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.

(Science Daily)   Microbiologist says our ignorance on role of microbes in oceans, global warming future, leads to HUGE RISKS, and calls for more research to identify and reduce HUGE RISKS caused by our ignorance of the HUGH RISKS associated with AGW HUGE RISKS   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 131
    More: Obvious, AGW HUGE RISKS, global warming, oceans, microbiologists, Attribution of recent climate change, plankton, carbon sequestration, phytoplankton  
•       •       •

1030 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Feb 2012 at 3:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-10 03:33:56 PM  
but researchers say it's still unclear whether these processes will further increase global warming or decrease it.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-02-10 03:34:43 PM  
How many scientists you see driving around in Bentleys?

I rest my case.
 
2012-02-10 03:35:04 PM  
www.woodfortrees.org

176 months and counting for this HUGE RISK!

But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?
 
2012-02-10 03:35:54 PM  
Microbiologists are weirdos and other scientists avoid them socially.
 
2012-02-10 03:37:33 PM  
HUGH RISKS? Is he still in town?
 
2012-02-10 03:38:17 PM  

SevenizGud: [www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

176 months and counting for this HUGE RISK!

But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?


Your chart sucks
 
2012-02-10 03:50:08 PM  
Aww hell, here we go again. At least it's past midday on a Friday, so it may not turn into a 1000 post derpfest worthy of the politics tab.
 
2012-02-10 03:53:38 PM  

SevenizGud: But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?


Any particular reason you chose just the past 176 months? Oh, I know why... because if you include a longer time line - even just another two months worth - the downward trend-line becomes an upward trend-line... and the more data you include, the steeper the upward trend gets.

Here's a photo of SevenizGud collecting his data:

www.cherry-picker-hire.com

=Smidge=
 
2012-02-10 04:00:26 PM  
<F3>

Quick Find: risk

Phrase not found


Dammit, trollmitter.

It sounds like the paper's authors are suggesting that we should consider funding even more research along these lines because at the present time we don't even know what we don't know.

That's as sinister as it gets. No political correctness run amok, no agendas, no scams.
 
2012-02-10 04:01:19 PM  
There's no such thing as microbes.

We don't need plants to convert C02 into oxygen for us to breath.

I mean, it would take a huge chemical spill of some kind to affect ocean life.



God made everything perfect and nothing depends on, or is related, to anything else, for some reason.

Jesus will save us all and you're too stupid to question anything.
 
2012-02-10 04:13:31 PM  
Well as a person who specializes in the mating habits of the orange butted skunk I think this man is clearly wrong. The huge risk to society is if the organge butted skunk stops matting because of AGW. There is a huge risk that society will be thrown into a tizzy over this. We need to increase funding into the study of the mating habits of the orange butted skunk or we are all going to die.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-02-10 04:13:58 PM  

Smidge204: SevenizGud: But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?

Any particular reason you chose just the past 176 months? Oh, I know why... because if you include a longer time line - even just another two months worth - the downward trend-line becomes an upward trend-line... and the more data you include, the steeper the upward trend gets.

Here's a photo of SevenizGud collecting his data:

[www.cherry-picker-hire.com image 358x537]

=Smidge=


I love it. NASA discards their "misbehaving" stations' data, uses a cherry-picked reference datum, uses a cherry-picked projection for their maps, cherry-picks their homogeneity algorithm, etc., etc., and from you we get: cricket cricket.

But when I point out that it's been 176 months of down trend...OMG IT'S CHERRYPICKING!!!11111eleventy.

Your post still does fark-all to counter the fact that there's been no warming in 176 months. The temperature increase must be really accelerating, right? Oh noez, it's worse than we thought.

Chicken Little. The sky is not falling.
 
2012-02-10 04:16:59 PM  
More research? No, they mean more money.

agw sky is falling for the money win!
 
2012-02-10 04:20:20 PM  

phaseolus:
It sounds like the paper's authors are suggesting that we should consider funding even more research along these lines because at the present time we don't even know what we don't know.

That's as sinister as it gets. No political correctness run amok, no agendas, no scams. just a good old fashion begging for money because the sky is falling due to man!

 
2012-02-10 04:22:58 PM  
Considering we'd run out of oxygen within a matter of weeks if the algae in the ocean died, I think it's a valid concern.
 
2012-02-10 04:26:47 PM  
HUGH RISKS? Maybe they can apply for a HUGH GRANT.
 
2012-02-10 04:29:25 PM  
"Scientists are liars! We don't know if global warming is real or what the consequences would be!"

"So ... do you think we should ... I don't know ... study it?"

"NO THAT'S JUST WHAT THE SCIENTISTS WANT YOU TO THINK!"

Global warming denialism rests on the three pillars of "we don't know", "we shouldn't find out", and "it's a conspiracy!!1!11!".
 
2012-02-10 04:29:40 PM  
I hate Hugh Risks, that smug British bastard.
 
2012-02-10 04:42:33 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: "Scientists are liars! We don't know if global warming is real or what the consequences would be!"

"So ... do you think we should ... I don't know ... study it?"

"NO THAT'S JUST WHAT THE SCIENTISTS WANT YOU TO THINK!"

Global warming denialism rests on the three pillars of "we don't know", "we shouldn't find out", and "it's a conspiracy!!1!11!".


You forgot the 4th pillar:

That's what the hadcrut data say.
 
2012-02-10 04:51:17 PM  

SevenizGud: 176 months and counting for this HUGE RISK! But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?


A useful animated image describing your cherry-picking technique is available here.
 
2012-02-10 04:58:33 PM  
Every month for the last 323 months has been warmer than the baseline.

When you say there has been a 176 down trend, I assume you mean that the hottest month on record was 177 months ago. This is not the same thing as saying there has been a trend downwards.

Note the difference between a claim that temperatures are dropping over the mid-range and the claim that they are merely lower than an arbitrary (albeit record) one-off high.

The scientific statement I make is correct and verifiable. Your statement is misleading and that is why it appears to contradict my statement, but does not, technically do so.

It is true that the hottest month on record was in year X. This doesn't mean that there is no long term, mid-term or short term warming. It has nothing whatever to say about warming. It is a statement about one data point and the relationship of other data points to it.

But there's plenty of room for warming to happen for decades yet without ever surpassing that 1998, or for that matter, any other one-off record.

It's like the bogus claim by radio and television stations that they don't make the volume louder on commercials. The HIGHEST volume may not be louder, but they raise the volume on the sound-mixing board right across the board. That's why it sounds louder to you--it is louder. It just doesn't have a higher peak loudness.

You are talking BS, and the example of media BS I just gave came from the author of the book The Golden Age of BS, who asked a radio technician how they increase the volume of commercials while visiting a radio station that "correctly" denied that they increase the volume of commercials.

Get your brooms! I call shenanigans on climate change denial!

You know what we call people who make technically true statements that are totally devious and misleading? We call them lawyers.

In fact, the entire BS industry (lawyers, politicians, journalists, advertising people, marketeers, corporate honchos, etc.) do this all the time. It's the lie by omission. Omit facts, omit explanations, omit caveats, details, distinctions and let the people lie to themselves. The denialists, hired or self-appointed, public liars or astro-turfers, have been blanketing the web and the media with this BS for years. And once they have established the Big Lie, they know that some people will repeat it for the rest of their lives, and possibly have it carved on their tombstones.

Global warming is real, it is serious, and it is mostly our fault. Even if it weren't our fault, we are the only species on Earth that can do anything about it.

Fortunately we CAN do lots of good, simple, inexpensive things about it, starting with simply saving our money and energy. But that's bad for business--some businesses that is, which sell fossil fuels, it's good for those doing the saving of money and energy. It's good for any business that substitutes clean energy sources for fossil fuels, or cuts the amount of fuel they use to make goods and provide services.

It's good for everybody except a handful of super rich fossil fuel magnates and their cronies and their peons.

According to various studies I have seen reported by the green media, gasoline would cost $10 a gallon without subsidies, and fossil fuel based electricity would be about 28 cents a Kilowatt hour instead of about 10 cents with subsidies. We wouldn't be obese without subsidies. We wouldn't need to pay so much in taxes. And if we did pay taxes, they could be used to subsidize power and food for the poor, not everybody, and could be lower.

In short, it's a giant scam which profits a very select few immensely, and costs everybody and everything else in the world untold trillions of dollars per year, not to mention untold numbers of lives and points of quality of life, health and security.

And then there's the military risks of fighting for fossil fuels on top of that.

Conservatives and libertarians constantly complain about how government spending warps the economy and makes everybody poorer, but they never complain about the really massive subsidies and other distorting forces (well, not the political and media favorites, at least--some of the marginal people do).

Iran is so farked-up that gasoline is under twenty cents a gallon. The USA is scarcely less farked-up despite all the howling about "socialism" and "big government".

The source of most of these problems, including the over-fed masses, is fossil fuel. You couldn't make the fertilizer without natural gas, the plastics and other crap without oil, the electricity without coal--or you could, but only if you charged a realistic and accurate price, with subsidies only to help the poor live a decent lifestyle on decent wages.

All the liberal democratic socialism in the world would be cheaper than the giant military-industrial-media-government-complex socialism, which is the kind the USA has, China has, Russia has, and to make a long story short, every country on Earth has.

Eisenhower warned you against this sort of thing. Heck, George Washington warned you about this sort of thing. And yet, after over 200 years, this is what you get.
 
2012-02-10 05:06:26 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: How many scientists you see driving around in Bentleys?


Only the ones working for Exxon and Philip Morris...
 
2012-02-10 05:07:56 PM  
I guess this was supposed to be a troll thread, but no one remembered to tell the deniers. I'm waiting for LeaderJames to green up the thread and quote the Urantia Book at us.
 
2012-02-10 05:08:52 PM  

brantgoose: Every month for the last 323 months has been warmer than the arbitrarily selected, cherry-picked baseline.


FTFY

Oh, and by the way for 175+ months now, it's been trending cooler. So we are going DOWN TOWARDS that cherrypicked baseline, not up away from it.
 
2012-02-10 05:12:33 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ... just a good old fashion begging for money because the sky is falling due to man!



Can you help me out, here?

For your convenience, so you don't have to scroll all the way up, here's a link to tfa (new window). And this (new window) is a link to the journal abstract.

I can't find anything in either place that backs up what you said. No 'sky is falling', no '...due to man'. I've seen you around, you're a fine, upstanding, serious lad, I'm confident you wouldn't just pull unsupported invective out of your ass for the sheer joy of feeling cynical and "skeptical".

So what did I miss in those links?
 
2012-02-10 05:14:00 PM  

chimp_ninja: SevenizGud: 176 months and counting for this HUGE RISK! But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?

A useful animated image describing your cherry-picking technique is available here.


...because it's not even possible for the temperature to really trend down, even when the hadcrut data say it has been for 14+ years now.

No bias there.

Remember kids, if it's 14 years of cooling, it's just a blip in a geologic time-frame of overall warming.

But if it's a few year long of warming - it's CLIMATE CHANGE.
 
2012-02-10 05:50:55 PM  

SevenizGud: ...because it's not even possible for the temperature to really trend down, even when the hadcrut data say it has been for 14+ years now.


That isn't what this graph is telling you. Study it again, and reconsider your conclusions.
 
2012-02-10 05:51:07 PM  
I thought the global warming skeptics' line was that the science wasn't in and more research needed to be done.

So a dude says more research needs to be done, and gets shot down by the same people?
 
2012-02-10 06:08:50 PM  

SevenizGud: Smidge204: SevenizGud: But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?

Any particular reason you chose just the past 176 months? Oh, I know why... because if you include a longer time line - even just another two months worth - the downward trend-line becomes an upward trend-line... and the more data you include, the steeper the upward trend gets.

Here's a photo of SevenizGud collecting his data:

[www.cherry-picker-hire.com image 358x537]

=Smidge=

I love it. NASA discards their "misbehaving" stations' data, uses a cherry-picked reference datum, uses a cherry-picked projection for their maps, cherry-picks their homogeneity algorithm, etc., etc., and from you we get: cricket cricket.

But when I point out that it's been 176 months of down trend...OMG IT'S CHERRYPICKING!!!11111eleventy.

Your post still does fark-all to counter the fact that there's been no warming in 176 months. The temperature increase must be really accelerating, right? Oh noez, it's worse than we thought.

Chicken Little. The sky is not falling.


I'm sure you know more than climatologists.

SevenizGud: (new window)

Yeah, who is the authority here, politifact, a whole slew of professionals with expertise and training who have published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, or a bunch of slack-jawed, cheetoh-stained dirtwad "experts" who post on fark? Gee, tough choice.

Does that line of reasoning only work with politifact? Or just when you want the experts to agree with you?
 
2012-02-10 06:17:13 PM  

Baryogenesis: Does that line of reasoning only work with politifact? Or just when you want the experts to agree with you?


Uhm, I was quoting hadcrut data itself, so I am not sure what your point is.
 
2012-02-10 06:19:48 PM  

chimp_ninja: Study it again, and reconsider your conclusions.


Okay, it is unpossible for temperature to TREND DOWN FOR 14+ YEARS, EVEN WHEN HADCRUT DATA SAYS EXACTLY THAT, and upon further review, you are a homo.
 
2012-02-10 06:20:52 PM  

chimp_ninja: SevenizGud: 176 months and counting for this HUGE RISK! But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?

A useful animated image describing your cherry-picking technique is available here.


That is the mostest awesome animation ever. Such elegance. Kudos to the creator.
 
2012-02-10 06:24:10 PM  

InMysteriousWays: That is the mostest awesome animation ever. Such elegance. Kudos to the creator.


And the same logic tells us that right in the middle of the dot-com bubble bust...the stock market was still going up.
 
2012-02-10 06:26:29 PM  
I would suggest that anyone who thinks microbes are insignificant go lick a public restroom toilet.
 
2012-02-10 07:02:25 PM  
t3.gstatic.com
t2.gstatic.com
t3.gstatic.com
t2.gstatic.com
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-02-10 07:07:38 PM  

bighairyguy: Microbiologists are weirdos and other scientists avoid them socially.


Oh yeah? Well screw you guys!
 
2012-02-10 07:12:45 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: How many scientists you see driving around in Bentleys?

I rest my case.


Hmm.

Let x = the number of Bentleys I have personally seen driven around.
Let y = the number of Bentleys I have personally seen driven around by scientists.

x = 0
Therefore y = 0
Therefore x = y
Therefore all Bentleys are driven by scientists.
 
2012-02-10 07:36:08 PM  

SevenizGud: chimp_ninja: Study it again, and reconsider your conclusions.

Okay, it is unpossible for temperature to TREND DOWN FOR 14+ YEARS, EVEN WHEN HADCRUT DATA SAYS EXACTLY THAT, and upon further review, you are a homo.



Calm down. You're missing the point. It is possible for temperature to trend down for a significant period of time, but that does not mean what you think it does. The question is whether that is that time long enough to say something about anthropogenic climate change, or instead about processes that work on shorter time scales (hint: it's the latter).
 
2012-02-10 07:38:55 PM  

SevenizGud: InMysteriousWays: That is the mostest awesome animation ever. Such elegance. Kudos to the creator.

And the same logic tells us that right in the middle of the dot-com bubble bust...the stock market was still going up.


And the same logic as you're using would have you claim that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening because it's cold outside.
 
2012-02-10 07:51:41 PM  
2.4 billion years ago, Cyanobacteria, by producing oxygen, were essentially responsible for what was likely the largest extinction event in Earth's history (new window).

So run, scream, wave your arms, blame Bill Clinton, blame AlGore, bame Mittens Romney, blame boobies, drink, scream, rape, pillage and burn, occupy, rage against the machine, because there's nothing humans can do about these things.

Count your blessings and don't worry.
The Earth recycles and eventually it will recycle us.
 
2012-02-10 07:52:50 PM  
Filter tossed the link. Here it is (new window).
 
2012-02-10 08:50:13 PM  

SevenizGud: ...because it's not even possible for the temperature to really trend down, even when the hadcrut data say it has been for 14+ years now.


So what happens if we set another record high in the next 12 months, and the trendline from the same start sample slopes upward? Will you admit it's trending upwards?

No, of course not. You'll find an excuse to get out of your own flawed logic when it backfires.
=Smidge=
 
2012-02-10 08:58:03 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 2.4 billion years ago, Cyanobacteria, by producing oxygen, were essentially responsible for what was likely the largest extinction event in Earth's history (new window).

So run, scream, wave your arms, blame Bill Clinton, blame AlGore, bame Mittens Romney, blame boobies, drink, scream, rape, pillage and burn, occupy, rage against the machine, because there's nothing humans can do about these things.

Count your blessings and don't worry.
The Earth recycles and eventually it will recycle us.



How about instead recognizing that are different causes for events, and some things we can change, and some that we can't. Since anthropogenic climate change is primarily caused by our activities and choices, is probably one of the former.

What you're saying is akin to claiming we shouldn't do anything about arson since natural forest fires have occurred in the past.
 
2012-02-10 09:05:58 PM  

SevenizGud: [www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

176 months and counting for this HUGE RISK!

But hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for a little over 14+ years, so it's probably just weather, amirite?


About that graph... (new window)

Basically, the flattening of the rolling mean temperature curve is due to the fact that the "El Nino of the century" (1997-1998) has been replaced in the period of record by the current double-dip La Nina. Per the article:

Hansen et al. (2010) argued, in anticipation of the inevitable shift from the then beginning La Niña to the next El Niño, that "The 12-month running mean global temperature in 2010 has reached a new record level for the period of instrumental data. It is likely that the 12-month mean will begin to decline in the second half of 2010. The subsequent minimum in the 12-month running mean is likely to be in 2011-2012 and not as deep as the 2008 minimum. The next maximum, likely to be in 2012-2014, will probably bring a new record global temperature, because of the underlying warming trend."

Looks like the use of this graph by the deniers in 2012 was predicted by real climatologists in 2010.
 
2012-02-10 09:15:29 PM  
I'm all for studying this, mainly because I think environmental microbiology sounds interesting and potentially useful, and in any case it's long past time for microbiology to grow up and move out of medicine's basement.

/Every Microbiology textbook ever: "99% of bacteria are harmless or beneficial"
//Every Microbiology textbook ever: 99% of the text is about diseases.
 
2012-02-10 09:44:31 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 2.4 billion years ago, Cyanobacteria, by producing oxygen, were essentially responsible for what was likely the largest extinction event in Earth's history (new window).

So run, scream, wave your arms, blame Bill Clinton, blame AlGore, bame Mittens Romney, blame boobies, drink, scream, rape, pillage and burn, occupy, rage against the machine, because there's nothing humans can do about these things.

Count your blessings and don't worry.
The Earth recycles and eventually it will recycle us.


So bacteria are powerful enough to completely change the composition of the earth's atmosphere and redirect the evolution of life along a new path, but humans are powerless in the face of nature.

Ok.
 
2012-02-10 11:26:08 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: And the same logic as you're using would have you claim that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening because it's cold outside.


Yeah, because it's cold outside.

...over the entire surface of the planet

...over the entire course of the year

...for 14 years.
 
2012-02-10 11:29:01 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: The question is whether that is that time how long enough to say something about anthropogenic climate change, or instead about processes that work on shorter time scales (hint: it's the latter). will it have to cool before you chicken littles admit you fudgepacked the pooch


FTFY
 
2012-02-10 11:32:51 PM  

Smidge204: So what happens if we set another record high in the next 12 months, and the trendline from the same start sample slopes upward? Will you admit it's trending upwards?

No, of course not. You'll find an excuse to get out of your own flawed logic when it backfires.
=Smidge=


And what happens when the cooling we see now accelerates and the polar ice caps expand and meet at the equator and lock the entire surface of the planet in a frozen ball 1,000 miles thick? Will you admit that you are chicken little?

Of course not, you'll still be too busy drinking the watermelon kool-aid.
 
2012-02-10 11:35:26 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Looks like the use of this graph by the deniers in 2012 was predicted by real climatologists in 2010.


Well, these are the same guys who also predicted warming, right?

Hide the decline - that's REAL CLIMATOLOGY.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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