Mugato: "Well you know a butterfly will flap his uh, his WINGS. He'll flap his wings in uh South America or something and he'll do that and then the uh the WEATHER in North America will just do, uh, do it's thing. Do its stuff. There."

Recently rewatched that movie. Forgot how annoying his character was.

Mugato: "Well you know a butterfly will flap his uh, his WINGS. He'll flap his wings in uh South America or something and he'll do that and then the uh the WEATHER in North America will just do, uh, do it's thing. Do its stuff. There."

Brilliant.

Amazing! Tornadoes only occur on weekends 30% of the time!

Reminds me of the old joke about management deciding that they had a absentee problem because 40% of all sick days happen on a Monday or a Friday.

The next they'll tell us is it's been getting hotter because the official measuring thermometers are located on parking lots.
Damn, that man made alteration of our temperature!

and curse, my comma placement

no that I'm dismissing the study, but...

"New research may explain why serious thunderstorms and tornados are less prevalent on the weekends"

Don't just take everything on faith because it might say what you want to hear.

5/7 > 2/7

This is not even math. It's arithmetic

Odd, I just heard the same reason for the fact that it seems to rain on the weekends more often or something.

/QI

Everyone drives in one direction in the morning, pushing the wind that way, then they drive the opposite direction in the afternoon, causing a stirring effect in the air that creates funnel clouds, which may or may not form tornadoes.

/SCIENCE!

I've noticed over the years that it seems to rain in the Delaware Valley more often on the weekends. I had dismissed it as my imagination.

Jon Snow: C'mon. To be unaware that the "UHI is biasing the temp records" canard is false in the year 2011 is inexcusable.

Nah, it's a talking point. It doesn't matter and never has mattered if those have any factual content, as long as they sound vaguely convincing to the uninformed.

Remember, they aren't trying to convince you, you scientician heathen you, they are trying to convince the unwashed (and presumably ignorant) masses, in the hopes of trying to use populism to legislate reality.

You know it's stupid, I know it's stupid, most of the shills pulling this schtick know its stupid, but if it can stall out efforts to promote change for the better, it serves the purposes of the moneyed powers that be who want to maintain the status quo and thus keep lining their pockets for as long as possible.

bravian: Mugato: "Well you know a butterfly will flap his uh, his WINGS. He'll flap his wings in uh South America or something and he'll do that and then the uh the WEATHER in North America will just do, uh, do it's thing. Do its stuff. There."

Recently rewatched that movie. Forgot how annoying his character was.

And he was the least annoying out of them.

If it was really that simple Hong Kong would have tornado's much more often.

palelizard: bravian: Mugato: "Well you know a butterfly will flap his uh, his WINGS. He'll flap his wings in uh South America or something and he'll do that and then the uh the WEATHER in North America will just do, uh, do it's thing. Do its stuff. There."

Recently rewatched that movie. Forgot how annoying his character was.

And he was the least annoying out of them.

Apart from the awesome special effects (for the time), the movie was terrible.

\read the book prior

Jon Snow: I'm pretty sure that SVenus is in earth science, as a geologist or something IIRC.

I'm trying to shame him/her into self-educating, that's all.

That makes it worse, not better. He already has the training and opportunity to learn better, and has not chosen to do so. That means he's moved beyond simple ignorance to willful self-deception.

People can and do have an impact on the local weather patterns. The heat rising from major cities can cause a late afternoon rain shower on a hot summer day.

Cloud seeding.

If that is the case, wouldn't tornadoes more frequently hit high density urban centers and not farmland in the middle of nowhere?

Jon Snow:

You do realize that the surface instrumental temperature records are adjusted to remove urbanization bias, that ocean temps, rural-only stations, radiosonde, and satellite records show the same trends, right?


Once the data are "corrected", sure.

chuckufarlie: People can and do have an impact on the local weather patterns. The heat rising from major cities can cause a late afternoon rain shower on a hot summer day.

And yet you maintain that they don't have an effect on larger patterns. Let me introduce you to the concept of the continuum fallacy.

SevenizGud: Jon Snow:

You do realize that the surface instrumental temperature records are adjusted to remove urbanization bias, that ocean temps, rural-only stations, radiosonde, and satellite records show the same trends, right?


Once the data are "corrected", sure.

So, if data showing urbanization bias is included, then the results are unreliable. If scientists use methods to control for those effects, then they are somehow tampering with the results in an illegitimate manner.

In other words, "heads you lose, tails I win".

Does it ever bother you to be so utterly partisan and have so little regard for careful empirical methodology?

Jacobin: 5/7 > 2/7

This is not even math. It's arithmetic

That only works if you're entertaining a gambler's fallacy or considering total volume during the week compared to the total volume of the weekend.

Neither is particularly scientific.

starsrift: Jacobin: 5/7 > 2/7

This is not even math. It's arithmetic

That only works if you're entertaining a gambler's fallacy or considering total volume during the week compared to the total volume of the weekend.

Neither is particularly scientific.

Because in evaluating weather probabilities during a certain time frame, in your equation, its ok to say that 5/7 = 2/7 in order to prove that car exhaust increases the risk of tornadoes

got it

From the Abstract of the article:
"Although we focus here on the role of aerosols, they are not a primary atmospheric driver of tornados and hailstorms but rather modulate them in certain conditions."

Even so, I'm still curious as to why there is a sinusoidal pattern rather than a "top hat" pattern... in other words, why does the frequency peak on Wednesday? Do people take a bunch of 4-day weekends?

/Atmospheric scientist
//Please don't ask me about global warming

DarwiOdrade: [www.phdcomics.com image 600x667]

/oblig

While I like the comic, it totally skips the final steps, where the original scientist comes out and says he never said that, so everybody reports that "researchers admit they were wrong, AGAIN"

SevenizGud: Jon Snow:

You do realize that the surface instrumental temperature records are adjusted to remove urbanization bias, that ocean temps, rural-only stations, radiosonde, and satellite records show the same trends, right?


Once the data are "corrected", sure.

Without that "correcting" poorly sited temperature gauges show a net cooling bias. (new window) As confirmed by Menne 2010. (new window)

Jon Snow:

SVenus: The next they'll tell us is it's been getting hotter because the official measuring thermometers are located on parking lots.
Damn, that man made alteration of our temperature!

You do realize that the surface instrumental temperature records are adjusted to remove urbanization bias, that ocean temps, rural-only stations, radiosonde, and satellite records show the same trends, right?

C'mon. To be unaware that the "UHI is biasing the temp records" canard is false in the year 2011 is inexcusable.

"Uh, yeah. Some of our thermometers used to measure global warming ARE in pizza ovens, but we correct for that." You dumbass, the way to correct for that is to MOVE the damned thing. How the fark do you "correct" for a thermometer being in the exhaust of a large building's air conditioning? This just gives those douchebags hoaxing this one more opportunity for a "magic correction," which most likely will be secret, and somehow will skew the data cooler in the past, and warmer now. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

KiltedBastich:

Remember, they aren't trying to convince you, you scientician heathen you, they are trying to convince the unwashed (and presumably ignorant) masses, in the hopes of trying to use populism to legislate reality.

That's the only explanation for trying to palm off carbon dioxide as a major controller of temperature, since global temperature has never followed carbon dioxide levels. In point of fact, temperature drives carbon dioxide levels (on the micro level) through oceanic uptake and out-gassing. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but, in this case, there isn't even correlation. The entire process is bogus, and built on phony and cherry-picked data.

And, indeed, the obvious intent is to generate populist panic, so that "drastic measures" to "save the planet" will have support. Drastic measures, that is, like sending trillions of dollars from the first world to the third world. That should cool the planet... SOMEHOW, I'm sure.

MilesTeg:

If that is the case, wouldn't tornadoes more frequently hit high density urban centers and not farmland in the middle of nowhere?

"The middle of nowhere" covers probably covers more than 3 million square miles in the U.S. alone, and Los Angeles is a huge, spread-out city, and yet only covers just over four thousand miles. New York City, the U.S.'s biggest city is still under 7 thousand square miles. By the time you're way out in "the middle of nowhere," the cities are even smaller. Omaha, for example, is only about 115 square miles. Given a tornado's size, and path of destruction, it's going to be VERY rare that one hits a city. As another factor, tornadoes are more common away from the coasts, where the cities are smaller.

KiltedBastich:

chuckufarlie: People can and do have an impact on the local weather patterns. The heat rising from major cities can cause a late afternoon rain shower on a hot summer day.

And yet you maintain that they don't have an effect on larger patterns. Let me introduce you to the concept of the continuum fallacy.

This is a false dichotomy, and a straw man argument, as well. While there may be someone, or some few, who would argue that mankind has NO effect on climate, that is an inherently stupid position. All of those I have seen are merely questioning the EXTENT of the effect, and certainly in my case, the proposed "solution" to the alleged "problem".

Whatever effect mankind has on the planet via deforestation, pollution of the ocean, gradual build-up of anti-biotics, elimination of species, and what-not, release of carbon dioxide into the air is of very tiny effect, and probably, on the whole, perhaps our major POSITIVE contribution to the planet.

That the release of carbon dioxide creates life-threatening or civilization-endangering conditions is where the raw bullshiat comes in. I know jousting against windmills SEEMS like a better idea than actually addressing issues where mankind is causing damage, remember the lesson of Don Quixote -- sometimes the windmill will kick your ass. All of the fudging of data and methods to make carbon dioxide look dangerous WILL backfire on the crooked scientists doing it, generally through misrepresenting or altering the research of others. And, truth will out, much to their chagrin.

Viewing carbon dioxide as a "pollutant" and somehow dangerous gives politicians something to tax, and a way to control mankind through their energy usage. That is why this is being hyped. There is, literally, no scientific reason to believe that the increases we have generated to the carbon dioxide level, or several times that amount, will be damaging. It just gives politicians a place to hang their tax -- and I don't think that's a good enough reason.

Jacobin: starsrift: Jacobin: 5/7 > 2/7

This is not even math. It's arithmetic

That only works if you're entertaining a gambler's fallacy or considering total volume during the week compared to the total volume of the weekend.

Neither is particularly scientific.

Because in evaluating weather probabilities during a certain time frame, in your equation, its ok to say that 5/7 = 2/7 in order to prove that car exhaust increases the risk of tornadoes

got it

bahahahaha, nicely done

GeneralJim: KiltedBastich: Remember, they aren't trying to convince you, you scientician heathen you, they are trying to convince the unwashed (and presumably ignorant) masses, in the hopes of trying to use populism to legislate reality.
That's the only explanation for trying to palm off carbon dioxide as a major controller of temperature, since global temperature has never followed carbon dioxide levels. In point of fact, temperature drives carbon dioxide levels (on the micro level) through oceanic uptake and out-gassing. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but, in this case, there isn't even correlation. The entire process is bogus, and built on phony and cherry-picked data.

And, indeed, the obvious intent is to generate populist panic, so that "drastic measures" to "save the planet" will have support. Drastic measures, that is, like sending trillions of dollars from the first world to the third world. That should cool the planet... SOMEHOW, I'm sure.

With all due respect, I believe that you are mistaken on the importance of carbon dioxide (and water vapor) as a controller of global temperature. As much as I hate linking to a Wikipedia article, their graph on the absorption spectrum Link (new window) pretty much says what's going on.

By the way, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. If water vapor didn't have a residence time of about a week and wasn't so essential to human life, we'd be busting our asses trying to regulate H₂O rather than CO₂

GeneralJim: That's the only explanation for trying to palm off carbon dioxide as a major controller of temperature, since global temperature has never followed carbon dioxide levels. In point of fact, temperature drives carbon dioxide levels (on the micro level) through oceanic uptake and out-gassing. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but, in this case, there isn't even correlation. The entire process is bogus, and built on phony and cherry-picked data.

And, indeed, the obvious intent is to generate populist panic, so that "drastic measures" to "save the planet" will have support. Drastic measures, that is, like sending trillions of dollars from the first world to the third world. That should cool the planet... SOMEHOW, I'm sure.

Right, of course, because thousands of peer reviewed papers by hundreds of scientists in a variety of related disciplines is all just evidence of the grand conspiracy, GenerallyJumbled.

You do realize how ridiculous your variety of "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning is, don't you?

Finally, o derpy green poster, the planet is in no danger from anthropogenic climate change. None. Nada.

What is in danger from global climate change is human societies and ways of life, which will be massively disrupted by the change in climate that will destroy existing ways of life, changes that we are already starting to see as extreme and aberrant weather patterns become commonplace.

But you know all this already, and choose to ignore it because nothing could convince you, as you are a partisan ideologue, not a rational debater.

GeneralJim: This is a false dichotomy, and a straw man argument, as well. While there may be someone, or some few, who would argue that mankind has NO effect on climate, that is an inherently stupid position. All of those I have seen are merely questioning the EXTENT of the effect, and certainly in my case, the proposed "solution" to the alleged "problem".

If this is what you really think you sound like, and more broadly what the run of the mill denialist sounds like, then you're an even bigger fool than I thought. The average denialist will often make several different incompatible arguments at the same time, just as you did in the remainder of your post.

GeneralJim: Whatever effect mankind has on the planet via deforestation, pollution of the ocean, gradual build-up of anti-biotics, elimination of species, and what-not, release of carbon dioxide into the air is of very tiny effect, and probably, on the whole, perhaps our major POSITIVE contribution to the planet.

That the release of carbon dioxide creates life-threatening or civilization-endangering conditions is where the raw bullshiat comes in. I know jousting against windmills SEEMS like a better idea than actually addressing issues where mankind is causing damage, remember the lesson of Don Quixote -- sometimes the windmill will kick your ass. All of the fudging of data and methods to make carbon dioxide look dangerous WILL backfire on the crooked scientists doing it, generally through misrepresenting or altering the research of others. And, truth will out, much to their chagrin.

Viewing carbon dioxide as a "pollutant" and somehow dangerous gives politicians something to tax, and a way to control mankind through their energy usage. That is why this is being hyped. There is, literally, no scientific reason to believe that the increases we have generated to the carbon dioxide level, or several times that amount, will be damaging. It just gives politicians a place to hang their tax -- and I don't think that's a good enough reason.

Here's a hint: claiming simultaneously that carbon dioxide has no effect on warming AND that global warming may be a positive is ridiculous, because they are mutually exclusive arguments. Pick one, and you will look a lot less ridiculous. Not that this has ever stopped you before, really.

As for "crooked scientists", need I remind you that one of the major independent skeptics just recreated the same temperature curve showing that warming is happening? Or are you now including the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in your litany of "crooked scientists"?

I am sure you will be happy to tell us now why that independent review was wrong, or why it doesn't mean what it obviously means, or that Muller got bought off by the conspiracy, or that the climate scientists weren't lying about that, just about everything else. Or some other convoluted spin doctoring job that explains away what you don't want to accept as true.

Go on, I am sure I will enjoy the lulz.

Trapper439:

GeneralJim: Retarded denier derp posted in self-important AWing green text

I just did a really huge turd, and it seems like it would be a shame to just flush that magnificent bastard away and waste it.

What is your mailing address?

Nah, keep the products of your intellectual efforts for yourself. I can see YOU have nothing to offer...

KiltedBastich:

Right, of course, because thousands of peer reviewed papers by hundreds of scientists in a variety of related disciplines is all just evidence of the grand conspiracy, GenerallyJumbled.

No. Referring to "thousands of peer-reviewed papers" shows you to have no understanding of the situation. Many of those are papers showing that the planet is warming. It is, if you cherry-pick the time frame well. Others show that humans are creating an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. We are. What is lacking is the CONNECTION between them. In point of fact, the "best" example I have seen so far of a link is "Greenhouse gas, duh" right here on Fark. NOBODY in the warmer alarmist camp, so far, has a better scientific rationale for all the crap they publish. The ASSUMPTION is made that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere responds as does carbon dioxide in a beaker in a lab, and this is simply not true. Where do the effects of clouds come into an experiment that takes place in a lab?

The only real science that addresses the mathematically chaotic system that is weather and climate is the work in Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres, by Ferenc M. Miskolczi. (new window) In this most important paper, Miskolczi proves (the only way to ACTUALLY prove something: mathematically) that model makers have been choosing the wrong basic model of the atmosphere, and have, therefore, grossly over-estimated atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide level changes. He proves that the temperature of the planet will rise between 0.24 K and 1.10 K for each DOUBLING of carbon dioxide. The paper has been out for a month or two shy of five years, and is, so far, UNCONTESTED. That's what actual science has to say about this subject.

Finally, o derpy green poster, the planet is in no danger from anthropogenic climate change. None. Nada.

What is in danger from global climate change is human societies and ways of life, which will be massively disrupted by the change in climate that will destroy existing ways of life, changes that we are already starting to see as extreme and aberrant weather patterns become commonplace.

After your screed about "peer-reviewed" (and irrelevant) science, you feel comfortable ignoring science that disproves your hypotheses, I see. Not surprising, really. There are many studies showing that there is NO increase in dangerous weather patterns, or deaths therefrom, including Goklany (2009) (new window). In fact, we are in a VERY long period of very little hurricane activity. The streets of New York are not flooded, as James Hansen predicted. All of the alarmist bullshiat has been proven to be bullshiat, so far, and time will do the same for current predictions of disaster, like the ones you make here.

KiltedBastich:

Here's a hint: claiming simultaneously that carbon dioxide has no effect on warming AND that global warming may be a positive is ridiculous, because they are mutually exclusive arguments. Pick one, and you will look a lot less ridiculous. Not that this has ever stopped you before, really.

You are, apparently, unqualified to think. No, the arguments are NOT mutually exclusive. Since this is your religion, how about if I show you an analogy from OUTSIDE your area of faith, so you won't have the same Fundie knee-jerk reaction?

Let's say X says "The U.S. economy is in danger from all the excess capital flowing into the U.S. from China." My response, "You dipstick, money is flowing OUT of the U.S. to China. And, even if we WERE being flooded with money from China, that would be a GOOD thing, not a danger."

It's the same here. WE are not warming the planet through increasing carbon dioxide, at least not more than, say, 0.1K. And, we are at HISTORIC low temperatures for the planet. Normally, we'd be between 5 and 10 K warmer. Life, in general, does better in warmer climates. So, if we WERE raising the temperature, it would be a good thing.

As for "crooked scientists", need I remind you that one of the major independent skeptics just recreated the same temperature curve showing that warming is happening? Or are you now including the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in your litany of "crooked scientists"?

I am sure you will be happy to tell us now why that independent review was wrong, or why it doesn't mean what it obviously means, or that Muller got bought off by the conspiracy, or that the climate scientists weren't lying about that, just about everything else. Or some other convoluted spin doctoring job that explains away what you don't want to accept as true.

Go on, I am sure I will enjoy the lulz.

As to why, I cannot say, but as to WHAT, anyone with a pair of eyes can see. Look at Muller's own data. From his own data, he states that warming is continuing. Do you agree?



Come on, Jackass - Do these data show that warming has continued over the last decade?