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  
•       •       •

11945 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
 
2011-11-09 08:42:40 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
The ocean is a net CO2 sink; localized releases are outweighed by overall absorption. Look up "oceanic acidification" and learn some more.

Nice arrogance. You've been practicing, haven't you?

Tell you what... How about YOU go look up "outgassing," and learn some more. Also, check into the Vostok ice cores. Did you know that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature? Yeah. Apparently, temperature rises when the planet KNOWS that there will soon be more carbon dioxide. Either that, or carbon dioxide level changes don't mean squat in terms of controlling temperature. One or the other. Check it out.
 
2011-11-09 08:51:57 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
GeneralJim: Okay... Now comes the hard part. Cinch up that plastic helmet, and grab your pudding. The current warming trend has been going on since a hundred and fifty years before the industrial revolution. Since it was going on before we started releasing fossil carbon dioxide, it is NOT the carbon dioxide causing the warming. Get it?

If true, then I could apply heat to a tub of cold water so that it warms at a certain rate, then insulate the tub so that less heat is lost, and the rate of warming would not change because the warming was already going on before I insulated the tub.

Got it.

Um, no, you don't have it. The rate did not change since before the industrial revolution. You are looking at the situation backwards... Let me help you with your handicap, if I can:

We'll use your example. We take measurements of the heating tub, and at some point, which we mark off on the chart, you wrap something around the tub. When we're done, we notice that it is impossible to see, on the chart, WHERE you wrapped the tub, because the rate of temperature increase did NOT change throughout the whole experiment. Therefore, your wrap did nothing to insulate it, or, at least, not enough to notice.
 
2011-11-09 08:54:40 AM  
tinfoil-hat maggie:
B.S. graphs are B.S.

BS comment is BS.

/ Don't lose the hat.
 
2011-11-09 08:55:44 AM  
Jesus Christ, GeneralJim; get a hobby. Take up knitting or something.

In case anyone is convinced by any of the claims he's made in his many, many, MANY posts, you'll probably be able to find a debunking of them with peer-reviewed sources here. Normally I'd go through and link each of his claims to their individual debunking, but damned if I can be bothered for this thread. There's just too much bullshiat to wade through.
 
2011-11-09 09:01:06 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
hypnoticus ceratophrys: GeneralJim: The current warming trend has been going on since a hundred and fifty years before the industrial revolution. Since it was going on before we started releasing fossil carbon dioxide, it is NOT the carbon dioxide causing the warming. Get it?

By this logic, if one afternoon I happen across a slug dehydrating in the middle of my driveway, I can then throw a handful of salt on it and safely assume that because the slug was already dehydrating, further dehydration experienced by the slug is solely attributable to the sun.

Yeah, logic. How the fark does that work?

It's good that you are seeking help. That's how you get better. Why do you warmers always look at everything backwards?

The whooshing sound you heard was the POINT, which flew over your head. If you throw a handful of substance A on the slug, and it continues to dehydrate at exactly the same rate, substance A did not contribute to the dehydration. If you throw substance B on the slug, and it dehydrates rapidly, and dies, substance B contributed to the dehydration. Carbon dioxide is substance A.

/ Great. Now I'm thirsty.
 
2011-11-09 09:02:39 AM  
Climate change: Learning to think like a geologist (new window)

Money shot graph:
www.paulmacrae.com

The Earth is cooling.

The next Ice Age is roughly 1000 years away. Nothing we do will prevent that.
 
2011-11-09 09:12:21 AM  

GeneralJim: The whooshing sound you heard was the POINT, which flew over your head. If you throw a handful of substance A on the slug, and it continues to dehydrate at exactly the same rate, substance A did not contribute to the dehydration. If you throw substance B on the slug, and it dehydrates rapidly, and dies, substance B contributed to the dehydration. Carbon dioxide is substance A.


Undergraduate level physics and chemistry would like to have a word with you.
 
2011-11-09 09:13:20 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Friskaliberal.com: Your one-stop source for unbiased climatological data.

/but not mine

And someone not biased in the same way you are reporting something makes it not true. Sure, I buy that. Now, all you have to do is have Fox News report on JFK's death, and we can have HIM for President, and boot that Obama bum.

And, by the way, RealClimate, and the other hoaxer-friendly boards, are often written by the hoaxers themselves. You don't seem to mind them. Why is that?

And, the love child of Piltdown Man and "Oil for Food," skepticalscience, from which the ignorant posers crib their "when denier says" list, thus removing any incentive for the poser to think, has been caught altering user comments to make skeptical users seem stupid. Documented HERE. (new window)
 
2011-11-09 09:20:47 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.

WTF?

Your comment makes no sense. Much like the rest of your argument.

Gee, did I write that in this thread? Can you give me a post reference? Didn't think so. So, WTF is up with this. Isn't it just a tad dishonest? Do you work for the skepticalscience blog?
 
2011-11-09 09:21:27 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: And what about the CERN work of Svensmark from Denmark as reported just this summer? ... ... [I fully expect a prompt and sufficiently indignant, "BAH, Svensmark is DISCREDITED! BAH!" from all you career-entitled warmers out there.]


hypnoticus ceratophrys: The article itself was a study of the relationship between cloud formation and cosmic rays that found that under their own experimental conditions, cosmic rays alone are not enough to trigger cloud formation in our atmosphere. Are there specific sections from the primary article that you want to comment on or are you referring to the media's interpretation of it?


Did you have a point to make here?

Also,

hypnoticus ceratophrys: Now, working under the assumption that we are referring to the modern day and not for some arbitrary reason to classical Greece and the European Middle Ages, I'll ask again:

Is it more reasonable to trust men and women who have spent their lives studying and practicing their trade to know what they are talking about when on the subject of their trade and in almost total agreement, or to believe that for some reason almost all of them are in collusion to deceive you just for the hell of it?

And, would you be as dismissive if 98% of cardiologists recommended a specific treatment for a heart problem?


I'm assuming you didn't respond because you missed the post, rather than that it is challenging to answer without questioning your schema of the the topic or falling back on strawmen or other logical fallacies.
 
2011-11-09 09:25:15 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.

WTF?

Your comment makes no sense. Much like the rest of your argument.
Gee, did I write that in this thread? Can you give me a post reference? Didn't think so. So, WTF is up with this. Isn't it just a tad dishonest? Do you work for the skepticalscience blog?


The post reference is the bold blue text that says "GeneralJim". It takes you not just directly to the thread but the precise post in which you stated it. Here it is again for you, just click on the big blue letters.

GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.


Common sense is an oxymoron, I'm fairly certain Jim has me on ignore, so you might have to help him with this one.
 
2011-11-09 09:30:09 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: raygundan: HotIgneous Intruder: Wait until your battery bank needs to be replaced.

In a Prius? Meh... they're like $2500 new with a 10-year warranty or $500 from the junkyard. It's no worse than any of the other stuff that tends to wear down near the end of a car's life-- and it's got a better warranty to start.

For solar? Batteries don't make sense unless your goal is to live off the grid somewhere. You typically don't HAVE batteries to replace, and if you do, you have them because it was cost-effective in your situation... which makes the replacements cost-effective.

Ah. The Warranty Mentality. Your future is assured and secured by promises of Great Customer Service provided by smiling proles in which you get something for nothing for infinite time. Innit awesome?


To be fair, I get something in exchange for money for a limited time, since I have yet to find an infinite warranty... but in the case I listed, it is indeed worthwhile financially.
 
2011-11-09 09:49:51 AM  

JackCroww: The Earth is cooling.

The next Ice Age is roughly 1000 years away. Nothing we do will prevent that.


Kinda scary, ain't it?
 
2011-11-09 09:50:19 AM  

Baryogenesis: chuckufarlie: Baryogenesis: chuckufarlie: It shows that you have absolutely no regard for the opposing argument. I suppose that the scientists (the qualified people) who disagree with you are, what, CRAZY?

Hahahhahahahahahahahahahaha, oh wait, you're serious.

What about the ~95 of actively publishing climatologists who support the consensus position and don't support your position?

/waits for pathetic reply where nicksteel says that's not what he meant, it's different when qualified people disagree with HIM

Nobody here is qualified to say anything about AGW, especially you. IT would be sad to think about the fact that you are so uninformed on the subject if you weren't such a huge douche bag. You just suck up what your warmer buddies tell you. You have no clear idea of what is really going on.

Translation: "I was caught in a transparent attempt at special pleading (the experts who agree with me are right, but experts who don't are wrong) and I can literally do nothing in response but throw around some insults and hope no one notices my pathetic argument."

Anyway...
You have two mutually contradictory ideas.
1. Qualified scientists in their field of expertise know what they're talking about.
2. Global warming is a scam/hoax/fraud/not real/whatever despite the work and expertise of ~95% of climatologists saying otherwise.

chuckufarlie: The truth is that the 98% of climatologists who agree with the idea of global warming still respect the opinion of the 2% that do not. But those people are a lot more intelligent and mature than you are.

Again you state the same essential point, the vast majority of climatologists agree with the consensus position and they know what they're talking about. You cannot possibly think AGW is a conspiracy after saying that. Why do you think you're qualified to disagree with the consensus position when time and again your talking points are debunked by armchair scientists in this thread?


pure BS. The idea that the vast majority agree on this is based on a faulty polling process. Speaking of polling processes, how is your mother?
 
2011-11-09 09:53:57 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education...

This Reid Bryson (new window)? The one who predicted global cooling in the 1970s? The same "prediction" that deniers use to discredit current predictions of warming?

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

I don't even have to look this crap up to discredit it. Eighty percent of reradiated heat is absorbed in the first 30 feet of the atmosphere. Unless the humidity drops to near zero at 30 feet of altitude, another 80% would be absorbed in the next 30 feet...and the radiative output would quickly drop to zero. Does this happen in the real world? I didn't think so.

Invalid argument from authority is invalid.


So, now the man who many call the FATHER OF CLIMATOLOGY is an invalid authority.

You are truly a piece of work. You really need to shut up.
 
2011-11-09 09:57:51 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: However, I strongly suspect that you have no real interest in teaching. Perhaps you could provide examples of nonvolcanic CO2 contributions to the atmosphere. Please exclude natural elements of the carbon cycle, since these predate human activity and are part of the homeostatic mechanism which, according to deniers (there's that word again, and I'll keep using it as long as 98% of practicing climatologists agree), is why anthropogenic CO2 isn't a problem in the first place.

No, first I ASKED you if you thought no CO2 was produced in volcanoes. That chart that you posted had no spike of any kind during the periods of volcanic eruptions. I guess that you were not able to comprehend the meaning of that. No spike, no CO2 from volcanoes.

Keep moving those goalposts. (new window)

And then you made the following statement:
"Part of the deniers' argument is that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is minimal compared to natural emissions"

The only natural cause that you listed was volcanoes. From that, it is easy to see how you must believe that the only natural source is from volcanic actions. Why did you not list any other sources?

You ask me to provide other natural sources of CO2 and then restrict what I can add to the list? That sounds rather stupid.

How about all of the non-human air breathing animals on the planet? Can I include them? How about the rotting ot dead trees and other vegetation? IS that okay to add to the list?

The reason I didn't list organic carbon sources is that the CO2 thus released was previously extracted directly from the atmosphere over a period of months to years. Look up "carbon neutrality" and learn something.

How about the relase of CO2 in the ocean?

The ocean is a net CO2 sink; localized releases are outweighed by overall absorption. Look up "oceanic acidification" and learn some more.

And before you jump to the stupid conclusion that I am somehow suggesting that those sources outweigh the human contribution, that is not my point. You asked for sources and I gave SOME of them to you. I make no claim as to their ratio to human contributions.

Your point is moot.

You go right ahead and use the word denier, but don't try to smear practicing climatologists with that stupidity. The truth is that 100% of the practicing climatologists are intelligent enough to understand that a dissenting viewpoint is totally acceptable.

When based on logic and evidence, yes. When based on obfuscation and willful ignorance, not so much.

The truth is that the 98% of climatologists who agree with the idea of global warming still respect the opinion of the 2% that do not. But those people are a lot more intelligent and mature than you are.

See above.

BTW, the idea that 98% of the practicing climatologists agree with your notion is absurd.

Agree with me in what way? That humans are driving climate change? Of course they do.


Having decided that you are about as intelligent as a snail and that you have the integrity of a rock. I see no point in any further discussions with you. Your comments are incredibly stupid.

I have no idea how you can think that I have moved any goal posts when all I did was explain that I had asked a question. That is not "moving the goal posts". It is not even close to that idea. I never moved any goal posts because I never set any in the first place. I ASKED QUESTIONS.

You are now officially ignored.
 
2011-11-09 10:16:49 AM  

Errors in Scientific Data, Programs, and Methodology

Computer source code shows data manipulation. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer-Review is Completely Corrupt

Climate Science Needs Light -- Climatology Peer Review Process Irreparably Broken. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Used Greenpeace Campaigner To Write 'Impartial' Report On Renewable Energy, and review his own work. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer Review Process Failure: "Impossible" Conclusions in alarmist paper pass peer-review; AAAS withdraws paper. Article HERE. (new window)

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. Article HERE. (new window)

And, here is a list of some of the gross errors in scientific method and practice which have become part of the IPCC credo. List HERE. (new window)

Scientific Errors Made by the IPCC

IPCC science includes the idea that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere more than 100 years, contradicting ALL of the available peer-reviewed research. Chart HERE. (new window)
Discussion HERE. (new window)

Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests

Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth's Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity. (new window)

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (new window)

Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts (new window)

Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming (new window) (This paper not published in a peer-reviewed journal.)

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (new window) (This research may be a flier.)

On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing (new window)

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (new window)

Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models:
A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations
(new window)

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (new window)
Note that when the suggested correction to the math error is included in the models, they at least sort of accurately predict the present from historical data. Without the corrections, they do not. Awkward.
Descriptions of and discussion about the above article:

0. Modeling Global Warming (Miskolczi Part 1)
4. Models of Greenhouse Effect
5. Greenhouse Effect Physics
6. Greenhouse Heat Engine

Attempts to Deny the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age

History of climate gets 'erased' online. Article HERE. (new window)

CRU Director Phil Jones: "...surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated." Article HERE. (new window)

First, the metric arse-load of data showing the MWP is HERE. (new window)

M.I.T. Technology Review: Hockey Stick is Bogus. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones admits MWP was real. Article HERE. (new window)

U.N., IPCC, CRUnies, and Dr. Pachauri Specific Corruption

IPCC Official: "Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth." Article HERE. (new window)

The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income. Article HERE. (new window)

Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief. Article HERE. (new window)

Michael Mann Accused of More False Reporting. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Literature is not peer-reviewed or error-checked. Report HERE. (new window)

Data Manipulation Fraud

Accounting auditing brought to bear on climate data. It is discovered that NASA's GISS data and the Hadley CRU's data have been manufactured. That is, faked. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data Again. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption At GISS. Article HERE. (new window)

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal - NOAA Disgraced. Article HERE. (new window)

Pre-Climategate: "Unprecedented" Data Purge At CRU. Article HERE. (new window)

Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones: the Secret Agent in Hawaii. Article HERE. (new window)

Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA's James Hansen's Lies, Miscues, Incorrect Forecasts, and Fraud

James Hansen Apologizes for Using Next Year's Climate Data in October Report. Article HERE. (new window)

James Hansen Caught Altering Data to Eliminate Cooling. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption at NASA's GISS - Article HERE. (new window)

Some of his lies, follies, and idiocies are documented HERE. (new window)

Examination and analysis of James Hansen's bullshiat forcing claims is HERE. (new window)

Climate Models that Don't

IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data. Article HERE. (new window)

Climate Models Ignore Effect of Albedo, which is larger than GHE. Article HERE. (new window)

"The Cloud Mystery" Videos

1/5 HERE. (new window)
2/5 HERE. (new window)
3/5 HERE. (new window)
4/5 HERE. (new window)
5/5 HERE. (new window)


Solar activity affects cosmic rays, cloud formation is suppressed, and the planet warms. A good article, including a link to the original paper, is found HERE. (new window)

The Consensus itself is a Fraud

Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities - Professors Speaking Up. Article HERE. (new window)

The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

No Proof Man Causes Global Warming. Article HERE. (new window)

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. Article HERE. (new window)

Personal, Financial, Professional Attacks on Skeptics and the public.

Daily Kos Editor Says Skeptics Should Commit Suicide. Article HERE. (new window)

Scientists propose using "climate crisis" as excuse to set up scientific dictatorship. Review of their book HERE. (new window)

PNAS publishes a paper based on a skeptic blacklist. Article HERE. (new window)

 
2011-11-09 10:18:40 AM  
GeneralJim is much like a 9/11 denier. He will pull every conspiracy article on the subject to support his political worldview. This is dishonest because he will ignore the evidence that does not support his position. Instead of working his way to an opinion from the evidence, he starts with an ideology and works his way backwards.

Much like a truther will have a fundamental understanding of science but it is at such a level that he can't really understand that it is more complex then his mundane knowledge of the subject.

Everything GeneralJim says has a reasonable explanation that he continues to ignore for his ideology.

Every single graph he has produced here has been refuted and explained thoroughly in this series by Peter Hadfield on youtube. If you want a balanced opinion, read what GeneralJim says, and then watch the videos. The videos all have proper sources to the scientific papers in which the information is pulled from. You will clearly see that GeneralJim ignores anything that disputes his claims.

Don't be GeneralJim, read everything on the subject, and not just those that support your narrow worldview.

Climate Change is supported by thousands of scientists across disciplines. If climate change is some grand conspiracy, then every scientific organization in the world has to be in on it(including astronomers and geologists), as well as several major corporations in which many of the solutions would greatly affect their business. Do a search for oil companies official stance on climate change. They all state climate change is real and humans are causing it. If any of them suspected foul play, why would they support such a controversial claim? Because in scientific circles, it isn't controversial at all.
 
2011-11-09 10:56:50 AM  

Gunther: Jesus Christ, GeneralJim; get a hobby. Take up knitting or something.

In case anyone is convinced by any of the claims he's made in his many, many, MANY posts, you'll probably be able to find a debunking of them with peer-reviewed sources here. Normally I'd go through and link each of his claims to their individual debunking, but damned if I can be bothered for this thread. There's just too much bullshiat to wade through.


"I slay him thusly with my holy sword of PEER-REVIEW!"

/Peer review: Everybody thinking the same way for mutual benefit.
 
2011-11-09 10:58:30 AM  

GregoryD: GeneralJim is much like a 9/11 denier. He will pull every conspiracy article on the subject to support his political worldview. This is dishonest because he will ignore the evidence that does not support his position. Instead of working his way to an opinion from the evidence, he starts with an ideology and works his way backwards.

Much like a truther will have a fundamental understanding of science but it is at such a level that he can't really understand that it is more complex then his mundane knowledge of the subject.

Everything GeneralJim says has a reasonable explanation that he continues to ignore for his ideology.

Every single graph he has produced here has been refuted and explained thoroughly in this series by Peter Hadfield on youtube. If you want a balanced opinion, read what GeneralJim says, and then watch the videos. The videos all have proper sources to the scientific papers in which the information is pulled from. You will clearly see that GeneralJim ignores anything that disputes his claims.

Don't be GeneralJim, read everything on the subject, and not just those that support your narrow worldview.

Climate Change is supported by thousands of scientists across disciplines. If climate change is some grand conspiracy, then every scientific organization in the world has to be in on it(including astronomers and geologists), as well as several major corporations in which many of the solutions would greatly affect their business. Do a search for oil companies official stance on climate change. They all state climate change is real and humans are causing it. If any of them suspected foul play, why would they support such a controversial claim? Because in scientific circles, it isn't controversial at all.


You bee missing the gist, mon bra.
Global warming is a fact, jack.
But humans not be causing it, yerp.
 
2011-11-09 11:01:12 AM  
"Peer review" is the biggest, best example of confirmation bias in existence.

/For 1,500 years, the genii thought the Earth was the center of the solar system.
//The other two percent knew better.
///It was politically expedient to run with the herd.
 
2011-11-09 11:01:14 AM  

GeneralJim: And, the love child of Piltdown Man and "Oil for Food," skepticalscience, from which the ignorant posers crib their "when denier says" list, thus removing any incentive for the poser to think, has been caught altering user comments to make skeptical users seem stupid. Documented HERE. (new window)


Holy shiat, some blog claims they moderated some comments! clearly that disproves all those peer-reviewed studies they link to that back up their debunking of your bullshiat arguments!

GregoryD: Climate Change is supported by thousands of scientists across disciplines. If climate change is some grand conspiracy, then every scientific organization in the world has to be in on it(including astronomers and geologists), as well as several major corporations in which many of the solutions would greatly affect their business. Do a search for oil companies official stance on climate change. They all state climate change is real and humans are causing it. If any of them suspected foul play, why would they support such a controversial claim? Because in scientific circles, it isn't controversial at all.


I don't know man, you make a good argument but I didn't see a single link to a obscure right-wing blog run by non-scientists. And what's with choosing a color for the text in your post that doesn't make my eyes hurt? Plus, you didn't even copy and paste multiple gigantic posts filled with dubious links and long-debunked claims in an attempt to overwhelm me with far too much bullshiat to plausibly debunk so you could claim victory!
 
2011-11-09 11:04:31 AM  
Humans are clearly causing continental drift.
Australia is heading for a massive collision with Asia.
We've got to STOP IT!

We're running out of time!
FIGHT continental drift!
 
2011-11-09 12:01:27 PM  

GregoryD: GeneralJim is much like a 9/11 denier. He will pull every conspiracy article on the subject to support his political worldview. This is dishonest because he will ignore the evidence that does not support his position. Instead of working his way to an opinion from the evidence, he starts with an ideology and works his way backwards.

Much like a truther will have a fundamental understanding of science but it is at such a level that he can't really understand that it is more complex then his mundane knowledge of the subject.

Everything GeneralJim says has a reasonable explanation that he continues to ignore for his ideology.

Every single graph he has produced here has been refuted and explained thoroughly in this series by Peter Hadfield on youtube. If you want a balanced opinion, read what GeneralJim says, and then watch the videos. The videos all have proper sources to the scientific papers in which the information is pulled from. You will clearly see that GeneralJim ignores anything that disputes his claims.

Don't be GeneralJim, read everything on the subject, and not just those that support your narrow worldview.

Climate Change is supported by thousands of scientists across disciplines. If climate change is some grand conspiracy, then every scientific organization in the world has to be in on it(including astronomers and geologists), as well as several major corporations in which many of the solutions would greatly affect their business. Do a search for oil companies official stance on climate change. They all state climate change is real and humans are causing it. If any of them suspected foul play, why would they support such a controversial claim? Because in scientific circles, it isn't controversial at all.


I am always curious when anybody mentions EVIDENCE. Do you have any evidence that AGW is real?

Just so you know, the opinion of any number of scientists in NOT evidence. Many large corporations have jumped on the AGW band wagon because it is a great PR move. Just because a corporation says that something is true does not make it true.

And it actually is controversial in scientific circles. Real scientists do not all agree on the theory. The big difference between real scientists and people on Fark is that the scientists are smart enough and mature enough to respect the opinion of scientists who do not agree with them.


And if the IPCC tells me that this is a political/economic issue and NOT a scientific issue, I tend to believe them.
 
2011-11-09 12:03:01 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: HotIgneous Intruder: For 1,500 years, the best and brightest minds in European academia all agreed that the EARTH was the center of the solar system.

Again a strawman.

Prior to the 16th century you have a reasonable point, if one that does not address the question to which you responded unless it is your intent to acquire some sort of time travel device. Beginning in the 16th century with Galileo on into the 20th century and Popper occurred a refinement in scientific method that sets the time periods rather far apart from a methodological standpoint.

Now, working under the assumption that we are referring to the modern day and not for some arbitrary reason to classical Greece and the European Middle Ages, I'll ask again:

Is it more reasonable to trust men and women who have spent their lives studying and practicing their trade to know what they are talking about when on the subject of their trade and in almost total agreement, or to believe that for some reason almost all of them are in collusion to deceive you just for the hell of it?

And, would you be as dismissive if 98% of cardiologists recommended a specific treatment for a heart problem?


Regarding science as a whole and a tangent. Vaccines and autism and a majority of scientists asserting that there isn't a link. A consistent view of science as a whole with the assertion that the money is behind AGW so that's the view they support, would also apply to vaccines and autism and big pharma.

There is, by far, a lot more money in the later of the two and to assert that former has lost integrity and the later hasn't would require a very compartmentalized and disconnected view of the world.
 
2011-11-09 12:16:43 PM  
dready zim 2011-11-08 08:09:47 PM

doubled99: PsiChi 2011-11-08 08:58:13 AM

Please don't waste our time with global warming denial. If you can read and research, you know it's real. Let's just move on to solutions, or the nearest thing we can get to solutions, k?

Please don't waste time with Alarmism. We're not all going to die in a super storm. Everyone who didn't believe "The Day After Tomorrow" was a documentary knows this now.
Let's work on adaptation to the slight rise in sea levels and other results of warming that may happen.
Adaptation. It's the real "solution".

Now this is progress, I can see some real dialogue here. I think you may agree on more than you think. Next week we will talk about the kids. That will be $400 please.




But I haven't told you where the teacher touched me yet...
 
2011-11-09 12:32:17 PM  

jbezorg: hypnoticus ceratophrys: HotIgneous Intruder: For 1,500 years, the best and brightest minds in European academia all agreed that the EARTH was the center of the solar system.

Again a strawman.

Prior to the 16th century you have a reasonable point,


Well there you have it then. That's what I was talking about. Prior to 1600.
derp. After that, the cat was out of the bag and the conventional wisdom shifted to match the inevitable facts, as will happen with all of this AGW nonsense.
 
2011-11-09 01:11:54 PM  
Holy wall of green spam.

I guess if you can't answer the questions put to you, trying to flood them out with walls of copypasta is a kind of response.
 
2011-11-09 01:20:48 PM  

GeneralJim: simplicimus: Last I read, about 1 mm per year sea level increase. Will get serious for cities on the seacoast in a decade or so.
Do you think this is a new thing?
"There are up to 24 scuba diving locations in the Bay of Naples, and the Underwater Archaeological Park of Baiae in the area of the Phlegraean Fields offers seven underwater sites where Roman villas, pillars, a port and thermal baths can be seen. For example there is Portus Julius, which now lies at a depth of 3-5m underwater. It was built in 37 BC during the civil war between Pompey and Octavian. Structural ruins and several mosaics can be seen today."
From THIS SITE. (new window)

Do you have any idea how these Roman ruins from about two thousand years ago GOT underwater? Here's a clue: THE FARKING SEA LEVEL ROSE ABOUT SIX METERS SINCE THEN. This has been going on since the end of the last ice age. Humans are NOT going to stop it. And, when it stops, it is THEN time to panic, because another ice age is on the way. And what will we do then? Huge taxes to buy a butt-load of salt?



The analogy of not wanting to stop arson because natural forest fires have existed in the past applies here yet again. GeneralJim here is implicitly assuming that all sea level rise has a similar rate and therefore effect. It simply does not follow that one should not worry about present sea level rise just because sea level rise, with a different rate, impact and cause, has happened in the past.

Also of note is that the specific example GeneralJim brings up here is one due to the ground subsiding due to volcanic activity and happened rather abruptly - not the best example to bring up if one wishes to make the case that sea level rise isn't something to worry about.
 
2011-11-09 01:21:42 PM  

chimp_ninja: Holy wall of green spam.

I guess if you can't answer the questions put to you, trying to flood them out with walls of copypasta is a kind of response.


pot, meet kettle.

You do the same thing when you post those charts that look like somebody dropped a plate of spaghetti on them.
 
2011-11-09 01:45:42 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: OK, deniers: If anthropogenic CO2 emissions are outweighed by natural emissions from volcanoes, etc., then here's a question for you: There have been five volcanic eruptions since 1958 which rated as 5 or greater on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, including a 5+ and a 6 within two months of each other. Can you tell from the graph below when these eruptions (and their attendant injections of CO2) took place?
WTF? Are ALL of you hoaxers retards? What is it with making up shiat, and pretending that is other people's position?

Volcanoes are generally NOT of interest. SUPERVOLCANOES, with a VEI of at least 8, and throwing out at least a thousand cubic kilometers of ejecta, are rather different in their effect. Unlike the paltry ones we have seen in human history, these babies know how to party.


I've already outed this one (new window). Why is it that you deniers insist that the goalposts be motorized?

And, the way they are useful is NOT to say they contribute carbon dioxide to the air. You have missed the point. They show that amounts of carbon dioxide similar to what humans have done can be put into the air without noticeable effect on the temperature. This is because carbon dioxide has a natural system. However, you can note from the temperature records, that SULFUR dioxide, which stays in the air for a MUCH shorter time, DOES make noticeable effects on the temperature. For example, a nowhere-near-supervolcano caused the "year without a summer," in 1815 or 1816.

Ask 100 climatologists whether the primary forcing agent from the Tambora eruption was SO2 or stratospheric particulates, then see what 98 of the answers are.

Also, humans release more SO2 than volcanoes do.

That's because there is no natural system for dealing with sulfur dioxide

Then why doesn't it accumulate in the atmosphere the way argon does?

and its cooling effects drastically effect planetary temperatures, frequently being blamed for triggering ice ages. Carbon dioxide, which stays in the air much longer, makes no impression on planetary temperature after a supervolcano blast.

As if CO2 is the ONLY volcanic emission capable of affecting climate. You are now contradicting yourself.

Supervolcano eruptions (and large bolide strikes) are a direct counter to the warmer alarmist scam argument "Oh, but there has NEVER been an increase of carbon dioxide of this magnitude or speed." Actually, yes, there has been... repeatedly.

See above.

/ You really ought to understand a point before you attack it, otherwise bad things happen.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x356]


Uninformed ITGs posting scary images? I'm unimpressed. OTOH, your first premise is accurate. If only you had taken your own advice.
 
2011-11-09 01:47:37 PM  

GeneralJim: owlywowly: you are deliberately self delusional, denying not only every peer reviewed body's conclusions, but your own eyes. Land temps have steadily risen since 1900 and so have sea levels.
No, he is not. Temperatures FELL from around 1940 until the 1970s.
[i90.photobucket.com image 556x395]

from a paper that was recently published (Le Mouël et al., 2008).
Le Mouël and his co-authors obtained the raw data from
several hundred surface stations and found that
"the USA and the European mean curves are rather different
from the corresponding curves illustrated in the 2007 IPCC report."

In other words, the data has been jimmied. PEER-REVIEWED, PEOPLE, from the raw data. NOT obtained from Michael Mann or James Hansen with their "value-added" process...



This does not make sense. Just because different groups, using different methods, arrive at results that do not exactly match, that does not mean that one particular group is providing fraudulent data.

What is revealing here in this deeply flawed reasoning is the assumption that since these two results differ, then it must be the one GeneralJim opposes on ideological grounds that is fraudulent. Even if we accept the ridiculous notion that differences indicated fraud, GeneralJim is automatically assuming it's "Michael Mann or James Hansen" that are providing fraudulent data even when his own reasoning would suggest the opposite is just as likely.

This should be indicating to others, if they haven't guessed already, just how non-rationally GeneralJim is approaching this topic.
 
2011-11-09 01:49:09 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: jbezorg: hypnoticus ceratophrys: HotIgneous Intruder: For 1,500 years, the best and brightest minds in European academia all agreed that the EARTH was the center of the solar system.

Again a strawman.

Prior to the 16th century you have a reasonable point,

Well there you have it then. That's what I was talking about. Prior to 1600.
derp. After that, the cat was out of the bag and the conventional wisdom shifted to match the inevitable facts, as will happen with all of this AGW nonsense.


Still doesn't answer the question. It's quite a simple, non-technical question, really. Shouldn't be difficult at all unless you're a bit afraid of venturing outside of comfortable conclusions you don't want to let go of.
 
2011-11-09 01:55:10 PM  

GeneralJim: brantgoose: The History of the World graph

Show a graph of the climate over geological time scales.

Fallacy:

Climate has changed before for various reasons.
Therefore climate is not changing now for different reasons.
Hey, retard. Leave it to you to totally miss the point, and, in your erroneous funk, blame me for it.

Phallusy:

You're a dick.

The long term shows several things, although NOT the one you see. We are at historic low temperatures, the temperature swings almost totally between two stable levels, about ten degrees apart, and freaking large swings in carbon dioxide have no apparent effect on temperature.

The shorter duration charts show that the current warming trend has been in place since the little ice age. It's twice as old as the industrial revolution, and has not been noticeably affected by the change in carbon dioxide levels.

Closer examination shows a 60-year cycle. We have just completed the thirty year warming, and are now headed for the thirty year cooling. How will you brainless twunts spin THAT, I wonder? If history is any indication, by starting a Global Bicarb Fund, and taxing SOMETHING to death to pay for it.

/ Did you know that a slight breeze makes a whistling noise going past your ears? TMYK.

// Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: you've been utterly worthless -- whining, biatching, and not contributing a thing to the discussion. And, this has been a GOOD thread for you. So, enjoy the other tards on my ignore list.

/// *PLONK*



What GeneralJim here is missing is that scale matters when you're trying to look at a particular phenomenon. You can swamp the process you wish to examine by looking at a too short, or too long time scale. Just because one has chosen an arbitrarily long time scale does not mean that there aren't processes at work at shorter time scales. For instance, if we were to accept GeneralJim's 'reasoning' here, we could also conclude that diurnal temperature variation does not exist because it's not apparent in a graph that covers several million years. This is of course, ridiculous.

GeneralJim's argument, in essence, relies on attempting to discount anthropogenic climate change by looking at any other time scale than the one where you would expect to see an effect. It's a form of cherry-picking.
 
2011-11-09 01:55:38 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: according to deniers (there's that word again, and I'll keep using it as long as 98% of practicing climatologists agree)
Well, stop, dammit. 98% of climatologists NEVER agreed on it. You don't get the dynamics of a crooked system. That BS figure comes from Oreskes, who surveyed peer-reviewed literature, and found NO dissent. Think about that... NO dissent in a mathematically chaotic system. When the Oreskes BS was published, every practicing climatologist knew it was BS, because they had READ more than one skeptical paper in the last year, so her claim that none existed was bollocks. She set some stupid measure, such as the words "AGW is a hoax" had to appear in the literature for it to count, and scientific papers are traditionally more polite than that. I would also note that this is BEFORE climategate, and most people just assumed things were normal in climatology.

The Consensus itself is a Fraud

Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities - Professors Speaking Up. Article HERE. (new window)

The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

No Proof Man Causes Global Warming. Article HERE. (new window)

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. Article HERE. (new window)


Show me a poll of active climatologists, not anecdotes from blogs and newspapers. After all, you are trying to claim that your opinion is based on mainstream science.
 
2011-11-09 01:57:24 PM  
You have Asperger's Syndrome.
Seek assistance.

Cardiology is not earth science.

And nobody's saying anything about Svensmark from Denmark.
 
2011-11-09 01:59:21 PM  

jbezorg: Regarding science as a whole and a tangent. Vaccines and autism and a majority of scientists asserting that there isn't a link. A consistent view of science as a whole with the assertion that the money is behind AGW so that's the view they support, would also apply to vaccines and autism and big pharma.

There is, by far, a lot more money in the later of the two and to assert that former has lost integrity and the later hasn't would require a very compartmentalized and disconnected view of the world.


The major difference I see between the two is that you don't have a major American political party astroturfing to sway public opinion over to a vaccine-autism link or lack thereof. If vaccines were as enormously profitable as fossil fuels and there existed overwhelming evidence that vaccines were casing neurodevelopmental disorders, I'd wager in a heartbeat that GeneralJim and Co would be in every loosely related thread towing the party line that no such link existed in brightly colored, attention grabbing text.
 
2011-11-09 02:05:27 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: [@GeneralJim]Show me a poll of active climatologists, not anecdotes from blogs and newspapers. After all, you are trying to claim that your opinion is based on mainstream science.


That's all he's got with a very small handful of notable exceptions. Notice a theme?

GeneralJim:James Hansen Caught Altering Data to Eliminate Cooling. Article HERE [Free Republic].
GeneralJim: History of climate gets 'erased' online. Article HERE [World Net Daily].

GeneralJim:Take a look at it HERE [Brietbart's Big Government]. (Scroll down the linked article and click the source link)
GeneralJim: Some of his lies, follies, and idiocies are documented HERE [Hot Air] .

GeneralJim: NASA stonewalling stokes fears of 'U.S. Climategate'[Newsmax] .

GeneralJim: This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. (new window) [Newsbusters] .

GeneralJim: A description of a literal conspiracy... is HERE [American Thinker].
GeneralJim: A good description ... is here [Capitalism Magazine].

GeneralJim: Article HERE [The Wall Street Journal].
GeneralJim: ...see Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus [The Cato Institute].
GeneralJim: From an article including references to primary research HERE [The National Center for Policy Analysis].
GeneralJim: My personal favorite. Very insightful. [Science and Public Policy Institute].
 
2011-11-09 02:09:49 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Let's try this in a proposition that your puny partisan peabrain can parse properly. Let's say an ignorant Christian tells you that the sun didn't shine until Jesus told it to. You might counter that we have evidence of plants growing millions of years ago. Since plants won't grow without sunlight, it's obvious that there was sunlight before Jesus was born, so he didn't cause it.

Okay... Now comes the hard part. Cinch up that plastic helmet, and grab your pudding. The current warming trend has been going on since a hundred and fifty years before the industrial revolution. Since it was going on before we started releasing fossil carbon dioxide, it is NOT the carbon dioxide causing the warming. Get it?

See that upturn? It starts just before A.D. 1700, and zooms up until the volcanic eruption that caused "The Year Without a Summer," which stalls the warmup for about fifty years, at which time it zooms up again. We're in that zoom. BTW, "zoom" is a relative term. Geologically, it's really fast, but it's hardly noticeable by humans.


Yowch. The first that one should note is that the attribution of the current warming trend is not based on simple correlation, as GeneralJim assumes here. This fact has been pointed out to him repeatedly - his continued feigned ignorance reveals how irrationally he is approaching this topic and how dishonest he is willing to be.

The other thing that should be noted is that more than one process can cause warming. Just because warming has happened in the past does not mean that it must have the same cause every time. What GeneralJim is in essence stating is that since one process can cause warming, it is therefore the only one that can do so. This is, of course, ridiculous.

As for the graph that GeneralJim is using here (notably uncited, but the data is from Loehle & McCulloch 2007), it's not all that unusual if you plot it alongside other reconstructions instead of misleadingly plotting it by itself and leaving out the instrumental record.

[i41.tinypic.com image 461x348]

So how much do you have to juke the scale on the y-axis to get the alarming hockey stick effect?

/So much deception, so little time.
//Chesapeake Bay, how did it form?
///Humans did not do that.



None is required, as you can see from the plot I provided. If you're worried about what the scale on the y-axis does to the perception of a plot, then you should be concerned about what GeneralJim is doing here. By providing that one data set in isolation, he is implying that it radically differs from other reconstructions (it doesn't), and by excluding the instrumental record, he is intentionally or not 'juking' the scale on the y-axis which emphasizes pre-instrumental temperature changes. In short, GeneralJim here is closest to attempting to "juke the scale on the y-axis" by excluding data and therefore the range shown on the y-axis. It's much harder to affect perception in this way if you include more relevant data, as with the plot I provided. Don't get me wrong as that plot that GeneralJim provided has it's own uses in illustrating its results, but to try to make larger inferences from it while intentionally excluding the information required to do just that is misleading.

As for the Chesapeake Bay, you have to keep in mind that there are quite a few processes, on different scales, that can affect sea level. From erosion to isostatic rebound to thermal expansion to changes in ice mass balance - there is more than one process at work. That one process exists does not somehow exclude the existence of others. The mistake you may be making here is the same as GeneralJim makes (see the bit in bold above). Just because one process can affect sea level rise does not mean it is the only one that can do so.
 
2011-11-09 02:18:06 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: The ocean is a net CO2 sink; localized releases are outweighed by overall absorption. Look up "oceanic acidification" and learn some more.
Nice arrogance. You've been practicing, haven't you?

Tell you what... How about YOU go look up "outgassing," and learn some more.


If oceanic CO2 outgassing outweighs CO2 absorption, and CO2 is acidic when dissolved in water (H2O + CO2 --> H2CO3, or at least H2O + H+ + CO3-), then the oceans should become less acidic. Unfortunately for your premise, they're not.

Also, check into the Vostok ice cores. Did you know that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature? Yeah. Apparently, temperature rises when the planet KNOWS that there will soon be more carbon dioxide. Either that, or carbon dioxide level changes don't mean squat in terms of controlling temperature. One or the other. Check it out.

Not exactly (new window). What the Vostok cores indicate is that during the last ice age, something was driving climate on a regular, periodic basis with a force far outweighing the baseline homeostatic conditions, including atmospheric CO2.

/it's like talking to the Green Monster
 
2011-11-09 02:18:16 PM  

GeneralJim: jasimo: Add the US's inability to create enough support for a cap and trade system similar to what was done with sulfur dioxide, and you've got rapidly increasing levels of CO2 and warming that will probably continue to beat our worst estimates.

Nope. Doubling the carbon dioxide in the air will raise the temperatures between 0.24 and 1.10 K. No big deal, and we are WAY cooler than usual on the planet right now, in terms of the long-scale. And, we are also pretty low on carbon dioxide, so it's all good.

[img.photobucket.com image 640x404]



For more rationally-minded farkers, there's an assumption here about what is "usual". GeneralJim here seems to be setting "usual" over a time scale in which for the vast majority, humans did not even exist, and includes periods of Earth's geological history that are somewhat hostile to us. Therefore, GeneralJim's "usual" is somewhat arbitrary and meaningless in terms of decision-making that can take into account how it will impact us, human beings.

I mean, there's something wrong if, in order to discount the current anthropogenic climate change, you have to scale back so far as to include a period of time before land animals even existed.
 
2011-11-09 02:18:31 PM  
As for the Chesapeake Bay, you have to keep in mind that there are quite a few processes, on different scales, that can affect sea level. From erosion to isostatic rebound to thermal expansion to changes in ice mass balance - there is more than one process at work. That one process exists does not somehow exclude the existence of others. The mistake you may be making here is the same as GeneralJim makes (see the bit in bold above). Just because one process can affect sea level rise does not mean it is the only one that can do so.

People. Didn't. Cause. The. Wisconsinan. Glaciers. To. Melt.
Many things have millions of causes but humans didn't do that.
We are in an interglacial warming period.

Global warming is real. Humans are contributing to it.
But humans are not causing climate change.

Svensmark from Denmark?
Anybody?
Anybody?
 
2011-11-09 02:21:55 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: You have Asperger's Syndrome.
Seek assistance.


Perhaps I do. Is this relevant in some way or an ad hominem to accompany your strawman?


HotIgneous Intruder: Cardiology is not earth science.


You mentioned that a moment ago. Scientific method is scientific method, its validity is not dependent on field. Form may change but principle does not; a researcher in cardiology exercises the same fundamental approach to her work that an atmospheric climatologist does to his even if they look like two different worlds to someone without their shared background. (new window)



HotIgneous Intruder: And nobody's saying anything about Svensmark from Denmark.


orly?

HotIgneous Intruder: And what about the CERN work of Svensmark from Denmark as reported just this summer?... ...[I fully expect a prompt and sufficiently indignant, "BAH, Svensmark is DISCREDITED! BAH!" from all you career-entitled warmers out there.]

 
2011-11-09 02:23:52 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: HotIgneous Intruder: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Let's try this in a proposition that your puny partisan peabrain can parse properly. Let's say an ignorant Christian tells you that the sun didn't shine until Jesus told it to. You might counter that we have evidence of plants growing millions of years ago. Since plants won't grow without sunlight, it's obvious that there was sunlight before Jesus was born, so he didn't cause it.

Okay... Now comes the hard part. Cinch up that plastic helmet, and grab your pudding. The current warming trend has been going on since a hundred and fifty years before the industrial revolution. Since it was going on before we started releasing fossil carbon dioxide, it is NOT the carbon dioxide causing the warming. Get it?

See that upturn? It starts just before A.D. 1700, and zooms up until the volcanic eruption that caused "The Year Without a Summer," which stalls the warmup for about fifty years, at which time it zooms up again. We're in that zoom. BTW, "zoom" is a relative term. Geologically, it's really fast, but it's hardly noticeable by humans.


Yowch. The first that one should note is that the attribution of the current warming trend is not based on simple correlation, as GeneralJim assumes here. This fact has been pointed out to him repeatedly - his continued feigned ignorance reveals how irrationally he is approaching this topic and how dishonest he is willing to be.

The other thing that should be noted is that more than one process can cause warming. Just because warming has happened in the past does not mean that it must have the same cause every time. What GeneralJim is in essence stating is that since one process can cause warming, it is therefore the only one that can do so. This is, of course, ridiculous.

As for the graph that GeneralJim is using here (notably uncited, but the data is from Loehle & McCulloch 2007), it's not all that unusual if you plot it alongside other reconstructions instead of misleadingly plotting it by itself and leaving out the instrumental record.

[i41.tinypic.com image 461x348]

So how much do you have to juke the scale on the y-axis to get the alarming hockey stick effect?

/So much deception, so little time.
//Chesapeake Bay, how did it form?
///Humans did not do that.


None is required, as you can see from the plot I provided. If you're worried about what the scale on the y-axis does to the perception of a plot, then you should be concerned about what GeneralJim is doing here. By providing that one data set in isolation, he is implying that it radically differs from other reconstructions (it doesn't), and by excluding the instrumental record, he is intentionally or not 'juking' the scale on the y-axis which emphasizes pre-instrumental temperature changes. In short, GeneralJim here is closest to attempting to "juke the scale on the y-axis" by excluding data and therefore the range shown on the y-axis. It's much harder to affect perception in this way if you include more relevant data, as with the plot I provided. Don't get me wrong as that plot that GeneralJim provided has it's own uses in illustrating its results, but to try to make larger inferences from it while intentionally excluding the information required to do just that is misleading.

As for the Chesapeake Bay, you have to keep in mind that there are quite a few processes, on different scales, that can affect sea level. From erosion to isostatic rebound to thermal expansion to changes in ice mass balance - there is more than one process at work. That one process exists does not somehow exclude the existence of others. The mistake you may be making here is the same as GeneralJim makes (see the bit in bold above). Just because one process can affect sea level rise does not mean it is the only one that can do so.


When you look down on your penis, you can't really tell how long it is because of the perspective shift. Same with time. If you only look at 150 years of data, you can't hope to apprehend other processes that encompass thousands of years.

/As always, lost in a sea of subjectivity.
//Their job security depends on ambiguity.
///Why actually solve problems when you can just peer review yourself right into a comfortable retirement at taxpayer expense.
 
2011-11-09 02:24:32 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Global warming is real. Humans are contributing to it.
But humans are not causing climate change.


Huh? Global warming is a subset of climate change.

Also, haikus are 5-7-5.
 
2011-11-09 02:25:36 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Svensmark from Denmark?
Anybody?
Anybody?


hypnoticus ceratophrys: The article itself was a study of the relationship between cloud formation and cosmic rays that found that under their own experimental conditions, cosmic rays alone are not enough to trigger cloud formation in our atmosphere. Are there specific sections from the primary article that you want to comment on or are you referring to the media's interpretation of it?

 
2011-11-09 02:26:21 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: HotIgneous Intruder: You have Asperger's Syndrome.
Seek assistance.

Perhaps I do. Is this relevant in some way or an ad hominem to accompany your strawman?


HotIgneous Intruder: Cardiology is not earth science.

You mentioned that a moment ago. Scientific method is scientific method, its validity is not dependent on field. Form may change but principle does not; a researcher in cardiology exercises the same fundamental approach to her work that an atmospheric climatologist does to his even if they look like two different worlds to someone without their shared background. (new window)



HotIgneous Intruder: And nobody's saying anything about Svensmark from Denmark.

orly? HotIgneous Intruder: And what about the CERN work of Svensmark from Denmark as reported just this summer?... ...[I fully expect a prompt and sufficiently indignant, "BAH, Svensmark is DISCREDITED! BAH!" from all you career-entitled warmers out there.]


Geocentrism isn't a straw man.
Perhaps you don't understand what a straw man is?
Did someone recently give a freshman seminar on the straw man?
 
2011-11-09 02:30:36 PM  

chimp_ninja: HotIgneous Intruder: Global warming is real. Humans are contributing to it.
But humans are not causing climate change.

Huh? Global warming is a subset of climate change.

Also, haikus are 5-7-5.


That's what I said.
Humans are not causing it.
Idiots are a subset of morons.
There was climate change waay before there were piddling psycho naked apes.

It works like this:======>.......Time...........climate change ........ time ........more climate change .......more time .......humans .... humans contribute to climate change......time ...........
 
2011-11-09 02:34:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Geocentrism isn't a straw man.
Perhaps you don't understand what a straw man is?
Did someone recently give a freshman seminar on the straw man?


You're avoiding one topic by bringing up another loosely related topic and addressing that instead of the original. Yes, that's a strawman. I'd almost give you the benefit of the doubt but you're similarly avoiding addressing every other point including the Nature article that you yourself brought up while accusing those around you of being disingenuous.
 
2011-11-09 02:34:32 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: Okay... Now comes the hard part. Cinch up that plastic helmet, and grab your pudding. The current warming trend has been going on since a hundred and fifty years before the industrial revolution. Since it was going on before we started releasing fossil carbon dioxide, it is NOT the carbon dioxide causing the warming. Get it?

If true, then I could apply heat to a tub of cold water so that it warms at a certain rate, then insulate the tub so that less heat is lost, and the rate of warming would not change because the warming was already going on before I insulated the tub.

Got it.
Um, no, you don't have it. The rate did not change since before the industrial revolution. You are looking at the situation backwards... Let me help you with your handicap, if I can:

We'll use your example. We take measurements of the heating tub, and at some point, which we mark off on the chart, you wrap something around the tub. When we're done, we notice that it is impossible to see, on the chart, WHERE you wrapped the tub, because the rate of temperature increase did NOT change throughout the whole experiment. Therefore, your wrap did nothing to insulate it, or, at least, not enough to notice.


How hard do you have to work to get it so wrong? I gave you a one-for-one analogy:

Tub of cold water : atmosphere
Heating the tub at a steady rate : temperature change since end of ice age
Insulating the tub to reduce heat loss : adding CO2 to the atmosphere to reduce heat loss (which is exactly what the greenhouse effect is)

I then stated the logical result: Insulation --> reduced heat loss --> more retained heat in a system that is already warming --> increased warming. If my reasoning here is faulty, please explain why and show your work.

You took the typical pseudoscientific/denialist tactic of making the data fit the assumption (no change in heating) but fail to explain exactly why a mechanism with known insulating (for the tub) or greenhouse (for the atmosphere*) would not serve to retain heat.

* unless you're going to claim that all of the known physical properties of the chemical compound, carbon dioxide, are somehow in error and part of a vast conspiracy...
 
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 »
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