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.

(Washington Post)   April was the 326th consecutive month with above average global temperatures, but this of course in no way proves that global warming may be occuring   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 541
    More: Obvious, climate, El Nino, sea surface temperature, Arctic Oscillation, Arctic sea ice, global warming  
•       •       •

4268 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2012 at 5:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-15 11:26:52 PM
Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

--Robert Frost
 
2012-05-15 11:32:02 PM

intelligent comment below: whatshisname: WAS. He died a few years ago. He also predicted global cooling in the 70's.
Do you get all of your info from Conservapedia?


He tried this last week in another global warming topic. Same tired arguments based off nothing. Repeating IPCC and "father of climatology" ad nauseum. His brain can't go beyond that.


It's actually a pretty common theme among conservatives. An appeal to authority, and an abdication of any personal thinking or responsibility.
 
2012-05-15 11:32:25 PM
two masturbation threads in one day.....
 
2012-05-15 11:49:00 PM

frymeupasteak: two masturbation threads in one day.....


Whatever turns you on. Personally, I'd look elsewhere for such inspiration.
 
2012-05-15 11:53:37 PM
We're coming out of an ice age. Of course it's getting warmer.
 
2012-05-15 11:56:51 PM

dennysgod: Ambitwistor: dennysgod: Well technically since the earth is around 4.5 billion years old 326 months has no statistical value.

You know how I know you don't understand statistics?


Then explain to me how a temperature trend of 0.000000000022% of the age of the Earth is statistically significant.


Explain to me how you failed statistics so catastrophically.
 
2012-05-15 11:57:13 PM
It's back to "global warming" again? Last year when I was freezing my ass off, the climate nuts said it was man made climate change and the huge temlerature fluctuations were a consequence.
 
2012-05-15 11:57:20 PM

DrPainMD: We're coming out of an ice age. Of course it's getting warmer.



Can you link me to your peer reviewed study?
 
2012-05-16 12:02:38 AM

xxdonjulioxx: It's back to "global warming" again? Last year when I was freezing my ass off, the climate nuts said it was man made climate change and the huge temlerature fluctuations were a consequence.


It's all the same thing. Global warming leads to more energy in the system which leads to more variance in local and global climate.
 
2012-05-16 12:08:12 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Temperatures have fluctuated on earth throughout it's 3000 year history. Overzealous non-story.


CSB. Fluctuating. As in "are you a fluctuating idiot?"
 
2012-05-16 12:10:01 AM

pedobearapproved: Jon Snow: The warming of the last several decades is more than 100% attributable to anthropogenic

Citing 3 articles and pretending that there is no information that says otherwise is a logical fallacy.


Yes, his references to the actual scientific literature are far less compelling than your here-say and inability to reference any actual science source to back up your rhetoric.
 
2012-05-16 12:21:16 AM
Hmm 326 consecutive months, that means it started right about the time they were just ending their talk of another ice age in the late 70's.
 
2012-05-16 12:21:37 AM
Did submitter even read the article?

"The rebound in global average temperatures is likely linked to the end of La Nina, ..."
 
2012-05-16 12:23:55 AM

Mentat: xxdonjulioxx: It's back to "global warming" again? Last year when I was freezing my ass off, the climate nuts said it was man made climate change and the huge temlerature fluctuations were a consequence.

It's all the same thing. Global warming leads to more energy in the system which leads to more variance in local and global climate.


so no matter what the temperature average is the next 20, or last 20 years, man made climate change is proven? It's a good time to be an energy token trader.
 
2012-05-16 12:24:55 AM

EnderX: Hmm 326 consecutive months, that means it started right about the time they were just ending their talk of another ice age in the late 70's.


And on this week's episode of "Troll, or Actually that Ignorant" we have...
 
2012-05-16 12:31:37 AM
It's a fraud cooked up by scientists to get grant money. Everyone knows that.
 
2012-05-16 12:33:14 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Temperatures have fluctuated on earth throughout it's 3000 year history. Overzealous non-story.


That's 6000 you heretic.
 
2012-05-16 12:40:10 AM

xxdonjulioxx: Mentat: xxdonjulioxx: It's back to "global warming" again? Last year when I was freezing my ass off, the climate nuts said it was man made climate change and the huge temlerature fluctuations were a consequence.

It's all the same thing. Global warming leads to more energy in the system which leads to more variance in local and global climate.

so no matter what the temperature average is the next 20, or last 20 years, man made climate change is proven? It's a good time to be an energy token trader.


That's not even remotely what I said.
 
2012-05-16 12:42:20 AM

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: "In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ...
Again with that Oreskes POS article? What a complete crock. Time and again the problems with that have been pointed out to you, and you still bring up that stale turd, and plop it into the punchbowl at every opportunity.

But, yeah, the science doesn't count, what counts is a "vote" taken by counting papers paid for by government research grants. Oh, yeah, and be sure to set the bar for "skepticism" so high that none of the papers pass, even though those in the field know that there were many papers skeptical of the IPCC position published. Bribe, threaten, cheat, and fabricate: The Scientific Method.


Green font instead of actual evidence. Interesting approach.
 
2012-05-16 12:44:27 AM

GeneralJim: GORDON: Only 326 consecutive months? We've been slowly warming up since the last ice age, 10k-ish years ago.
No, not really...

[earthintime.com image 506x286]


Lovely chart. No scale and no source. You do beautiful work.
 
2012-05-16 12:44:30 AM
The question is not whether there is global warming or climate change, there is always periods of global warming or cooling and thus climate change.

So that is now answered.

The question is has the actions of man caused the weather cycles of the earth to change on a global scale. Or another way of asking this is does the actions of man today and the accumulated actions of man in the paste prove to be stronger than the actions of the Sun on the earth.
 
2012-05-16 12:47:02 AM

chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: If you are scientific, it is appropriate that you question the anti-science mindset of the toadies pushing the warmer alarmist agenda. It is appropriate to remain skeptical of ANY science. Science is NOT about the goose-stepping, forced agreement. Science is about backing up hypotheses with data, and trying to shoot down hypotheses. Warmer alarmist "science" is not science. So, wear your skepticism proudly, and welcome to science!

[i40.tinypic.com image 640x283]

Yes, let's all be lectured on data-driven skepticism by a guy who claims "time-shifted heat" proves Jesus exploded in a shower of radiation upon his death, which is all documented by the Book of Urantia that modern science is "catching up to".

What else do we learn from the data-driven skeptical Book of Urantia?


This is a much better book. Link
 
2012-05-16 12:51:35 AM

havana_joe: You wouldn't stay in a closed garage with one car running for 20 minutes because common sense would dictate that the fumes from the exhaust would have bad consequences, i.e. carbon monoxide dioxide poisoning would kill you.


FTFY. Modern fuel injection systems and catalytic converters are now so efficient that you would now die of CO2 poisoning before CO. Common sense is not so sensible and knowledge of combustion chemistry is not so common.
 
2012-05-16 12:55:58 AM

Ambitwistor: dennysgod: Well technically since the earth is around 4.5 billion years old 326 months has no statistical value.

You know how I know you don't understand statistics?


Look - a trend:
www.dba-oracle.com

/hot like last decade
 
2012-05-16 01:09:50 AM
Just means I'm gonna run by central a/c more. Suck it, Gore!
 
2012-05-16 01:28:19 AM

Smackledorfer: fanbladesaresharp: I_Am_Weasel: After 326 months, shouldn't there be new average global temperatures?

Well they needed a fixed reference point. Good luck getting those-who-would-otherwise-try-to-fix-things to change that. Contradictory right?

But what of those persons, like me who are apathetic and just don't give a shiat about global warming and cooling? It's changing for sure. I won't deny it. I'm also not going to do a damn thing about it. My life is "green"-ish by choice, not peer pressure or politics.

You consider the warnings of scientists to be "peer pressure"? Or are you just stupid enough to pretend that whenever you do the same thing the bulk of science suggests is the smart thing to do that its just your idea all along?


Obviously there are contrails over your head missing my point, and your brain decided to fill in some gaps so I'll repeat it more clearly: I don't give a shiat about GW.
 
2012-05-16 01:35:09 AM
Ok, I know I'm late to this fight, and this probably won't get a response, but I've got an question (which may border on rhetorical).

If CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming, and global warming includes the oceans, and the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature, then what is the feedback mechanism that prevents temperature and atmospheric CO2 from increasing continuously?

Now the rhetorical part, if there is no mechanism for keeping temperature and CO2 under control, which of the givens above is incorrect?
 
2012-05-16 01:38:17 AM
Also, for bonus points, computer the equilibrium temperature that corresponds with current level of CO2 production.
 
2012-05-16 01:41:38 AM
Is the thermometer on GEOSAT getting colder?
326 months about was about the same time as the first satellite was shot down. That can't be a coincidence.
 
2012-05-16 03:41:16 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

just keep driving, assholes.
 
2012-05-16 04:35:07 AM
chimp_ninja:
Yeah, that sounds legit. You're the One True Champion of science that all the world's professional organizations can't understand, and not just some political hack who is cutting and pasting far-right talking points.

Ah, it's sweet when the poser clowns have nothing but the ad hominem to fall back on.

Is the science that hard, little man? Meh, to be fair, it probably IS that hard... when you are trying to hold up a falsified hypothesis.

So, tell me again how science is all about getting out the vote, and marching in lockstep, and never rocking the boat. That's my favorite fairy tale, so tell me about the lab NAZIs again, unka Poser.
 
2012-05-16 04:40:04 AM
JRoo:
Climate Highlights - April

Yeah, because nothing tells one about the global climate like a weather report for the U.S. only...
 
2012-05-16 05:10:07 AM
HighZoolander:
/It has Jesus and intergalactic civilizations and spaceships and magic photons and everything!

Where the fark do you get such retarded ideas? Seriously.

It's like you were TRYING to sound like you have a closed-head injury, and doing a damned fine job of it, too.

But, since you bring it up...
Christianity suffers under a great handicap because it has become identified in the minds of all the world as a part of the social system, the industrial life, and the moral standards of Western civilization; and thus has Christianity unwittingly seemed to sponsor a society which staggers under the guilt of tolerating science without idealism, politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without restraint, knowledge without character, power without conscience, and industry without morality.
The Urantia Book, page 2086
 
2012-05-16 05:15:43 AM
Doomed:
That sounds outstanding. I love a good crazy-ass book with Jesus and spaceships.

Sorry -- if that's your goal, I doubt the Urantia Book would do anything for you. The jackass brigade here has decided to make up shiat about my religious beliefs, apparently because it is easier than to argue against the science I present. Even Snow simply denies, denies, denies any science that doesn't support AGW.
 
2012-05-16 05:33:13 AM
Bucky Katt:
GeneralJim: GORDON: Only 326 consecutive months? We've been slowly warming up since the last ice age, 10k-ish years ago.

No, not really...

[earthintime.com image 506x286]

Lovely chart. No scale and no source. You do beautiful work.

A discussion of general trends doesn't require a scale. But, I know you're "special," so, just for you:

tucsoncitizen.com
 
2012-05-16 05:43:42 AM
Yoyo:
Ok, I know I'm late to this fight, and this probably won't get a response, but I've got an question (which may border on rhetorical).

If CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming, and global warming includes the oceans, and the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature, then what is the feedback mechanism that prevents temperature and atmospheric CO2 from increasing continuously?

Now the rhetorical part, if there is no mechanism for keeping temperature and CO2 under control, which of the givens above is incorrect?

The "given" which is incorrect is "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming." And, to be fair, that's only sort of incorrect, as it does, only not much at all.

Ice core data show that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and, thus, are NOT controlling temperature. Carbon dioxide levels are a positive component of a total feedback system which is highly negative. This is obvious by inspection of carbon dioxide levels and temperature.

The effect of doubling carbon dioxide levels would be somewhere between 0.24 K and 1.10 K. In other words, nothing to worry about.
 
2012-05-16 07:12:36 AM

DON.MAC: Is the thermometer on GEOSAT getting colder?
326 months about was about the same time as the first satellite was shot down. That can't be a coincidence.


upload.wikimedia.org

EnderX: Hmm 326 consecutive months, that means it started right about the time they were just ending their talk of another ice age in the late 70's.


img529.imageshack.us

"They" were never convinced of such a thing. Link to BAMS study on the topic.

Guest: The question is has the actions of man caused the weather cycles of the earth to change on a global scale. Or another way of asking this is does the actions of man today and the accumulated actions of man in the paste prove to be stronger than the actions of the Sun on the earth.


Do you really think scientists don't monitor solar trends?

Here's a close-up of the last few decades, taken directly from satellites:

www.nasa.gov

What's interesting is that over the past few decades, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org

(a) The international sunspot number, R, compiled by the World Data Centre (WDC) for the Sunspot Index, Brussels, Belgium. (b) The open solar flux FS derived from the radial component of the interplanetary magnetic field, taken from the OMNI2 composite dataset compiled by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC), USA. (c) The neutron count rate C due to cosmic rays of rigidity of above 3GV, recorded by the Climax neutron monitor and distributed via WDC-A, Boulder, USA. (d) The TSI composite compiled by the World Radiation Centre, PMOD Davos, Switzerland. (e) The GISS analysis of the global mean surface air temperature anomaly ΔT.

(a) through (d) point towards (very slight) cooling. (e) disagrees. This is perfectly consistent with what we know about climate forcings, however:

www.giss.nasa.gov

Data courtesy of NASA.
 
2012-05-16 07:16:43 AM

GeneralJim: Doomed: That sounds outstanding. I love a good crazy-ass book with Jesus and spaceships.

Sorry -- if that's your goal, I doubt the Urantia Book would do anything for you. The jackass brigade here has decided to make up shiat about my religious beliefs, apparently because it is easier than to argue against the science I present. Even Snow simply denies, denies, denies any science that doesn't support AGW.


No one is making up the crazy-ass shiat about spaceships. I cited several passages above (chapter-and-verse) about how the universe is administrated by a bunch of aliens from various super-planets with a hierarchical system.

The Book of Urantia is loaded with sci-fi scenarios about how many aliens control the universe, how many planets they live on, who outranks who, etc. The fact that you reference it as a source of scientific knowledge says a lot about your skepticism.
 
2012-05-16 07:22:09 AM

Yoyo: havana_joe: You wouldn't stay in a closed garage with one car running for 20 minutes because common sense would dictate that the fumes from the exhaust would have bad consequences, i.e. carbon monoxide dioxide poisoning would kill you.

FTFY. Modern fuel injection systems and catalytic converters are now so efficient that you would now die of CO2 poisoning before CO. Common sense is not so sensible and knowledge of combustion chemistry is not so common.


My point is still valid.
 
2012-05-16 08:03:16 AM
That's kind of how averages work. Some are a little lower, and some are a little higher. Unless all temperatures are the median and mode you can't really have an average.
 
2012-05-16 08:19:17 AM
Wasn't 1985 about the time we stopped the ozone panic....maybe that hole was letting all the heat out.
 
2012-05-16 09:12:37 AM

intelligent comment below: chuckufarlie: Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd

Broken record is broken. You shills need to get new material. NOBODY calls him the father of anything except Conservapedia.


look at the man's credentials, moron.
 
2012-05-16 09:12:51 AM

papakee: Wasn't 1985 about the time we stopped the ozone panic....maybe that hole was letting all the heat out.


Just for clarity, I hope you realize that we stopped the ozone "panic" by using an international treaty of unprecedented scope to curtail emissions. In other words, we took the advice of the world's scientists, and solved the problem through action.

Regarding the temperature, the now-banned refrigerants (CFCs) are very strong infrared absorbers, and were contributing to climate change in a way similar to carbon dioxide:

www.giss.nasa.gov

Data courtesy of NASA. The Montreal Protocols were signed by Reagan, started making sharp cuts in 1991, and phased out the worst offenders by 1996. Essentially every country in the world has been in compliance. Bush Sr., back before the Republicans went batshiat nuts on environmental issues, actually strengthened what the treaty required in his 1990 Clear Air Act amendment. (Which was itself adding to Nixon's amazing success.) We'd be in much worse shape, environmentally, if not for the Reagan/Bush actions on this topic.

There are some very useful lessons in that little bit of history. It's hard to imagine that kind of leadership from today's Republicans, no matter how many times they symbolically genuflect in the direction of Reagan's grave.
 
2012-05-16 09:14:02 AM

thelordofcheese: That's kind of how averages work. Some are a little lower, and some are a little higher.


The idea that the warming we've experienced is due to chance per your scenario is absurd, statistically speaking[1]. Back in 2008, the p value was less than 0.001, and it's only gotten smaller since.

[1] Zorita, E., T. F. Stocker, and H. von Storch (2008), How unusual is the recent series of warm years?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L24706, doi:10.1029/2008GL036228.
 
2012-05-16 09:14:09 AM

whatshisname: chuckufarlie: Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd

WAS. He died a few years ago. He also predicted global cooling in the 70's.
Do you get all of your info from Conservapedia?


The opinion of dead people no longer matters? Should we toss out all of Einstein's work?
 
2012-05-16 09:15:04 AM

chuckufarlie: intelligent comment below: chuckufarlie: Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd

Broken record is broken. You shills need to get new material. NOBODY calls him the father of anything except Conservapedia.

look at the man's credentials, moron.


If credentials are important: Why do you casually ignore what 97% of the world's active climatologists are telling you?

If credentials are not important: Why would anyone care what the opinion of a dead, long-retired scientist was?

You can't have it both ways.
 
2012-05-16 09:16:33 AM

Mentat: chuckufarlie: Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd

And he's still wrong. Welcome to science, where even the smartest people aren't always right. Seriously, how can conservatives praise Bryson's credentials but claim that Charles Darwin was a hack?


I guess that the man's credentials mean nothing to you?

In desperation, warmers must attack all who disagree and LOTS of qualified people disagree with your "idea".
 
2012-05-16 09:17:50 AM

Jon Snow: The idea that the warming we've experienced is due to chance per your scenario is absurd, statistically speaking[1]. Back in 2008, the p value was less than 0.001, and it's only gotten smaller since.


I'm not sure your p value accounts for "time shifted heat" emitted via photon explosions from the recently deceased, good sir. I see your science hasn't caught up.
 
2012-05-16 09:20:46 AM

chuckufarlie: I guess that the man's credentials mean nothing to you?


chuckufarlie: Creationists read the bible and Jon Snow reads scientific magazines, what is the difference?

I'm still confused. Is the consensus of scientific experts in the field of climatology important, or not important, in your assessment?
 
2012-05-16 09:25:05 AM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: intelligent comment below: chuckufarlie: Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd

Broken record is broken. You shills need to get new material. NOBODY calls him the father of anything except Conservapedia.

look at the man's credentials, moron.

If credentials are important: Why do you casually ignore what 97% of the world's active climatologists are telling you?

If credentials are not important: Why would anyone care what the opinion of a dead, long-retired scientist was?

You can't have it both ways.


You ask if credentials are important? Seriously? Are you that dense? Oh yea, you actually are that dense.

BTW, As I have told you repeatedly - SCIENCE IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. What part of that do you not understand? How many times must that simple fact be pointed out to you before you start to understand?


Do you think it a coincidence that stupid people like you also believe in AGW?
 
Displayed 50 of 541 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report