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.

(MSNBC)   Northeast to be assaulted by several inches of Global Warming. EVERYBODY PANIC   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 292
    More: Scary, Western Pennsylvania, Heavy rains, wind gust, weather services, East Coast, eastern United States, National Weather Service, Camp Springs  
•       •       •

13489 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2012 at 5:43 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-22 09:35:56 PM  

azpenguin: Meanwhile, it's 101 here today and we're not even out of April... This summer is gonna suck.


Southwest to be assaulted by triple digits of Global not-Warming. EVERYBODY PANIC.

/Take that rassafraggin' humorless modmins who didn't approve my link. Mutter mutter mutter....
 
2012-04-22 09:36:45 PM  

guyinjeep16: the_immoral_minority: Mother nature bats last. Try one or two volcanic events, nuke or a caldera collapse and watch everyone PRAY for global warming. I do not deny burning of oil, with eons of trapped solar energy, is a good thing. There is no way to get an unbiased appraisal of the effects these days. If I wrote and received a grant proposal on global warming with funding for my lab, I wonder what the findings would be. Try supporting your lab other a global cooling grant proposal.
And what would the findings be?.....sad

Its too bad you dont understand how science works.

/There is a lot more money in proven that GW isnt the case
And whats the one thing a scientist loves more than anything else? Thats right- proving another wrong.


In this case it would be proving the majority wrong. It would be a huge upset, and I'd be very glad to see it. But I'm not optimistic. It seems very likely at this point that we are affecting the climate, aren't going to do anything to stop it, and will likely suffer some very unpleasant consequences as a result.
 
2012-04-22 09:42:59 PM  

publikenemy: It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It's not our fault we breathe, it's completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere.


Lest we forget why the Internetshave to come equipped with a website called "Breathing is Carbon-Neutral, Asshole", this is what the deniers actually believe.

P.S. Isotope distributions.
 
2012-04-22 09:44:16 PM  
I thought this was the weekly Fark global warming thread(tm)?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-22 09:47:02 PM  

the_immoral_minority: Mother nature bats last. Try one or two volcanic events, nuke or a caldera collapse and watch everyone PRAY for global warming.


You can apply this "logic" to any topic, kids! Mom wants you to do your homework? Try this one:

"Do my homework? If there was one or two volcanic events, nuke or a caldera collapse, it wouldn't matter if my homework was done."

See? If you master this technique, you too can eventually be as smart as a slow second-grader.
 
2012-04-22 09:51:01 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: azpenguin: Meanwhile, it's 101 here today and we're not even out of April... This summer is gonna suck.

Southwest to be assaulted by triple digits of Global not-Warming. EVERYBODY PANIC.

/Take that rassafraggin' humorless modmins who didn't approve my link. Mutter mutter mutter....


Yeah, the record high for the date here was broken today. It was set in 1910. Possible thunderstorms tomorrow. This is supposed to be our nice time of the year here. One of our two all too brief interludes between the too cold and too hot seasons. I'm just going to go straight from high propane bills trying to keep this shack warm, to high electric bills trying to keep it cool.
 
2012-04-22 09:53:45 PM  
If the last episode of Fringe has any merit then we should know around 2015 is our Earth will still be able to sustain life in the future. Right?
 
2012-04-22 09:56:40 PM  

Little.Alex: Gore Worship


Is that one or two drinks? I don't have my rule sheet handy.
 
2012-04-22 10:04:31 PM  

chimp_ninja: publikenemy: It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It's not our fault we breathe, it's completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere.

Lest we forget why the Internetshave to come equipped with a website called "Breathing is Carbon-Neutral, Asshole", this is what the deniers actually believe.

P.S. Isotope distributions.


And gems like these!
 
2012-04-22 10:06:52 PM  

p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?



I thought you were going to say this:

Every tiny little suggestion of God's existence (Jesus on toast, every cancer remission in history, someone wins the lottery, Tebow completes a pass) gets magnified into a miracle and is touted as proof.

But the same doesn't apply for suggestions of global warming's existence. In fact, every snowfall that ever occurs is anti-proof.

So anyone who believes in God and not in global warming is using a very unlevel playing field. At least be consistent. Go ahead, believe in God because your team won a sports event, but if so you've got to at least consider global warming every time it gets above 90 degrees. Conversely, if you think a snowfall disproves global warming, then your aunt dying of cancer should also disprove God's existence.
 
2012-04-22 10:19:11 PM  
onfinite.com

Why is it only the warmer air gets warmer? Wouldn't the colder air also get warmer and therefore not extract as much moisture from the warmer air? Wouldn't there be a zero sum gain?
 
2012-04-22 10:26:30 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-22 10:26:34 PM  

Rich Cream: [onfinite.com image 634x640]

Why is it only the warmer air gets warmer? Wouldn't the colder air also get warmer and therefore not extract as much moisture from the warmer air? Wouldn't there be a zero sum gain?


Relative temperatures. There will always be 'warm' and 'cold' spots relative to each other, the big problem being that the medians of the entire planet are rising.

/IINAS
 
2012-04-22 10:28:25 PM  
i62.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-22 10:32:32 PM  

Rich Cream: [onfinite.com image 634x640]

Why is it only the warmer air gets warmer? Wouldn't the colder air also get warmer and therefore not extract as much moisture from the warmer air? Wouldn't there be a zero sum gain?


High up the atmosphere is rather thin so there's less CO2 to reflect back heat so the blanketing affect reduces higher in the atmosphere. The greatest effect is low down at the bottom of the atmospheric pressure gradient. You actually tend to enhance the temperature gradient even if you slightly increase the T higher up, it's always much less than you increase lower down. So the proportional cooling gets larger which means you do a better job of wringing out moisture.
 
2012-04-22 10:55:19 PM  

nickelni: meow76: nickelni: meow76: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support i ng.html

(facepalm)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=15&t=745&&n=571



(facepalm)

Yeah, the little Denominator cartoon is very cute. Here's what real scientists know and understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

There are plenty of articles from Nature and Science in that list. I suppose in your world, they must all be BS too, right?

What is this I dont even

Did you read the entire post I linked to? It goes into much greater detail (especially in the comments), about how if those 850 papers were all peer-reviewed anti-AGW (which they're not), that 850 papers is really, really tiny. (And that's not even going into the papers that are peer-reviewed in that list that are not actually anti-AGW -- PopTech just lumps them all in there).


nickelni: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support i ng.html




for the love of god

ok, you missed my point, but anyway:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-a t- skeptical.html

my point was that editors of scientific journals, like editors of newspapers, want to see research that is interesting and gripping. They don't like null findings because it's... well... boring. So the problem is that when research is done that demonstrates that one thing doesn't really have much of an effect on another thing, it is less likely to be published than research that says 'well when variable X changed, it had a significant effect on variable Y'

i'm not saying that the changes in CO2 that are a direct result of human activity AREN'T having an effect, i'm just saying that WE DON'T KNOW YET!To call someone a troll because they happen to take another view - a view which is backed up research produced by reputable people, published in a reputable peer reviewed journal - is absurd.

The science is far from being settled.
 
2012-04-22 11:23:41 PM  

guyinjeep16: publikenemy: Baryogenesis: publikenemy: I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp.., there is proof of long standing deserts that were once oceans, and vice-versa throughout earths history. Jungles and rain forests that were once barren plains.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks humans are responsible for forest fires. There's proof of lightning strikes and drought causing fires throughout Earth's history. There were certainly no cigarettes or sever camping output, so who was to blame for that?

Terrible analogy and comeback..meaningless. Usually if someone cannot come up with a sufficient answer, they ask a question as an answer.


It is actually a perfect analogy, just because something happened before doesnt mean that we cant be the cause of it now.

And if you dont believe humans cant change things on a large scale, you havent studied the dustbowl of the 1930's

Educate yourself.


The Dust Bowl's start was an unusually wet period that encouraged settlers to go into the Midwest and start farming. When a drought hit during the 30's, the cultivated topsoil dried up and blew away.

Humans didn't cause the climate shifts, we just tore up the ground.
 
2012-04-22 11:24:34 PM  

meow76: i'm not saying that the changes in CO2 that are a direct result of human activity AREN'T having an effect, i'm just saying that WE DON'T KNOW YET!To call someone a troll because they happen to take another view - a view which is backed up research produced by reputable people, published in a reputable peer reviewed journal - is absurd.

The science is far from being settled.


Heh.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warmin g. htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affe ct -global-climate.htm

Actually, here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

Spend the next week (or twenty) reading the site. It'd been a lot of years between when I'd last read anything about AGW (I think it was a Crichton book I read, and I was definitely more of a "skeptic") and someone recommended this site to me. Warning: There is a LOT of data to take in, more than can be done casually.
 
2012-04-22 11:32:49 PM  

chimp_ninja: Little.Alex: Gore Worship

Is that one or two drinks? I don't have my rule sheet handy.



Two, in concert. Like a Boiler Maker.
 
2012-04-22 11:33:57 PM  

meow76: The science is far from being settled.


The science is far from being completely settled in a multitude of fields, but that does not halt the implementation of the knowledge we do have from those fields. You'd be called a troll if you popped into a thread discussing gravity and declared that because we don't have a complete understanding of relativity that we should forgo implementation of the knowledge that we do have; why would you pop into a thread about climate and expect different? The use of the "the science isn't settled yet!" argument against a response to climate change or any other well established field that we don't understand literally everything about yet is typically (but not always) a signal flair from a person commenting from an uninformed or willfully ignorant position in search of a response from others; i.e. a troll. In other words, if you bring a troll's argument to the table, don't be surprised when people respond like you're trolling.
 
2012-04-22 11:54:11 PM  
Rich Cream: [onfinite.com image 634x640]

Why is it only the warmer air gets warmer? Wouldn't the colder air also get warmer and therefore not extract as much moisture from the warmer air? Wouldn't there be a zero sum gain?


It does:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bij-_fmaf8U/TykntxbLrPI/AAAAAAAAE-c/MBnIMDb B S5s/s1600/Low_pressure_system_over_Iceland.jpg

It's also why tonight Boston is going to get 4 inches of tropical rain and Albany is going to get a foot+ of snow.
 
2012-04-23 12:04:07 AM  

Rich Cream: [onfinite.com image 634x640]

Why is it only the warmer air gets warmer? Wouldn't the colder air also get warmer and therefore not extract as much moisture from the warmer air? Wouldn't there be a zero sum gain?


wat
 
2012-04-23 12:26:23 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

YES! Everything is going according to plan! MUWA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa...............
 
2012-04-23 12:29:28 AM  
Denying anthropomorphic climate change is a luxury only afforded to oil company CEO's and the terminally stupid.

/ if we don't do something about it, we're going to learn the answer to Fermi's Paradox the hard way
 
2012-04-23 12:46:28 AM  

Charles Martel: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x283]


Yes, because Al Gore is a hypocrite, all evidence of Climate Change is invalid.*

* This is what small minded idiots actually believe
 
2012-04-23 12:51:00 AM  

Xaxor: [onfinite.com image 634x640]


/It may not be snow, but the mechanics are the same


But if warmer air holds more moisture, why are the sea levels rising?
 
2012-04-23 12:55:58 AM  

ParaHandy: Denying anthropomorphic climate change is a luxury only afforded to oil company CEO's and the terminally stupid.

/ if we don't do something about it, we're going to learn the answer to Fermi's Paradox the hard way


You see, that's the sort of sensationalistic chicken-little-eske "the sky is falling" nonsense that gives climate change science a bad name.
Yes, human induced climate change is real. We know this will make life in the Maldives nearly impossible due to the predictable change in sea level. Most of Bangladesh is likewise going to become uninhabitable, at least according to current practices. But to suggest that we are all going to die is ill-informed.

There are things to fear, rapid acidification of the oceans can produce significant unknowable changes. Interrupting the Gulf Stream Current from lower density melt of the Greenland Ice cap will most likely drive severe changes to the European climate, decreasing the growing season significantly. Many changes are of the sort that are too rapid to expect ecosystems to adapt to and this suggests that the global biosphere will run at a reduced yield for some time, likely crashing ocean stocks and therefore fish harvests. However, we can predict if it will be a 5% reduction in food or a 50% reduction in food. That is major cause for concern but it isn't going to wipe us out unless some nuts turn it into World War III.

It would be nice if we could usefully reverse the coming trend but it's unrealistic to expect that to happen. The best move is probably to prepare to be flexible so you can adapt to the changes to come, be they wetter or drier, hotter where you are or colder with potentially much less infrastructural support. You don't need to go survivalist kooky but find a nice place for a garden is a very very good idea.
 
2012-04-23 01:00:31 AM  

ParaHandy: Denying anthropomorphic climate change is a luxury only afforded to oil company CEO's and the terminally stupid.

/ if we don't do something about it, we're going to learn the answer to Fermi's Paradox the hard way



Yeah!!! Only Oil executives would deny the Religion of Al Gore and Jim Hansen!!!!11!

Only Oil executives, and maybe dozens of scientists and astronauts from NASA:
Link

And maybe James Hansen himself, between 1998 and 2001.
Link

But other than them, and people who understand scientific method - only Oil Executives! Those no good bastiges who provide our society with resources we desperately need!
 
2012-04-23 01:38:54 AM  

indarwinsshadow: This isn't a real Global Warming thread.....there's no graphs. What happened to all the fark experts on global warming and their piles and piles of graphs?

I feel cheated


www.woodfortrees.org


But hey, it's only the entire surface of the planet over the last 15 years. Probably just weather, amirite?
 
2012-04-23 01:41:44 AM  
Yeah, I had to stay at a friend's house tonight because, even though the roads are good now, I have to work in the AM and not sure how the roads will be at 10 AM. And I have to go through that small dark purple strip posted up-thread to get to work. I'd rather not risk my life, even though I'd like to be with my wife and kids right now.
 
2012-04-23 02:16:26 AM  

SevenizGud: indarwinsshadow: This isn't a real Global Warming thread.....there's no graphs. What happened to all the fark experts on global warming and their piles and piles of graphs?

I feel cheated

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

But hey, it's only the entire surface of the planet over the last 15 years. Probably just weather, amirite?


Graphs are just designed to create confusion by making something minor look dramatic.

When you try to research what the average rainfall of an area was over the past year you get can get the the exact amount of inches or millimeters or whatever you prefer. Per month, per year, per whatever.

Try to get the average global temperature though and you can only get jagged graphs. Try to find out what the average temperature was globally in May 2011=jagged graph covering multiple years. Try to get average temperature in South America for all of 2011=jagged graph covering multiple years.

Show me even one study that breaks all the graphs down into simple numbers. If you did it would be something like Global mean temperature for 2000=10c. Global mean temperature for 2010=10.0001c.
 
2012-04-23 02:34:48 AM  

Little.Alex:
Yeah!!! Only Oil executives would deny the Religion of Al Gore and Jim Hansen!!!!11!

Only Oil executives, and maybe dozens of scientists and astronauts from NASA:



http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-climate-denialist-letter.html
From the link above:
"Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees. They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience." Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. You can review the signatories for yourself here."

And NASA's response to the 49 former NASA employees:

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."



Little.Alex: And maybe James Hansen himself, between 1998 and 2001.


Citation needed
 
2012-04-23 02:43:27 AM  

Noah_Tall: Graphs are just designed to create confusion by making something minor look dramatic.

When you try to research what the average rainfall of an area was over the past year you get can get the the exact amount of inches or millimeters or whatever you prefer. Per month, per year, per whatever.



Actually, you can't. Measuring and measurements are not as simple as you want them to be.

There's a short answer, however, and that is that people who actually understand all the details of measuring and measurements have done the work, looked beyond the simplistic reductions and have published their findings. Meanwhile, ...

Every measure comes with some error. If you are measuring an "average", you really need to be reporting the standard deviation as well. And then there are systematic errors. If I want something silly like the average rainfall over California, I could set out a few thousand rain gauges and do a simple average of them all, but that would probably be a bad idea. Better would be to do a "smart" average by first calculating which gauges were representative of how much area and then proportion the gauges that way, accounting for any overlapping territory. But I should also try another method to verify my readings like checking river runoff against the estimates of rainfall, though of course there's error there as you can't be fully sure about how much water soaked into the ground etc etc.
 
2012-04-23 02:46:24 AM  

SevenizGud: indarwinsshadow: This isn't a real Global Warming thread.....there's no graphs. What happened to all the fark experts on global warming and their piles and piles of graphs?

I feel cheated

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

But hey, it's only the entire surface of the planet over the last 15 years. Probably just weather, amirite?



i39.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-23 02:48:00 AM  

nickelni: Little.Alex:
Yeah!!! Only Oil executives would deny the Religion of Al Gore and Jim Hansen!!!!11!

Only Oil executives, and maybe dozens of scientists and astronauts from NASA:


....


And NASA's response to the 49 former NASA employees:

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we stro ...




Ah, I see the source of your confusion.

NASA was not talking about those 49 when they said that. They have been trying to muzzle James Hansen. James Hansen is the kook who, with Al Gore, started the hoax. They have been asking him to stop claiming he speaks for NASA, when he asks GW Religious Zealots to burn down the homes of people who ask for proof of his claims.
 
2012-04-23 02:52:12 AM  

nickelni: SevenizGud: indarwinsshadow: This isn't a real Global Warming thread.....there's no graphs. What happened to all the fark experts on global warming and their piles and piles of graphs?

I feel cheated

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

But hey, it's only the entire surface of the planet over the last 15 years. Probably just weather, amirite?


[i39.tinypic.com image 500x341]



Why such a short period, for such a big subject?

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-23 04:22:24 AM  

p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?


Forget it. Anybody who still denies is gullible beyond hope, they've fallen for the GW equivalent of "teach the controversy".
 
2012-04-23 04:25:42 AM  

Little.Alex:
Why such a short period, for such a big subject?

[img.photobucket.com image 540x309]


Thing is:

a) Temperature is related to atmospheric composition.
b) We're changing the atmospheric composition.
c) Since the last warm period in that graph we've built lots of cities by the sea.
d) Your happiness depends on those cities being above water, not below it.
 
2012-04-23 04:29:33 AM  

Joce678: .
d) Your happiness depends on those cities being above water, not below it.


(Unless your idea of heaven is eating raw raccoons and drinking your own urine...)
 
2012-04-23 04:42:05 AM  

Joce678: Little.Alex:
Why such a short period, for such a big subject?

[img.photobucket.com image 540x309]

Thing is:

a) Temperature is related to atmospheric composition.
b) We're changing the atmospheric composition.
c) Since the last warm period in that graph we've built lots of cities by the sea.
d) Your happiness depends on those cities being above water, not below it.


You misrepresent my happiness as it relates to Manhattan being above water.
 
2012-04-23 05:01:18 AM  

Joce678: Little.Alex:
Why such a short period, for such a big subject?

Thing is:

a) Temperature is related to atmospheric composition.
b) We're changing the atmospheric composition.
c) Since the last warm period in that graph we've built lots of cities by the sea.
d) Your happiness depends on those cities being above water, not below it.



But it illustrates that long before those big cities and cars, there were temperature variations. In fact, much larger variations than Al Gore has built his religion on.

And as to Ocean levels rising - I'm sceptical. Places where people have lived for 2000 years, like the Roman port of Ostia, have been on the water's edge during the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age, and the water level is the same.

I just think people are laughably anxious to use this wildly overstated theory to expand government.

When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled. And the ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE MANKIND IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE ECONOMY LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

Now they say the problem is the exact opposite; but the solution is exactly the same.

extraordinaryintelligence.com

And all the European Reds, switched to being Greens when the Soviet Union fell apart. It makes it look like an excuse to get poorly educated people excited about socialism. Now that they can no longer make the case that it's a better life, they want you to believe it's socialism or death.

It's a hoax.
 
2012-04-23 06:17:38 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: guyinjeep16: publikenemy: Baryogenesis: publikenemy: I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp.., there is proof of long standing deserts that were once oceans, and vice-versa throughout earths history. Jungles and rain forests that were once barren plains.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks humans are responsible for forest fires. There's proof of lightning strikes and drought causing fires throughout Earth's history. There were certainly no cigarettes or sever camping output, so who was to blame for that?

Terrible analogy and comeback..meaningless. Usually if someone cannot come up with a sufficient answer, they ask a question as an answer.


It is actually a perfect analogy, just because something happened before doesnt mean that we cant be the cause of it now.

And if you dont believe humans cant change things on a large scale, you havent studied the dustbowl of the 1930's

Educate yourself.

The Dust Bowl's start was an unusually wet period that encouraged settlers to go into the Midwest and start farming. When a drought hit during the 30's, the cultivated topsoil dried up and blew away.

Humans didn't cause the climate shifts, we just tore up the ground.


Tearing up the ground, knocking down vegetation barriers, tearing up natural grass allowed dust storms to become far more powerfull then they would have otherwise become. It was so bad we had to come in at a government level, and guess what? We fixed the problem eventually.

But then again you could have googled all of this and saved your ignorant remark from being all over the internet.

So next time you hear someone say that we cant have an effect on the planet, change the weather on the planet, please smack them in the head for me.

/Thanks
 
2012-04-23 06:24:27 AM  

Little.Alex: Joce678: Little.Alex:
Why such a short period, for such a big subject?

Thing is:

a) Temperature is related to atmospheric composition.
b) We're changing the atmospheric composition.
c) Since the last warm period in that graph we've built lots of cities by the sea.
d) Your happiness depends on those cities being above water, not below it.


But it illustrates that long before those big cities and cars, there were temperature variations. In fact, much larger variations than Al Gore has built his religion on.

And as to Ocean levels rising - I'm sceptical. Places where people have lived for 2000 years, like the Roman port of Ostia, have been on the water's edge during the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age, and the water level is the same.

I just think people are laughably anxious to use this wildly overstated theory to expand government.

When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled. And the ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE MANKIND IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE ECONOMY LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

Now they say the problem is the exact opposite; but the solution is exactly the same.

[extraordinaryintelligence.com image 509x340]

And all the European Reds, switched to being Greens when the Soviet Union fell apart. It makes it look like an excuse to get poorly educated people excited about socialism. Now that they can no longer make the case that it's a better life, they want you to believe it's socialism or death.

It's a hoax.


Wow you are on outright liar.

Google global cooling vs global warming papers in the 1970s, be sure to share your findings with us.
(Those familiar with the science already know this answer, this one is so you can educate yourself.)
 
2012-04-23 06:28:58 AM  

Little.Alex:
But it illustrates that long before those big cities and cars, there were temperature variations. In fact, much larger variations than Al Gore has built his religion on.


Nobody's denying that, your mistake is in believing those changes were spontaneous or that they magically make climate change unimportant.

Wrong.

CO2 is still bad even if the Earth was warmer at some period in the past.

Facts:

a) The only heat source that affects the surface of the Earth is the Sun.
b) The thing that controls how the Sun heats the Earth is the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.
c) We're messing with the Earth's atmosphere in a way that we know leads to global warming.

It's no more controversial than CFCs attacking the Ozone layer and it's much easier to understand (people were predicting CO2-driven global warming over a hundred years ago).
 
2012-04-23 06:30:23 AM  

Little.Alex: When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled.


You are full of shiat. There were a couple of media scare articles that talked about a coming ice age, but even in the 1970s, the majority of scientific articles about changing climate were about how it was warming. Nobody lectured and lectured and lectured on the topic of coming ice ages in the 1970s.
 
2012-04-23 06:35:06 AM  
www.moviesbyrizzo.info
 
2012-04-23 06:38:12 AM  

Little.Alex:
When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled. And the ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE MANKIND IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE ECONOMY LIKE NEVER BEFORE.


If you were born in 1850 you'd have been told that traveling faster then 50mph was impossible because you'd suffocate.

When we actually managed it did people reject all of science and go and live in the hills. Did they put their hands over their ears and go "neener neener"?

Nope, they believed the evidence.

The funny thing about science is it corrects itself over time. We advance. We give up on people poring over stacks of paper covered with handwritten temperature readings from a handful of cities. We build computers and launch weather satellites so we can record the temperature in real time with ten meter resolution. We figure out how to see past temperatures using ice cores and tree rings. We do science...
 
2012-04-23 06:39:07 AM  
wademh:
All of those assertions might be of interest if I didn't understand the physics and chemistry involved. However, as I do, I can bypass the conspiracy part and go straight to the data, the methods for collecting the data, and the models to fit the data. It's a far more decisive way to address the issues than weaving various conspiracy theories.

Keep being ignorant -- you wear it well.

So, you want to move straight to the data -- the ones shown to be manufactured by humans by the same auditing software whose output is accepted in court, and helped put Bernie Madoff behind bars? Or, the other data? Both are available.

The models -- you mean the models in which reality tracks below the predictions about three times the error bar allowances? Hey, what DOES it mean when the predictions based upon the "generally accepted" hypotheses are off three times what the uncertainties of data, collection methods, and math allow? The models with ALMOST two orders of magnitude more error than the null hypotheses, that temperature never changes? THOSE models?

And, which data do you want to study, anyway? The ones that show that temperature LEADS carbon dioxide, and doesn't follow it? Or is it the observational data that show, QUITE clearly, that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide are outrageously, even laughably high? Data like the data in the fourteen peer-reviewed papers I listed ABOVE?

And, you know what, dimwit? When someone ADMITS that the science was crooked, and that person is the head of the scientific unit that is the ONLY source of information for the U.N. IPCC, believing that person is hardly a "conspiracy theory." When time after time, James Hansen is caught altering the data, and when time and again the IPCC is caught inserting environmental activist group propaganda into IPCC reports, and calling it "peer-reviewed," that's not a theory, that's REPORTING. When Michael Mann produces fraudulent science so sloppily that a layperson can tell it's fraud, and gets caught at it repeatedly, that's not a conspiracy theory. When the U.N. states repeatedly that the purpose of their "climate policy" has nothing to do with the environment, and is all about redistributing wealth, believing them is not a conspiracy theory, it's reading a policy statement.

Do you know what *IS* a hare-brained conspiracy theory? Believing, with no evidence whatsoever, that "oil companies" are corrupting scientists, and that anything skeptical of the IPCC's political statements masquerading as science is the result of oil company bribery... now THAT is a conspiracy theory. I'll bet you believe THAT, don't you?
 
2012-04-23 06:44:35 AM  

Joce678: Facts:

a) The only heat source that affects the surface of the Earth is the Sun.
b) The thing that controls how the Sun heats the Earth is the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.
c) We're messing with the Earth's atmosphere in a way that we know leads to global warming.


d) We're accelerating our tampering with the environment with endless social programs, "growing" every economy we can get our short-sighted wallets around, subsidizing cellphones for Food Stamp recipients, rewarding "slash & burn" clearing of huge swaths of rainforest and old-growth forests, and allowing any interest with profit at stake to undermine the ability to create a dependable, working mass-transit system.
 
2012-04-23 06:46:34 AM  
Lee Jackson Beauregard:
It ain't the "warmers" that provided such stupid as this:

Global warming is caused by Air Fairies. They will continue to warm the planet unless appeased. The way to appease Air Fairies is to give up drinking, smoking, and sex. I expect you to do what you can, on the slight chance that Air Fairies are real, and need appeasing.

M'kay, so you're not bright enough to recognize a satire. That's hardly surprising.

You also missed the major point: only warmer jerks, like you, do the "durr durr it was cold today so there's no global warmification, nope, nope." (Well, and me pointing it out, too...) Again, no surprise; your posts are like a box of chocolates.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report