Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Let the Bad Astronomer explain why the 49 scientists, engineers, and former astronauts critique of NASA's global climate change policies add up to so much hot air   (blogs.discovermagazine.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Phil Plait, NASA, geologic times, global warming, old-growth forests, denialism, basic science, Harrison Schmitt  
•       •       •

5495 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Apr 2012 at 12:45 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-14 06:44:27 AM  

dready zim: Fair enough, so we had 30 years of cooling after WW2, is that significant?


Yes

dready zim: If it is, which is *more* significant, the 30 years between 1940-1970 (approx) where temperature fell or the 30 years between 1970-2000 (approx) where they increased and why?


I know what you mean, but you're confusing statistical significance with its more general use. In this case, the overall 60 year trend is positive. I'd say that's more important than a period of cooling in a longer trend of warming.

dready zim: What will it mean for the theory if temperatures fail to increase from this point?


How long of a stagnation? Is the overall heat content of the planet (especially the oceans) still increasing as it has been during the past 10 years?

dready zim: Will that be criteria for disproof or major rethink?


If there was a 30 year flat or declining trend, yes, there would need to be significant adjustments. But we don't have a 30 year trend, we have a cherry picked trend.

dready zim: What does it mean for the claim that recent warming is unprecedented, and therefore anthropogenic, that temperatures rose a similar amount (about 0.9 degrees) to recent warming in the early 1800`s yet in a shorter timeframe


I assume you mean the little ice age and, no, it didn't heat up that fast in just 100 years, it's 200-300 years from the trough to the 20th century.

upload.wikimedia.org


RoyBatty: Well, I've read multiple physicists and other scientists confirm my own experience which is that Mann and Jones are guilty of scientific malpractice. This is not one person. This is many people who read the emails and relate them back to their experiences in their education and what they were taught.


No, what you have is out of context emails and accusations of wrong doing that were shown to be false. And you're completely unconcerned with the lack of integrity that most AGW deniers display in their attempts to disprove AGW.

RoyBatty: So I apologize but it's very late for me and I can't give you any good links, but just for kicks, one day, devote 2 - 4 hours to going through Andrew Montford's site and I suspect Watt's or McIntyre's and look only at the critiques of the investigations. Read the reports of the investigations, and alongside that read the critiques.

For the most part, I found the critiques of the investigations to be very accurate, and the highlights as I recall were that


Gee wiz, you mean people who run blogs about how climate science is wrong just might also conclude the investigations were CYA?

I'll take the independent (as in, not from CRU or Penn) investigations over some guy's blog. From the earlier link:

"In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
 
2012-04-14 06:58:59 AM  
FTA: "Breath-taking climate denial..."

Stopped reading there. An article can use buzz-words and straw men or it can use logic and reason. I see which way that article is going.

Hint: an article that uses the word "denial" (or "denialist," etc.) wants instant agreement based on emotion. This is not needed (and is actually detrimental) if the author had logic, reason and facts on his side. The goal is to have the reader equate "disagreeing with the author" with "denying the holocaust," even tho the two have nothing in common. People jump on the bandwagon due to the herd instinct and the need to feel superior to others (the non-believers) without having to go thru all the hard work of actually doing something superior.
 
2012-04-14 07:00:11 AM  

Underwater Bystander: People are still debating climate change? Seems like a lot of effort that could be better spent trying to fix the problem instead of repeatedly diagnose it.


Why do you assume that it's a problem? The climate's been changing for billions of years, and has NEVER been stable.
 
2012-04-14 07:01:16 AM  
The bible teaches us that man shall have dominion over all things, including the ability to warm the planet. I mean look at us, God's favored creatures. How could humans NOT be causing global warming? I mean, is there anything that God's favored creatures cannot do? We're the bomb, we humans. We're in charge, we're in control of all things. We control the career-preservation grants. We even control the weather. Haven't you heard? We're God's chosen people! You've got to believe! BELIEVE.

The Chesapeake Bay? It wasn't formed by the water from melting glaciers raising sea levels! Humans did that! The Bering Strait land bridge? Humans again. Buy carbon offsets and get a complimentary flip phone and an automatic subscription to Current TV (activation, five-year contract, taxes, other fees not included)!

/These AGWers won't stop until they're locked away in nursing homes, will they?
 
2012-04-14 07:05:26 AM  

Confabulat: The deniers can't be expected to listen to science and reason, you know.


When the empirical evidence that AGW is nonsense is so clear, you have to be mentally ill to keep claiming it's real. Or have an agenda, probably selfish and probably financially or reputation-maintenance motivated.

Saying global warming is caused by humans is like saying tsunamis are caused by large ships passing in the ocean. It's simply primitive in its superstition.

/Mister Bad Astronomer dude is cool, but he's got some bad software running in his head.
 
2012-04-14 07:09:36 AM  

Underwater Bystander: People are still debating climate change? Seems like a lot of effort that could be better spent trying to fix the problem instead of repeatedly diagnose it.


No.
Climate change is real.
Global warming is real.
The argument is over whether humans are causing it.
Humans are not causing it -- the empirical data are clear. Pick up a geology or paleontology book and see the pretty dinosaurs living in tropical climes. Read about the formation of the Chesapeake Bay then read about the closing of the Bering Strait land bridge due to sea level rise due to glacial melt water.
We are in an interglacial warming period and have been for 13,000 years.
 
2012-04-14 07:22:14 AM  
Submitted two days ago with an obviously biased headline:
Fifty NASA astronauts, scientists, and engineers with over 1,000 years of combined professional experience sign letter protesting the continuing claim that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic climate change.

/No AGW bias here, nosiree.
 
2012-04-14 07:24:06 AM  
Also: If the Bad Astronomer dude admits AGW is a load of shiat, he won't be able to use that spiffy Earth-on-Fire photoshop graphic.
 
2012-04-14 07:31:41 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Underwater Bystander: People are still debating climate change? Seems like a lot of effort that could be better spent trying to fix the problem instead of repeatedly diagnose it.

No.
Climate change is real.
Global warming is real.
The argument is over whether humans are causing it.
Humans are not causing it -- the empirical data are clear. Pick up a geology or paleontology book and see the pretty dinosaurs living in tropical climes. Read about the formation of the Chesapeake Bay then read about the closing of the Bering Strait land bridge due to sea level rise due to glacial melt water.
We are in an interglacial warming period and have been for 13,000 years.


Stop and think about what you are suggesting: Because X happened in the past without factor Y, factor Y cannot be a contributor to X.

Do you see how irrational that statement is? Historical modeling of climate tells us what the climate *can* do under certain factors, not what it is doing now or will do.

Man's contribution to this is not hard to understand. The science behind it has been around for 150 years.

You're skiing down a slope. Up ahead you see a group of people planting a telephone pole in your path. When warned of the danger, you dismiss it, pointing behind you and explaining that nature created all of those natural barriers behind you and therefore it makes no sense that man could make one.
 
2012-04-14 07:33:54 AM  

dready zim: So, Bad Astronomer (hint in the name) is not a working climatologist so according to some we should ignore everything he says on the subject?


You don't need to be any kind of scientist to read the established science on climate change. The proof of all kinds of previous climate change (not, I repeat NOT man made) is in every museum exhibit that features dinosaurs. Half the nation's population lives within a day's drive of the most obvious proof of global warming: The Chesapeake Bay (formed when warming temps melted the Wisconsinan glaciers and the released water raised the sea levels.).

Cack on a cracker, the existence of COAL proves climate change that was not anthropogenic. There are hundreds of examples of Earth's climate changing WITHOUT human interference.

Your only mission, as an Earth inhabitant, is to ADAPT to the changes.
Adapt or die.
 
2012-04-14 07:34:05 AM  

DrPainMD: Stopped reading there. An article can use buzz-words and straw men or it can use logic and reason. I see which way that article is going.


Except those who continue to deny AGW aren't swayed by logic and reason or the piles of evidence or the primary literature or the signs (decreasing ice cover) of a warming planet. You couldn't even get past the title to where the author links back to all the evidence for AGW. Anyone who has followed the debate or even come into a fark thread can see one side arguing with evidence and citations and the other side arguing with lies, falsehoods, misunderstandings, and allegations of grand conspiracies.
 
2012-04-14 07:38:59 AM  

ryarger: Man's contribution to this is not hard to understand.


Yeah, no kidding.
I"m not arguing against the human contribution.
OF COURSE humans are contributing to global warming.

But 'cha know whut?
Humans will stop burning fossil fuels only when they run out or become too expensive to extract, distribute, and/or purchase because there is no other substance that contains as much energy per unit weight.
Oh, and the global economy depends on that energy to continue functioning.
So get over it. There will never be any political will to force people to be cold and hungry and immobile on the basis of all the rest of the evidence that global climate change has not been caused by humans.

Derpity, derpity, derp.
 
2012-04-14 07:40:50 AM  

Baryogenesis: Except those who continue to deny AGW aren't swayed by logic and reason or the piles of evidence or the primary literature or the signs (decreasing ice cover) of a warming planet.


This happens in cycles about every 25,000 years.
Get educated.

The glaciers come, the glaciers go. The sledding becomes good, the sledding becomes bad. Then there's a mud season. We're in an interglacial warming period.

Derpity.
 
2012-04-14 07:41:32 AM  
I note it does matter that of the 49 signatories on that letter, not one is an actual working climate scientist.

Are you sir?


// I like B.A. quite a bit, but logical fallacies, are logical fallacies.
 
2012-04-14 07:43:58 AM  

ryarger: Up ahead you see a group of people planting a telephone pole in your path. When warned of the danger, you dismiss it, pointing behind you and explaining that nature created all of those natural barriers behind you and therefore it makes no sense that man could make one.


The glaciers wiped out all the telephone poles where I ski.
But they grew back.
(13,000 years ago, there was two miles of ice over what is now Albany, NY. The ice sheet extended from Long Island to Chicago. Conditions have improved since then, I'd say.)
 
2012-04-14 07:48:40 AM  

Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: Stopped reading there. An article can use buzz-words and straw men or it can use logic and reason. I see which way that article is going.

Except those who continue to deny AGW aren't swayed by logic and reason or the piles of evidence or the primary literature or the signs (decreasing ice cover) of a warming planet.


The climate is ALWAYS either warming or cooling. Stability is not an option.

You couldn't even get past the title to where the author links back to all the evidence for AGW. Anyone who has followed the debate or even come into a fark thread can see one side arguing with evidence and citations and the other side arguing with lies, falsehoods, misunderstandings, and allegations of grand conspiracies.

Ummm... both sides argue with lies, falsehoods, misunderstandings, and allegations of grand conspiracies.
 
2012-04-14 08:07:25 AM  

Baryogenesis: Let's try a different approach in this thread. If you don't think AGW is real tell me where your objection is at and why. What alternate explanation do you have that better explains the data?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (new window)
2. Humans are emitting (new window) CO2
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (new window)
4. The Earth is accumulating heat (new window)
5. Temperatures are trending upward (new window)
6. The planet is already reacting to warmer temperatures (new window): springs are coming earlier, plant and animal species are moving poleward, glaciers are shrinking
7. An independent team of climate change skeptics from Berkeley Earth (new window) performed an analysis that confirms AGW/ACC
8. It's not the Sun (new window) or cosmic rays (new window)


#8 - the sun does not cause the globe to warm.
................... derp.
 
2012-04-14 08:21:14 AM  

DrPainMD: Ummm... both sides argue with lies, falsehoods, misunderstandings, and allegations of grand conspiracies.


All those temperature reconstructions, mathematical equations, atmospheric analysis, ice core proxies, etc, etc must be lies, right? Hear that folks? Mathematics, physics and chemistry are all lies!

Do you want to try that one again?

DrPainMD: Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: Stopped reading there. An article can use buzz-words and straw men or it can use logic and reason. I see which way that article is going.

Except those who continue to deny AGW aren't swayed by logic and reason or the piles of evidence or the primary literature or the signs (decreasing ice cover) of a warming planet.

The climate is ALWAYS either warming or cooling. Stability is not an option.


Uh, okay, sure, but we're concerned with warming happening on a human time scale instead of a geologic time scale. Warming on a scale of a few decades is a problem when natural warming operates on the scale of hundreds or thousands of years.


tjfly: #8 - the sun does not cause the globe to warm.
................... derp.


images.t-nation.com
 
2012-04-14 08:42:40 AM  

tjfly: #8 - the sun does not cause the globe to warm.
................... derp.


Any major dude, like Story Musgrave (but he's nothing but an idiot NASA astronaut, right? Right?) will tell you that the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun constantly pours radiation onto its surface.
 
2012-04-14 08:52:02 AM  

tjfly: Baryogenesis: Let's try a different approach in this thread. If you don't think AGW is real tell me where your objection is at and why. What alternate explanation do you have that better explains the data?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (new window)
2. Humans are emitting (new window) CO2
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (new window)
4. The Earth is accumulating heat (new window)
5. Temperatures are trending upward (new window)
6. The planet is already reacting to warmer temperatures (new window): springs are coming earlier, plant and animal species are moving poleward, glaciers are shrinking
7. An independent team of climate change skeptics from Berkeley Earth (new window) performed an analysis that confirms AGW/ACC
8. It's not the Sun (new window) or cosmic rays (new window)

#8 - the sun does not cause the globe to warm.
................... derp.


Which of these statements do you believe to be most true:
The heat the sun contributes to the atmosphere is decreasing over time
The heat the sun contributes to the atmosphere is constant
The heat the sun contributes to the atmosphere is increasing over time.
 
2012-04-14 09:09:14 AM  

r1niceboy: I'm a white male, so I can't subscribe to global warming because if I admit to one thing that the lefties do, I automatically become a lefty on all issues. I don't want to become a homosexual, single parent, black, muslim, woman, vegan, college graduate, abortionist. I might be discriminated against.


Well, you just completed several sentences in a row, with no spelling errors, so there you go, you homosexual, single parent, black, muslim, woman, vegan, college graduate, abortionist.
 
2012-04-14 09:12:17 AM  

OnlyM3: I note it does matter that of the 49 signatories on that letter, not one is an actual working climate scientist.
Are you sir?


// I like B.A. quite a bit, but logical fallacies, are logical fallacies.


Are you saying you have to be a climate scientist to say who is not a climate scientist?
 
2012-04-14 09:30:55 AM  
You can't convince a climate denier any more than you can a 9/11 troofer, a birfer, or a young earth creationist. Denial is faith, and faith is everything.

This "debate" is between laypeople, con artists, corporate propagandists, politicians (subset of the previous three), and conspiracy nutcases. The scientists moved on from this a long time ago.
 
2012-04-14 09:48:49 AM  

Baryogenesis: dready zim: What does it mean for the claim that recent warming is unprecedented, and therefore anthropogenic, that temperatures rose a similar amount (about 0.9 degrees) to recent warming in the early 1800`s yet in a shorter timeframe

I assume you mean the little ice age and, no, it didn't heat up that fast in just 100 years, it's 200-300 years from the trough to the 20th century.



No, I meant between about 1810 and 1825-1830 the temperature rose nearly a whole degree. Check it out.

get the graph of 1800-2000 temperatures then look just before 1850...
 
2012-04-14 09:49:01 AM  
I love these threads. I can go through and ignore the true believer denialist derpers, knowing that I won't have to read any useless "thoughts" from them in other threads they decide to derp in.
 
2012-04-14 09:51:13 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: dready zim: So, Bad Astronomer (hint in the name) is not a working climatologist so according to some we should ignore everything he says on the subject?

You don't need to be any kind of scientist to read the established science on climate change. The proof of all kinds of previous climate change (not, I repeat NOT man made) is in every museum exhibit that features dinosaurs. Half the nation's population lives within a day's drive of the most obvious proof of global warming: The Chesapeake Bay (formed when warming temps melted the Wisconsinan glaciers and the released water raised the sea levels.).

Cack on a cracker, the existence of COAL proves climate change that was not anthropogenic. There are hundreds of examples of Earth's climate changing WITHOUT human interference.

Your only mission, as an Earth inhabitant, is to ADAPT to the changes.
Adapt or die.


I was more saying that someone who says `people who are not working climate scientists have no right to comment on the subject`, when they themselves are in that category, should not comment on the subject....
 
2012-04-14 09:54:54 AM  
Nem Wan

>>>> OnlyM3: I note it does matter that of the 49 signatories on that letter, not one is an
>>>> actual working climate scientist.
>>>> Are you sir?

>>>> // I like B.A. quite a bit, but logical fallacies, are logical fallacies.

Are you saying you have to be a climate scientist to say who is not a climate scientist?



No, . There are several fallacies wrapped up in that 1 statement. If you really need it spelled out I'm happy to oblige and get you started by describing the first two for you.

He's implying one can not trust this list of scientists, etc. because none are "actual working climate scientist".

First setting that as the bar is a flaw in and of itself. For example, I have NEVER worked for NASA, yet I can point out numerous facts that show that the Moon landings were not faked and that we did actually land men there. Using B.A's statement hoaxers would discredit my points because I admittedly am not on the NASA payroll.

Second, B.A. makes statements in support of g.w., both in the post linked to above, and elsewhere. Using his argument, we should dismiss his statement as he is not an "actual working climate scientist".


Look, as I said above, I like B.A. and visit his page regularly. I hate calling him on it, but this one is so full of flaws it makes him look bad.. and he's better than that.
 
2012-04-14 09:58:16 AM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay
You can't convince a climate denier any more
than you can a 9/11 troofer, a birfer, or a young earth creationist. Denial is faith, and faith is everything.
This "debate" is between lay people, con artists, corporate propagandists, politicians (subset of the previous three), and conspiracy nutcases.
The scientists moved on from this a long time ago.

`
I just erased a long, well reasoned post about why the scientists simply can't 'move on' when it comes to AGW.
Then I realized that AGW isn't a scientific problem. The facts (biased and cherry picked on both sides) are there. AGW is now really in the realm of the Humanities or the Social Sciences.
Basically the 'truth' or 'facts' are irrelevant. Propaganda and opinion will determine the future not reasoned argument or debate.
 
2012-04-14 10:00:13 AM  

Two_Noodles: dready zim: Two_Noodles: That Forbes article was pretty much a waste of time.
His salient points:

1. He used the term "Deniers" to define his group

so when I say that when people have other concerns and warmers just don`t address that and fall back on `denier` as a blanket response, you just reply with "He used the term "Deniers" to define his group"

2. I suppose it does depend on whom you ask: Those living at 10 feet of elevation may be excited to be owning oceanfront property soon.

essentially only a problem for the rich and those who can`t move their house a few hundred feet in a hundred years.


3. Opposed feedback is probably not equal.

Do you have anything but an opinion to support this? How about if I say it probably is?

4. Yes, lots of problems are hard to solve. We probably shouldn't try right?

We shouldn`t try to compute uncomputable things. You are confusing the classical meaning of hard and scientific/mathematical hard. Lots of problems are just hard. Other problems are just not possible to calculate/predict. I`m saying climate prediction is the second type.

also there will be more water falling from the sky onto land. At the poles this will be snow thereby increasing albedo at that point allowing ice buildup. Another negative feedback from increased water vapour. I`ve added some of the stuff you missed...

Snow has to stay put to affect albedo. Reduced polar ice coverage indicates this is not happening now.


Snow only has to stay put long enough to start a negative feedback loop. Remember, the climate is changing. What is happening now is not what will happen. Also, only one pole has land and this will cause imbalance if ice builds up. That will shake things up with precession etc.
 
2012-04-14 10:05:37 AM  

Boatmech: Then I realized that AGW isn't a scientific problem. The facts (biased and cherry picked on both sides) are there.


That's precisely what I'm talking about. "Both sides" are just collections of laypeople who have no idea what they are talking about. They establish an arsenal of graphs and anecdotes that they don't really understand and then launch them at each other, and the "debate" never goes anywhere because neither side has the education necessary to actually understand what the debate is about.

The scientists are light years beyond the argument laypeople can't get out of.
 
2012-04-14 10:06:07 AM  

Boatmech: Propaganda and opinion will determine the future not reasoned argument or debate.


This is one of the truest things said in the thead. This is exactly why the media should not be allowed to either scaremonger or brush off anything to do with the topic. They must be held to some form of standard. When people say "Well, of course you think that if all you read is the media" they should be worried, because the media is most peoples access to the information, so if someone would obviously think something if that is all they have, then for most people, that *is* all they have so most people would think that. this for your average person makes what is in the media the `truth` and scientific papers the `lie`

change the media if you want to change policy.
 
2012-04-14 10:07:31 AM  
What, they are telling NASA to change policies on AGW?

Next they are going to tell Pepsi to stop selling soft drinks?
 
2012-04-14 10:14:55 AM  

dready zim: Baryogenesis: dready zim: What does it mean for the claim that recent warming is unprecedented, and therefore anthropogenic, that temperatures rose a similar amount (about 0.9 degrees) to recent warming in the early 1800`s yet in a shorter timeframe

I assume you mean the little ice age and, no, it didn't heat up that fast in just 100 years, it's 200-300 years from the trough to the 20th century.


No, I meant between about 1810 and 1825-1830 the temperature rose nearly a whole degree. Check it out.

get the graph of 1800-2000 temperatures then look just before 1850...


It doesn't show up in any of the temperature record I've seen. For example, the one I already posted shows nothing near a 1 degree change in a period of 25 years just after 1800. The difference from the low point during the little ice age to the high point at 2004 is ~1.2 degrees.

If you have a source, I'd like to see it.
 
2012-04-14 10:29:32 AM  
good, so now we are listening to a "bad astronomer" ?

There were other bad astronomer's who believed the earth was the center of the universe. Good that several brave scientists decided to believe in the science, not the hype.
 
2012-04-14 10:36:29 AM  

traylor: What, they are telling NASA to change policies on AGW?

Next they are going to tell Pepsi to stop selling soft drinks?


Pepsi sells soft drinks. The AGW crowd sells Kool-Aid.
 
2012-04-14 10:36:44 AM  
Then I saw her face, now I'm a believer!
 
2012-04-14 10:36:51 AM  

RoyBatty: Baryogenesis: Let's try a different approach in this thread. If you don't think AGW is real tell me where your objection is at and why. What alternate explanation do you have that better explains the data?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (new window)

Breakdown of greenhouse gases:
- water vapor 55%
- clouds; 17%
- Other gases (including C02) - 28%.

Why are you ignoring water vapor and clouds?


2. Humans are emitting (new window) CO2
.


has the earth ever had climate change before?
what caused it then and why are those effects not causing it now?
Has water vapor ever existed before?

People ignore water vapor because it is not man made. So they start with the premise that the cause is man made and ignore all non-made made greenhouse gases.
 
2012-04-14 10:41:47 AM  

Boatmech: Basically the 'truth' or 'facts' are irrelevant. Propaganda and opinion will determine the future not reasoned argument or debate.


NO.
Economics will determine what happens.
If you think those 50 NASA guys don't hold any persuasive power over United States senators, who are the ones who need "convincing," I've got a tropical island on Hudson Bay to sell you.

Funny how Lou Dobbs Away wrote that the scientist have moved on. Are they taking their road show to the boardrooms of the people who profit from things being exactly the way they are? Good luck with that.
Their argument is bankrupt, just like Algore's hockey stick horrors. It's going to take a whole generation of scientists to retire and die off before this AGW nonsense goes away. Settle in for the long fight.
 
2012-04-14 10:45:09 AM  
Parse, people, parse.

I know this is a hard sell, but global warming is real and people aren't causing it.
Just like they didn't cause it hundreds of times before over hundreds of millions of years.
 
2012-04-14 11:16:17 AM  

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: The Bad Astronomer can suck my dick.

Really. Please. Geeky redheads are hot. Email me.


1) I'm hetero.

2) My hair is mostly skin colored these days.

3) I'm more of a dork than a geek, with a hint of nerd.
 
2012-04-14 11:20:32 AM  

OnlyM3: I note it does matter that of the 49 signatories on that letter, not one is an actual working climate scientist.
Are you sir?


// I like B.A. quite a bit, but logical fallacies, are logical fallacies.


Oh, zing!

Except I do in fact quote and link to work by actual climate scientists in my posts. So the bottom line is that my credentials as a scientist give me a head start, but I rely on people who actually have spent their careers fairly and thoroughly examining the data, as opposed to linking to hacks who manipulate data to show whatever is politically expedient.
 
2012-04-14 11:24:24 AM  
I was wondering if you were gonna pop in The Bad Astronomer.
 
2012-04-14 11:32:23 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Fifty NASA astronauts, scientists, and engineers with over 1,000 years of combined professional experience [...]


...in, primarily, aeronautical and astronautical engineering, not climatology, and barely meteorology. I wouldn't ask an astronomer to conduct a biological analysis, and I wouldn't ask a climatologist to design a launch system, so why would I ask an astrophysicist or aeronautical engineer to interpret temperature records and understand climate forcings?

The posters at WUWT are sunk in bogs of appeal to authority while accusing opponents of doing the same, and without a reference to explanations for the observed trends and effects based upon replicable experiments. For all the bleating about the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age, no alternate explanation has been provided for the incredible temperature and CO2 increases observed over the past 150 years. If anything, those events provide an example of how natural cycles -- y'know, what AGW theory opponents like to claim the present trend is nothing but -- actually appear in the cryological and tree ring records, making the present spike all the more notable.

Present a theory that correctly explains the observed weather, surface, and atmospheric composition trends with a cause other than an increase in atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels caused by human activities or GTFO.

*cough* BEST *hack*
 
2012-04-14 11:36:29 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Oh hey look ... another one of these.

I work in/on computers. But you should totally listen to my advice on the economy. After all, people who work on Wall Street use computers!


Yes, because we all know looking at the facts, then seeing what people who know what the facts mean say about it, is overrated. And Al Gore is a hack...but Lord Monckton speaks nothing but truth.

/The difference between Phil and these 49 disengenuous hacks? Phil isn't signing a letter asserting climate change is real, because he knows he doesn't have the authority to back it.
 
2012-04-14 11:38:21 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You can't convince a climate denier any more than you can a 9/11 troofer, a birfer, or a young earth creationist. Denial is faith, and faith is everything.

This "debate" is between laypeople, con artists, corporate propagandists, politicians (subset of the previous three), and conspiracy nutcases. The scientists moved on from this a long time ago.

"All the spin by the noise machine is just that. Spin. And remember, U.S. elections are coming up in November. The amount of nonsense in the media from global warming denialists will only increase during this time. How you vote will have an actual, physical impact on the future of not just your town, your state, and your country. It will impact the entire planet. Your vote counts. Make it a good one."


This is really the only important point in the article. The author wants you to vote democrat. You should remember to apply the spin filter to anything that you are told right before you are asked to vote a certain way. Its all manipulation.

1- It is possible for global warming to exist and simultaneously to be hyped to more of a significance than it actually deserves.

2- It is possible for humans to have a microscopic effect on it and for that effect to be hyped to promote tax policy.

3- It is possible to point out the previous two points without being either stupid or a believer in flat panets or government conspiracies.

4- A smart rich person wont bother moving his home hundreds of feet inland, he will just bring in fill and raise his home a few feet. Which we could actually do for the entire coastline if we had the balls, its no different or more difficult than it would be to construct a coastal highway. It would also be cheaper exponentially than trying to shallow out the current warm bump in earths climate. A smart species adapts to changing conditions in ways that make it stronger and protect it from the next change. A stupid species adapts in ways that make it weaker.
 
2012-04-14 11:45:40 AM  

PlatinumDragon: no alternate explanation has been provided for the incredible temperature and CO2 increases observed over the past 150 years.


ftfy.

just because people present a bad explanation and no one presents a better explanation does not mean that the bad explanation is accurate.

none of the models based on the bad explanation have any predictive capability (remember all those hurricanes we were supposed to have?).

The problem is that first off, it isn't AGW, it is ACC, there is no global warming anymore, it is climate change.
Secondly, of course there is ACC, but NO ONE has presented any claim of how much of the CC is due to the "A" part. Is it 1%? 10%? 98.6% ?

Water vapor represents 95% of greenhouse effect: S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

So before people whine about the increases in CO2 in the environment is causing all the problems, do the analysis of whether there has been an increase in the amount of water vapor. I'll wait.
 
2012-04-14 11:50:14 AM  

Baryogenesis: Let's try a different approach in this thread. If you don't think AGW is real tell me where your objection is at and why. What alternate explanation do you have that better explains the data?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (new window)
2. Humans are emitting (new window) CO2
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (new window)
4. The Earth is accumulating heat (new window)
5. Temperatures are trending upward (new window)
6. The planet is already reacting to warmer temperatures (new window): springs are coming earlier, plant and animal species are moving poleward, glaciers are shrinking
7. An independent team of climate change skeptics from Berkeley Earth (new window) performed an analysis that confirms AGW/ACC
8. It's not the Sun (new window) or cosmic rays (new window)



1-8 = earth is being a planet and the species on it are being species. Everybody panic!

The point of the article however is not about the climate or trashing people because they disagree. The point of the article is to tell you to vote democrat.

The fact you are leaving out is the increase in costs for every basic human need that will occur if AGW legislation is passed world wide. You will starve generations of children, you will trap a greater number of people in crushing poverty, you will achieve almost no effect on the warming trend, and when the trend reverses someday because of normal climate change we will be teetering on the brink of extinction.

When the polar ice melts, polar bears will either adapt to the warmer conditions or they will go extinct. The one thing they wont do is waste their time trying to keep the ice from melting. We may as well adapt to warmer temperatures since they may be with us for a while.
 
2012-04-14 11:51:54 AM  

DrPainMD: The climate is ALWAYS either warming or cooling. Stability is not an option.


I don't suppose you know what the "A" in "AGW" refers to...
 
2012-04-14 11:56:22 AM  
The fact you are leaving out is the increase in costs for every basic human need that will occur if AGW legislation is passed world wide. You will starve generations of children, you will trap a greater number of people in crushing poverty, you will achieve almost no effect on the warming trend, and when the trend reverses someday because of normal climate change we will be teetering on the brink of extinction.

So, everything else should adapt but us, because adapting our own behaviour will be haaaaard, and we're doing such a spectacular job of limiting starvation and poverty now by proper distribution of resources as dictated by the all-knowing Market.

BRILLIANT!
 
2012-04-14 12:03:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why are you ignoring water vapor and clouds?


Neither of those are climate *forcings*. Water vapor is a feedback. Adding more water vapor to the atmosphere will just cause it to rain out, but warmer air can hold more water vapor.

tenpoundsofcheese: has the earth ever had climate change before?


Obviously it has

tenpoundsofcheese: what caused it then and why are those effects not causing it now?


It depends on the time scale. Orbital variations cause climate change on ten thousand year time scales (the "recent" cycles of ice ages and interglacials). The distribution of the continents affects climate on million year time scales. Obviously, neither of those operate on the time scale of a human.

tenpoundsofcheese: People ignore water vapor because it is not man made. So they start with the premise that the cause is man made and ignore all non-made made greenhouse gases.



Actually, it's not ignored.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time. (new window)
 
Displayed 50 of 230 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | 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