  

PsiChi: There was some denier scientist the other day that actually examined the data, and joined the real world. Anybody else see that? The other denier scientists were plenty mad at him. Thought it was in the daily fail, but I'm not seeing it.


It was Richard Muller, a physicist at Berkeley and champion of skeptics for a while now. Here's his own article in the WSJ about it:

Nevermind, I guess we can't link to WSJ articles. Here's another article:

Link (new window)

and you can c-and-p the WSJ address if you want to try:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020442240457659487279632 7 348.html
 
2011-11-08 09:45:18 AM  

Sarah Palin's Conscience: But what if we create a better world cripple the US economyfor nothing?


FTFY



If there was just one thing I wished people would do, liberal or conservative, Tea Party or OWS, it's FOLLOW THE MONEY! If your Google is broken, you have an excuse for ignorance. Otherwise, just follow the money trail right back to the UN trying to redistribute wealth from Industrialized nations to the rest of the world. If global warming is the tool that is working right now, then they'll beat this horse till it's dead. If it makes you feel powerful and helpful to imagine human's little lives can actually change our planets climate, congratulations, you're a useful idiot. The Earth will be here in 300 years, 3000 years, and 3 million years. It will be constantly warming and cooling, constantly changing. And the idea that a little carbon based life form that only existed for a blink of the eye in the earths timeframe caused any of these changes? Too bad nobody will be around to look at the big picture and laugh at just how gullible the masses were back in the 21st century.
 
2011-11-08 09:46:11 AM  

chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

Brubold: I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read?

Please, tell us more. You're looking very smart so far.

(Protip: People can click on the links or just scroll up and look at what you wrote before. As a further reminder, "before" is to the left on the graph above.)


you are the last person to be giving advise to anybody.
 
2011-11-08 09:47:20 AM  
Goofy ass people and their goofy ass charts and graphs.
 
2011-11-08 09:48:14 AM  
IPCC Official: "Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth"

Climate policy has almost nothing to do with environmental protection anymore, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. -Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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. - Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide. -former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom, 2000

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.-Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister, 2002

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources. - Emma Brindal, Friends of the Earth, 2007

Blindly accepting Western science's prognosis could have social and economic costs for India. Climate science today is not just a scientific enterprise, but also a political enterprise. - Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, The Hindu, 17 November 2010 Link (new window)
 
2011-11-08 09:48:20 AM  

Brubold: Since BEST's data is the newest study and was widely cheered by warmists as affirmation of their beliefs, it's a better measure. It shows a temperature stagnation over the last decade


Woo! No more global warming! The earth is saved! Let's just ignore the fact that BEST's own data showed the last decade was the warmest on record, , that surely isn't important. What matters is if you just look at one organizations' data and ignore everything but the recent decade, you don't see a warming trend!

Oh wait, what's that? Scientists use an 11 year moving average to examine climate trends because there's too much "noise" otherwise , and including just one more year shows a warming trend?

Well, shiat.
 
2011-11-08 09:48:23 AM  

Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

...that graph goes past 2000. It goes almost to 2010, looks like about 2008 to me.

Yes, as I clearly pointed out in my post, the data extends beyond 2000. You can see how it's flattened out and it would be even more obvious if it was extended to 2010.

That's not what you said.

Reading comprehension, did you study it?


Did you or did you not say that the graph cuts off at 2000?
 
2011-11-08 09:49:08 AM  

chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

And I guess your point is that you can't farking read, you worthless political hack. Here's the graph again.

[berkeleyearth.org image 525x413]

Do you see where the year 2000 is? Spoiler alert: It's made up of a "2", followed by a "0", then another "0", and then yet one more "0".


Numbers and reading are for socialists, dontchaknow!

I didn't know that "Brubold" was a tool and lie maker, however.
 
2011-11-08 09:49:08 AM  
I love how the warmists are all concentrating on my statement about the graph cutting off at 2000 (in the following sentence I point out that the data extends beyond that) while totally ignoring the close up graph my first link provides of the years beyond 2000 using BEST's own data. Why not go look and see what your bestest global warming study evar showed is happening to the temperature in the last 10 years? Why do you all hate science?
 
2011-11-08 09:50:10 AM  

chuckufarlie: lalala I can't hear you


Well, that's this thread over.
 
2011-11-08 09:50:16 AM  

Guelph35: Wouldn't the same gasses that keep heat trapped in the atmosphere also prevent heat from entering the atmosphere, thereby cancelling the effect out, Or is CO2 some sort of one-way mirror in the atmospheric gas world?

Also if global warming is man made, what explains the "Medieval warm period" when there were a lot fewer people and a lot less industrial activity?


Our planet has a lot of moving parts. Volcanos, widespread forest fires, CO2, etc are all factors in our climate. I worry little what the cause is. As a realist, I note that the sea level is rising (this is empirical data) and that steps need to be taken to deal with this fact.
 
2011-11-08 09:51:01 AM  

chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

Brubold: I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read?

Please, tell us more. You're looking very smart so far.

(Protip: People can click on the links or just scroll up and look at what you wrote before. As a further reminder, "before" is to the left on the graph above.)


The paranoid types always project.
 
2011-11-08 09:51:42 AM  

nunoyo: Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

...that graph goes past 2000. It goes almost to 2010, looks like about 2008 to me.

Yes, as I clearly pointed out in my post, the data extends beyond 2000. You can see how it's flattened out and it would be even more obvious if it was extended to 2010.

That's not what you said.

Reading comprehension, did you study it?

Did you or did you not say that the graph cuts off at 2000?


Yes, and then in the following sentence I point out that the data extends beyond that point. Do you not see the following sentence? Have the seas risen and erased it from existence?
 
2011-11-08 09:52:21 AM  
I want to step away from the usual Global Warming WHARGARBL and ask: Who the fark greenlights a gadamn Slashdot thread?! Is this what serves to stimulate discussion these days on Fark? I dont even
 
2011-11-08 09:52:48 AM  

Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: nunoyo: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

...that graph goes past 2000. It goes almost to 2010, looks like about 2008 to me.

Yes, as I clearly pointed out in my post, the data extends beyond 2000. You can see how it's flattened out and it would be even more obvious if it was extended to 2010.

That's not what you said.

Reading comprehension, did you study it?

"I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 "


Logical contradiction, did you study it?
 
2011-11-08 09:52:49 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Yeah, that winter home in Canada is really going to pay off.

All snark aside so what? It is cheaper and more effective to mitigate the consequences after they happen then it is to attempt to stop them from happening.


No it's not. Due to the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution effect on ocean water evaporation, global warming increases precipitation and river run-off. Also there is the increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and melting of polar sea ice. All that increases the fresh water flowing into the North Atlantic deep-water formation areas near Greenland.

In the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF File) it states that, based on current model simulations, it is very likely (90-99% confidence) that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. FTA - the 2007 models did not use current data, which is worse (more melting) than first measured.

That increase in the fresh water flowing into the North AtlanticWhat would shut down the thermo-haline circulation. What would be the consequences? Massive crop failures in North America and Europe. No crops at all in the Southern hemisphere.

# Annual average temperatures would drop up to 5° F in North America, and up to 6° F in northern Europe. This is not sufficient to trigger an ice age, which requires about a 10° F drop in temperature world-wide, but could bring about conditions like experienced in 1816--the famed "year without a summer". In that year, volcanic ash from the mighty Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia blocked the sun's rays, significantly cooling the globe. Snow fell in New England in June, and killing frosts in July and August caused widespread crop failures and famine in New England and northern Europe.
# Annual average temperatures would warm up to 4° F in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
# Multi-year droughts in regions unaccustomed to drought would affect critical agricultural and water resource regions world-wide, greatly straining food and water supplies.

Dr. Jeff Masters (new window)
 
2011-11-08 09:53:40 AM  

Brubold: I love how the warmists are all concentrating on my statement about the graph cutting off at 2000 (in the following sentence I point out that the data extends beyond that) while totally ignoring the close up graph my first link provides of the years beyond 2000 using BEST's own data. Why not go look and see what your bestest global warming study evar showed is happening to the temperature in the last 10 years? Why do you all hate science?


Your original quote: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

This to us implied that you believed the posted graph to end at 2000, but that if we were to look at a graph including data beyond 2000, we would see a stagnation. If this is not what you intended to say, then you should clarify and be more careful about expressing your thoughts in words in the future.
 
2011-11-08 09:54:05 AM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

Brubold: I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read?

Please, tell us more. You're looking very smart so far.

(Protip: People can click on the links or just scroll up and look at what you wrote before. As a further reminder, "before" is to the left on the graph above.)

you are the last person to be giving advise to anybody.


"advice"

And I think he pretty much nailed it.
 
2011-11-08 09:54:31 AM  

Delay: Slaves2Darkness: Yeah, that winter home in Canada is really going to pay off.

All snark aside so what? It is cheaper and more effective to mitigate the consequences after they happen then it is to attempt to stop them from happening.

No it's not. Due to the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution effect on ocean water evaporation, global warming increases precipitation and river run-off. Also there is the increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and melting of polar sea ice. All that increases the fresh water flowing into the North Atlantic deep-water formation areas near Greenland.

In the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF File) it states that, based on current model simulations, it is very likely (90-99% confidence) that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. FTA - the 2007 models did not use current data, which is worse (more melting) than first measured.

That increase in the fresh water flowing into the North AtlanticWhat would shut down the thermo-haline circulation. What would be the consequences? Massive crop failures in North America and Europe. No crops at all in the Southern hemisphere.

# Annual average temperatures would drop up to 5° F in North America, and up to 6° F in northern Europe. This is not sufficient to trigger an ice age, which requires about a 10° F drop in temperature world-wide, but could bring about conditions like experienced in 1816--the famed "year without a summer". In that year, volcanic ash from the mighty Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia blocked the sun's rays, significantly cooling the globe. Snow fell in New England in June, and killing frosts in July and August caused widespread crop failures and famine in New England and northern Europe.
# Annual average temperatures would warm up to 4° F in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
# Multi-year droughts in regions unaccustomed to drought would affect critical agricultural and water resource regions world-wide, greatly straining food and water supplies.

Dr. Jeff Masters (new window)


Have you ever taken a good look at the topography of Greenland? Obviously not.
 
2011-11-08 09:54:44 AM  

Gunther: Brubold: Since BEST's data is the newest study and was widely cheered by warmists as affirmation of their beliefs, it's a better measure. It shows a temperature stagnation over the last decade

Woo! No more global warming! The earth is saved! Let's just ignore the fact that BEST's own data showed the last decade was the warmest on record, , that surely isn't important. What matters is if you just look at one organizations' data and ignore everything but the recent decade, you don't see a warming trend!

Oh wait, what's that? Scientists use an 11 year moving average to examine climate trends because there's too much "noise" otherwise , and including just one more year shows a warming trend?

Well, shiat.


And had you bothered to read either of my links you'd have seen that one of BEST's lead scientists has a problem with those claims. But I guess it's more important to cling to one's religion than to do a bunch of silly research.
 
2011-11-08 09:55:46 AM  
Global Warming is all part of the bigger plan for the Dinosaurs to return.
 
2011-11-08 09:55:51 AM  
I always wonder why we don't start programs to capture CO2 from the oceans in the form of calcium carbonate, by building biorocks or coral from ocean minerals dissolved with electricity. Well if the production of electricity doesn't produce even more CO2.

Link (new window)
 
2011-11-08 09:56:33 AM  
When the government and UN get serious about deploying nuclear power, then I'll take the AGW crap seriously. As of now, all I see are desparate socialists making a power grab for the world economy.

/warming is FAR better than cooling
//moving to New Hampshire soon.
///Warmz? BRING IT!
 
2011-11-08 09:56:39 AM  

todangst: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

Brubold: I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read?

Please, tell us more. You're looking very smart so far.

(Protip: People can click on the links or just scroll up and look at what you wrote before. As a further reminder, "before" is to the left on the graph above.)

you are the last person to be giving advise to anybody.

"advice"

And I think he pretty much nailed it.


ad·vise

[ad-vahyz] Show IPA verb, -vised, -vis·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to give counsel to; offer an opinion or suggestion as worth following: I advise you to be cautious.
2.
to recommend as desirable, wise, prudent, etc.: He advised secrecy.
3.
to give (a person, group, etc.) information or notice (often followed by of): The investors were advised of the risk. They advised him that this was their final notice.
verb (used without object)
4.
to take counsel; consult (usually followed by with): I shall advise with my friends.
5.
to offer counsel; give advice: I shall act as you advise


DUMBASS!!!!
 
2011-11-08 09:56:45 AM  

nunoyo: Brubold: I love how the warmists are all concentrating on my statement about the graph cutting off at 2000 (in the following sentence I point out that the data extends beyond that) while totally ignoring the close up graph my first link provides of the years beyond 2000 using BEST's own data. Why not go look and see what your bestest global warming study evar showed is happening to the temperature in the last 10 years? Why do you all hate science?

Your original quote: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

This to us implied that you believed the posted graph to end at 2000, but that if we were to look at a graph including data beyond 2000, we would see a stagnation. If this is not what you intended to say, then you should clarify and be more careful about expressing your thoughts in words in the future.



Clearly. However, even then, he is still wrong (or lying) given that 2008-2010 are some of the hottest years on record. There's no leveling off in the first place.

Then you have to add that looking at any smaller subset of years in of itself is an error.

Error on top of error on top of error. It's a great debate strategy - be SO wrong that it takes up all your opponent's time just correcting you.
 
2011-11-08 09:57:14 AM  

chuckufarlie: Have you ever taken a good look at the topography of Greenland? Obviously not.


Of course I have. I have flown over it Greenland dozens of times. What is your point?
 
2011-11-08 09:57:22 AM  

nunoyo: Brubold: I love how the warmists are all concentrating on my statement about the graph cutting off at 2000 (in the following sentence I point out that the data extends beyond that) while totally ignoring the close up graph my first link provides of the years beyond 2000 using BEST's own data. Why not go look and see what your bestest global warming study evar showed is happening to the temperature in the last 10 years? Why do you all hate science?

Your original quote: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point. If you look at the post 2000 data on that graph you can see it's leveled off. If they showed it to 2010 it would clearly show stagnation.

This to us implied that you believed the posted graph to end at 2000, but that if we were to look at a graph including data beyond 2000, we would see a stagnation. If this is not what you intended to say, then you should clarify and be more careful about expressing your thoughts in words in the future.


Fair enough. I can see how it could be taken either way. My intention though was to point out that if the graph was extended a bit to show a few more years (to 2010) that the line has clearly flattened.
 
2011-11-08 09:58:41 AM  

chuckufarlie: todangst: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

Brubold: I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read?

Please, tell us more. You're looking very smart so far.

(Protip: People can click on the links or just scroll up and look at what you wrote before. As a further reminder, "before" is to the left on the graph above.)

you are the last person to be giving advise to anybody.

"advice"

And I think he pretty much nailed it.

ad·vise

[ad-vahyz] Show IPA verb, -vised, -vis·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to give counsel to; offer an opinion or suggestion as worth following: I advise you to be cautious.
2.


You don't give 'advise', you give 'advice'. Grammar, how does it work?

Moron!
 
2011-11-08 09:59:13 AM  

chuckufarlie: todangst: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: Brubold: I love how all of these graphs shown by warmists cut off at the year 2000 which kind of proves my point.

Brubold: I pointed out in that post that the graph's data extends beyond 2000. Can YOU not read?

Please, tell us more. You're looking very smart so far.

(Protip: People can click on the links or just scroll up and look at what you wrote before. As a further reminder, "before" is to the left on the graph above.)

you are the last person to be giving advise to anybody.

"advice"

And I think he pretty much nailed it.

ad·vise

[ad-vahyz] Show IPA verb, -vised, -vis·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to give counsel to; offer an opinion or suggestion as worth following: I advise you to be cautious.
2.
to recommend as desirable, wise, prudent, etc.: He advised secrecy.
3.
to give (a person, group, etc.) information or notice (often followed by of): The investors were advised of the risk. They advised him that this was their final notice.
verb (used without object)
4.
to take counsel; consult (usually followed by with): I shall advise with my friends.
5.
to offer counsel; give advice: I shall act as you advise


DUMBASS!!!!


Wow. That.... is really something. I knew you didn't like science, but I always figured you knew the difference between nouns and verbs.
 
2011-11-08 10:00:03 AM  

Guelph35: Wouldn't the same gasses that keep heat trapped in the atmosphere also prevent heat from entering the atmosphere, thereby cancelling the effect out, Or is CO2 some sort of one-way mirror in the atmospheric gas world?


It's largely one-way. The atmosphere is more transparent to the wavelengths that the sun emits (near-UV, visible, and some IR get through). That light impacts the surface, but the surface re-radiates that energy primarily in the infrared. Carbon dioxide (and methane, etc.) traps a fraction of that re-radiated energy. UCAR has a high-level overview here.

Also if global warming is man made, what explains the "Medieval warm period" when there were a lot fewer people and a lot less industrial activity?

www.pnas.org

A comparison of a bunch of studies, sourced from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most reputable scientific journals. As you can see, it wasn't quite as warm as we measure today (red line, right side is modern instrumental measurements), and it was fairly gradual. The various studies use different methods to estimate the temperature (and their uncertainties are the lightly shaded areas), but you can see broad agreement among the different methods.

Natural climate change exists. It tends to be relatively slow, and man-made climate change can stack on top of it. Think of forest fires. They occur in nature, and have been happening for eons. But in places where we cause droughts and practice poor forest management, they get more frequent and severe. They certainly don't prevent arson. The existence of a natural phenomenon does nothing to preclude a separate, man-made phenomenon with a similar outcome.
 
2011-11-08 10:00:47 AM  

nunoyo: weeha: (I especially like the part when he calls her an ignorant slut)

Did you like it when SNL coined the "Jane, you ignorant slut" gag 30-some-odd years ago?


Actually yes I did think it funny 30 years ago and find it funny even today...

This in no way reflects on the facts about CO2 and its lack of ANY contribution to global warming.

FACTS:

CO2 in the atmosphere:
0.039% by volume
392 ppm by volume

Percent of that CO2 that is man made: 7%

Water Vapor in the atmosphere accounts for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.


How much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
About 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account.
5.53%, if not.

Please don;t let the pols drop another fat tax on us all for their "cap and trade" scheme.
It is all lies.
All of it to get your money.
I call bullsh*t
 
Displayed 50 of 418 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





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