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.

(Gizmodo)   And nothing of value was lost   (gizmodo.com) divider line 74
    More: Interesting, Current sea level rise, Antarctic ice sheet, climate change  
•       •       •

8521 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jun 2012 at 1:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-09 01:25:23 PM
So property values would go up then since there would be more beachfront property.
 
2012-06-09 01:31:19 PM
castro? did castro make it? somebody please check for me!
 
2012-06-09 01:32:57 PM
+1

Y'know... hypothetically.
 
2012-06-09 01:34:29 PM
Do we really need another climate change thread? Its not like the climate change denial crowd have anything in the way of proof to back their assertion. At best we'll get the usual 'medical-doctor-looks-at-evidence-and-concludes-its-a-conspiracy' type of reasoning.
 
2012-06-09 01:36:13 PM
It posits a 200' sea level rise, which doesn't seem too likely, at least during my lifetime. Oh, well.
 
2012-06-09 01:36:55 PM
Now, I may only be a medical doctor, but I've reviewed the climate change "evidence" and I've got to say... it looks like a conspiracy to me.
 
d3
2012-06-09 01:46:34 PM
I thought there wasn't enough ice in all the ice caps to melt and give us 200' of sea level change?
 
2012-06-09 01:46:43 PM
Subby failed at math and economics.
 
2012-06-09 01:49:37 PM
So this is showing a 200 foot or 61 meter sea level rise.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter.
 
2012-06-09 01:50:30 PM
The gheys would just move to Atlanta
 
2012-06-09 01:54:32 PM
"What San Francisco Would Look Like After Climate Change"

This bullshiat originated from here, where there are actually some fun graphics

BurritoJustice: san-francisco-archipelago/
 
2012-06-09 01:56:49 PM

utah dude: castro? did castro make it? somebody please check for me!


1.bp.blogspot.com

RIP Fidel Castro
 
2012-06-09 01:59:18 PM
It claims to be based on this, which is actually a somewhat interesting powerpoint

Back to the Future: The History of the San Francisco Bay -- UC Museum of Paleontology -- 2002 (WARNING PDF)
 
2012-06-09 02:02:18 PM
What's interesting, especially to all those red-herring deniers out there, is that the text accompanying this graphic is not all about "we must go back to the LAND and let MOTHER NATURE take her course, MAN!" it's all about "And we got more supersonic planes coming into the new airport, there are tunnels being dug, and there's a space-launching railgun being proposed." What's up with those SF hippies not being consistent in their hatred for technology like they are in all those strawmen I've constructed?

I suspect that when the effects of AGW finally become annoying enough to not ignore, there will be a wholesale shift to geoengineering and mitigation in the nation's consciousness. Deniers will be laughed at as Luddites who thought that they could wish away the problem.
 
2012-06-09 02:09:21 PM
That's just more beachfront property for Lance and Chester and their tiny little pomeranians
 
2012-06-09 02:12:11 PM

theorellior: Deniers will be laughed at as Luddites who thought that they could wish away the problem.


"Will" be?
 
2012-06-09 02:12:43 PM

theorellior: I suspect that when the effects of AGW finally become annoying enough to not ignore, there will be a wholesale shift to geoengineering and mitigation in the nation's consciousness. Deniers will be laughed at as Luddites who thought that they could wish away the problem.


but this is what humans have ALWAYS done. adapt.
so the water rises? meh.
20 years later, the results, suffer and deaths will be history.
countries will rise and fall. whatever.

but the end of the world? LOL
 
2012-06-09 02:35:46 PM

Cyber_Junk: At best we'll get the usual 'medical-doctor-looks-at-evidence-and-concludes-its-a-conspiracy' type of reasoning.


I may not be a "climatologist" or a "scientist" or a "graduate of an accredited university" but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I'm pretty sure based on looking at the evidence that it's a conspiracy to get more money for climate scientists. Did you know 96% of them have refrigerators in their house. It's just obscene.
 
2012-06-09 02:41:22 PM
200 foot rise. Not that much fresh water on the planet left to melt.

/Science failure.
 
2012-06-09 03:08:10 PM
So....


What you're saying is that I need to go start my car and let it idle all day long. Maybe just spray some aerosol cans in the air nonstop.


What else can I do to bring on this Utopia???
 
2012-06-09 03:17:46 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: 200 foot rise. Not that much fresh water on the planet left to melt.

/Science failure.


There probably is, but under that scenario the amount of heat would be completely unstoppable. We simply dont have the ability to control the planets heat gain and loss to the degree that would prevent a 200 foot rise in ocean temperatures.

Anyone who tells you that we do is trying to get you to vote for a tax that will make them rich.

It would honestly be less expensive just to move everyone 200 feet up. At least in america. Other nations whose populations make poor decisions will bear the brunt of those poor decisions in the same way that a car surfer bears the brunt of his own stupidity.
 
2012-06-09 03:19:14 PM

Crude: So....

What you're saying is that I need to go start my car and let it idle all day long. Maybe just spray some aerosol cans in the air nonstop.

What else can I do to bring on this Utopia???


I drive fast, with the top down and the AC blasting ...
 
2012-06-09 03:19:47 PM

Cyber_Junk: Do we really need another climate change thread? Its not like the climate change denial crowd have anything in the way of proof to back their assertion. At best we'll get the usual 'medical-doctor-looks-at-evidence-and-concludes-its-a-conspiracy' type of reasoning.


Skeptics aren't making assertions. They are resisting your assertion. Skeptics would be perfectly happy not to discuss it ever and not to do anything about it. As the person wanting massive changes to every global society that will bankrupt millions, starve billions, and waste trillions.....the burden of proof is on you.
 
2012-06-09 03:20:06 PM

theorellior: I suspect that when the effects of AGW finally become annoying enough to not ignore, there will be a wholesale shift to geoengineering and mitigation in the nation's consciousness. Deniers will be laughed at as Luddites who thought that they could wish away the problem.


Utter nonsense.
Humans will adapt as they always have and always will.
Nobody panicked and ran for the hills while the Chesapeake Bay was being formed because it took 12,000 years to form.
 
2012-06-09 03:22:19 PM
How will this affect Otisburg?
 
2012-06-09 03:25:30 PM
Gonna be excellent fishing.
 
2012-06-09 03:33:31 PM
Hey, San Francisco (don't you farking dare call it "Frisco") is a fantastic, beautiful city. If you have never seen it on a sunny day coming over the Golden Gate bridge from Marin, shining like a pile of diamonds in the sun, then shut the fark up.

/loves me some San Francisco
//and Japantown
 
2012-06-09 03:39:27 PM

RoyBatty: (WARNING PDF)


Why do they call it a PDF? Doesn't that stand for "Portable Document Format"? I can't think of many things LESS portable (digitally) than a PDF file. I have seen a 1 page Word document weigh in at less than 100 bytes, yet when that same document was converted to a PDF, it was over 2 MB.

Also, PDF's on the internet are like nuns in a whorehouse. That's not what it was designed for, it's out of place, and no one wants to see them there.

/end rant
 
2012-06-09 03:40:40 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Gonna be excellent fishing.


Read that as excellent fisting and was confused.
 
2012-06-09 03:40:53 PM
What's Jack Burton think about all this?
 
2012-06-09 03:41:34 PM

namatad: I drive fast, with the top down and the AC blasting ...


I can confirm that though it feels glutinous, it's a great way to spend the afternoon.
 
2012-06-09 03:52:38 PM
So everyone assumes that as long as there's global warming, the sea levels will just keep rising until all the land is covered?

The limiting factor is the amount of fresh water locked in ice at the poles and in the big mountains. But nobody alive today or for the next 500 years is going to have to worry about that.
 
2012-06-09 03:54:29 PM

Anenu: So property values would go up then since there would be more beachfront property.


Isn't that the plot of the first Superman movie?
 
2012-06-09 04:11:59 PM

archichris: Cyber_Junk: Do we really need another climate change thread? Its not like the climate change denial crowd have anything in the way of proof to back their assertion. At best we'll get the usual 'medical-doctor-looks-at-evidence-and-concludes-its-a-conspiracy' type of reasoning.

Skeptics aren't making assertions. They are resisting your assertion. Skeptics would be perfectly happy not to discuss it ever and not to do anything about it. As the person wanting massive changes to every global society that will bankrupt millions, starve billions, and waste trillions.....the burden of proof is on you.




No, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not a climate change scientist. I don't pretend to have spent years studying climatology. So I trust a strong consensus of climate change scientists who tell me that the earth is (overall) warming.

What I don't do (and don't ever want to find myself doing) is to keep believing a 'nice' truth, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Calling yourself a skeptic merely says that you want to believe the 'nice' truth...

/btw, feel free to save these words and throw them back in my face if you catch me asserting something that has been proven to be false. I don't like being an idiot but I mind the idea of remaining an idiot even more.
 
2012-06-09 04:17:55 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Utter nonsense.
Humans will adapt as they always have and always will.
Nobody panicked and ran for the hills while the Chesapeake Bay was being formed because it took 12,000 years to form.


*Sigh.* For a guy with a geological-sounding handle, you're such an utter retard when it comes to any of this.
 
2012-06-09 04:21:23 PM

Crude: Maybe just spray some aerosol cans in the air nonstop.


Why do dumbass retards always bring up aerosol cans in these threads? Why?

Here's a hint, chucklefarks: every time you bring up aerosol cans in a AGW thread, it makes it that much harder to take either you or your risable arguments seriously.
 
2012-06-09 04:22:52 PM
No, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not a climate change scientist. I don't pretend to have spent years studying climatology. So I trust a strong consensus of climate change scientists who tell me that the earth is (overall) warming.

There isn't a "consensus" of scientists screaming that the sky is falling/global warming/climate change is coming. What has happened, as with most movements, is that you had some very vocal folks making a lot of noise, while the rest sat back in silence going about their daily lives. So that silence was taken to be a sign of agreement.

And then the idiots making the most noise started saying that any other scientists denying their set of "facts" should have their credentials revoked or event put in jail. But now there are plenty of scientists who are saying, "Nope, sorry, but your computer models are using such made-up data that we're not going along."

Oh, and it seems to me that most of the global warming/climate change activists are using a helluva lot of carbon to get out their message of fear. But then again, I guess they're allowed. As George Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
 
2012-06-09 04:29:29 PM

namatad: but this is what humans have ALWAYS done. adapt.
so the water rises? meh.
20 years later, the results, suffer and deaths will be history.
countries will rise and fall. whatever.

but the end of the world? LOL


Okay, you're not being too annoying, so I'll address your points. YES, people will adapt. YES, nations will rise and fall. NO, it won't be the end of the world, or even of the human species. HOWEVER, because the present industrial/informational economy rests on a huge density of population that is entirely hinged on the agriculture and freshwater domains that are changing and will continue to change from their historical baselines, WHICH INCLUDES the present state of affairs where you and I can discuss this topic hundreds of miles apart on electrical gizmos in a nation-state that's actually far less nasty and brutal than most in the history of the world, then PERHAPS I would prefer that we don't accidentally kick the climatic linchpin out from the wheels that keep me or you from performing back-breaking subsistence farming on a daily basis.
 
2012-06-09 04:35:12 PM
Oh, look, another dumbass retard. It seems to me, Catsaregreen, you should stop playing in to our nefarious clutches by posting on the Internet when you could be out driving your coal-burning Mack Truck. I mean, just sitting here using your computer you're not putting enough carbon back into the air. Our grand conspiracy has worked!
 
2012-06-09 04:42:26 PM
During WW-2, many millions died, and the infrastructure of entire nations was laid waste. It was a gigantic waste of men and material. Sure, life went on (except for those who died). Wouldn't it have been nice if there had been a group of experts warning that it was coming? And even better if they had found a way to convince nations to take the necessary steps to avoid it?

The potential costs of climate change could dwarf those of WW-2; there is no way of knowing beforehand. I always quote Asimov on this - "The purpose of crying doom is to avoid it."
 
2012-06-09 04:44:45 PM

theorellior: What's interesting, especially to all those red-herring deniers out there, is that the text accompanying this graphic is not all about "we must go back to the LAND and let MOTHER NATURE take her course, MAN!" it's all about "And we got more supersonic planes coming into the new airport, there are tunnels being dug, and there's a space-launching railgun being proposed." What's up with those SF hippies not being consistent in their hatred for technology like they are in all those strawmen I've constructed?

I suspect that when the effects of AGW finally become annoying enough to not ignore, there will be a wholesale shift to geoengineering and mitigation in the nation's consciousness. Deniers will be laughed at as Luddites who thought that they could wish away the problem.


Okay, so the 2007 IPCC scenario was of a less than 2 foot rise by 2100. In 2010, Stefan Rahmstorf doubled that to about 4 feet. In May 2012, the worst case estimate by 2100 seems to be six feet. http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/long-range-ice-forecast-things-cou ld-get-very-grim/

The scenario here is of a 200 foot rise by 2072, two orders of magnitude greater, in less time.

A rise that is almost physically impossible as it would require the majority of the world's ice to melt, and certainly impossible by 2072.

Regardless, your takeaway from this link's warmist bullshiat is that this proves global warming skeptics are wrong to be skeptical of alarmist positions and create silly strawmen.

Your takeaway is not that warmists have any issues at all, it's that deniers are luddites.

And from there you go on to rant more about deniers.

Anything I miss?
 
2012-06-09 04:47:15 PM

Catsaregreen: No, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not a climate change scientist. I don't pretend to have spent years studying climatology. So I trust a strong consensus of climate change scientists who tell me that the earth is (overall) warming.

There isn't a "consensus" of scientists screaming that the sky is falling/global warming/climate change is coming. What has happened, as with most movements, is that you had some very vocal folks making a lot of noise, while the rest sat back in silence going about their daily lives. So that silence was taken to be a sign of agreement.

And then the idiots making the most noise started saying that any other scientists denying their set of "facts" should have their credentials revoked or event put in jail. But now there are plenty of scientists who are saying, "Nope, sorry, but your computer models are using such made-up data that we're not going along."

Oh, and it seems to me that most of the global warming/climate change activists are using a helluva lot of carbon to get out their message of fear. But then again, I guess they're allowed. As George Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


Interesting way of putting "climatologists", or "virtually everyone that knows enough about the topic to have a right to an opinion". You can probably find .5% of medical professionals who still think HIV doesn't cause AIDS, too. Does that mean that there's not actually a consensus about that?
 
2012-06-09 04:51:45 PM

RoyBatty: Regardless, your takeaway from this link's warmist bullshiat is that this proves global warming skeptics are wrong to be skeptical of alarmist positions and create silly strawmen.


No, my takeaway is that this was a silly link with some SF warmists not acting like the Luddite "everyone must live in caves!" strawmen deniers like to make them out to be. And I'm not making any alarmist predictions, I'm just saying that when something happens that makes it obvious that the climate has changed and we might not like the results if it changes further, there will be a large shift in public perception. If the shift in perception involves active geoengineering and mitigation technologies, then sure, deniers will be seen as the Luddites who didn't want to innovate out of the mess we created, sticking their fingers in their ears instead of coming up with new strategies.

I don't think that San Francisco will be underwater in 30 year time, though. That's just dumb.
 
2012-06-09 04:57:45 PM

forgotmydamnusername: You can probably find .5% of medical professionals who still think HIV doesn't cause AIDS, too. Does that mean that there's not actually a consensus about that?


Damn skippy. Everyone else is on the payroll of Big AIDS, because that's where the big bucks are, and if you speak out against "virusists" then you're gonna be shut down. Treating AIDS like a virus means billions of dollars of wasted, useless drug therapies and condoms used for no reason, when in reality you just need to have sex standing up. That costs nothing and is much easier to do. Standers have to be extra-vigilant to make sure that virusists don't railroad the public discourse and pull the wool over everyone's eyes. And it seems to me that all those virusists are having a helluva lot of sex even though they believe that the "AIDS virus" could be lying in wait anywhere. But then again, I guess they're allowed. As George Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
 
2012-06-09 05:09:05 PM

theorellior: RoyBatty: Regardless, your takeaway from this link's warmist bullshiat is that this proves global warming skeptics are wrong to be skeptical of alarmist positions and create silly strawmen.

No, my takeaway is that this was a silly link with some SF warmists not acting like the Luddite "everyone must live in caves!" strawmen deniers like to make them out to be. And I'm not making any alarmist predictions, I'm just saying that when something happens that makes it obvious that the climate has changed and we might not like the results if it changes further, there will be a large shift in public perception. If the shift in perception involves active geoengineering and mitigation technologies, then sure, deniers will be seen as the Luddites who didn't want to innovate out of the mess we created, sticking their fingers in their ears instead of coming up with new strategies.

I don't think that San Francisco will be underwater in 30 year time, though. That's just dumb.


Okay, well then I do apologize for misreading your comment.

I personally think it's a dumb link if it blames any of this on global warming and occuring by 2072. I also think the site it links to has some pretty awesome graphics of Waterworld II: San Francisco regardless of how impractical it is.
 
2012-06-09 05:42:08 PM

theorellior: forgotmydamnusername: You can probably find .5% of medical professionals who still think HIV doesn't cause AIDS, too. Does that mean that there's not actually a consensus about that?

Damn skippy. Everyone else is on the payroll of Big AIDS, because that's where the big bucks are, and if you speak out against "virusists" then you're gonna be shut down. Treating AIDS like a virus means billions of dollars of wasted, useless drug therapies and condoms used for no reason, when in reality you just need to have sex standing up. That costs nothing and is much easier to do. Standers have to be extra-vigilant to make sure that virusists don't railroad the public discourse and pull the wool over everyone's eyes. And it seems to me that all those virusists are having a helluva lot of sex even though they believe that the "AIDS virus" could be lying in wait anywhere. But then again, I guess they're allowed. As George Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


Actually the best cure for AIDS is to have sex with virgins. My friend from Nigeria told me that that's what people in Africa do and it has like a 90% cure rate. That's why Catholics are so anti-condom there - AIDS wouldn't be cured if people used condoms; they somehow block the virgin healing power.
 
2012-06-09 07:40:36 PM
I don't understand deniers, why can't the just nut up and say the don't give a fark that world is warming instead of trying to refute the claims.


/doesn't give a fark
 
2012-06-09 07:54:19 PM

Repo Man: The potential costs of climate change could dwarf those of WW-2; there is no way of knowing beforehand. I always quote Asimov on this - "The purpose of crying doom is to avoid it."


But you must also understand that many thousands of people have been crying doom ever since there have been people. Really, since the beginning of time, people have been crying about the sky falling.

LINK.
 
2012-06-09 07:55:40 PM

theorellior: HotIgneous Intruder: Utter nonsense.
Humans will adapt as they always have and always will.
Nobody panicked and ran for the hills while the Chesapeake Bay was being formed because it took 12,000 years to form.

*Sigh.* For a guy with a geological-sounding handle, you're such an utter retard when it comes to any of this.


So I'm wrong about the Chesapeake Bay having formed?
Do tell. I'll wait.
 
2012-06-09 08:02:27 PM
Check it out yourself: Formation of the Chesapeake Bay.
 
2012-06-09 08:17:53 PM
My GeneralJim sense is tingling....
 
2012-06-09 08:29:04 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: So I'm wrong about the Chesapeake Bay having formed?
Do tell. I'll wait.


You're fine in other threads, but talking to you in AGM threads is like having a conversation with a houseplant. However, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Why do you think that the formation of the Chesapeake Bay is even germane to the discussion at hand? It was a developing watershed carved by erosion from the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. If the Antarctic Ice Sheet would begin to retreat completely, there would be emerging riversheds on that continent where this would be an excellent topic to bring up.

The reason that no one was running away from the formation of the Chesapeake is because there were no bustling metropolises in the watershed at the time. Because of those interglacial conditions, humans were able to develop agriculture, permanent settlement, and actual bustling metropolises to populate the watershed. It would be a logical train of thought that maybe we would like to keep those conditions--agricultural and water table and climate and so forth--reasonably within those same parameters, because that's how we built this lovely modern world. However, it looks like we're doing a nice job of shiatting in our own bed by dragging up carbon dioxide that was sequestered by plants quite a long time ago. Do you want to live in a hothouse world like the Carboniferous or the Triassic? I sure as shiat don't.

The fact that there are bustling metropolises in coastal estuaries all across the world at this point in time means that should the sealevel rise because of AGW, there will be sure as shiatting be millions of people running away, and they won't be very happy about it either.
 
2012-06-09 08:30:09 PM

Repo Man: My GeneralJim sense is tingling....


I'll consult the Urantia Book!
 
2012-06-09 09:51:10 PM

theorellior: The reason that no one was running away from the formation of the Chesapeake is because there were no bustling metropolises in the watershed at the time.


And if there were, they would be SUBMERGED.
BLUB, BLUB.

/Blub.
//Like your lame response.
 
2012-06-09 11:23:58 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: //Like your lame response.


I tried, man. Did you even read a smidge of it?

Fark it. Why bother. Maybe you should rename yourself Rhododendron.
 
2012-06-09 11:25:14 PM
[teabaggermode]
Imma burn twice as much gasaline(sic) just to piss off san(sic) francisco(sic) liberals.
[/teabaggermode]
 
2012-06-09 11:36:26 PM
Libs need to stop breeding, and abort more of their kind and here is why: Less libs = less obstructionism in congeress = more republican policies = faster global warming = children of conservatives get to deal with the problem = tax cuts = business can solve global warming.
 
2012-06-10 12:20:38 AM

buntz: How will this affect Otisburg?



www.millionaireplayboy.com
 
2012-06-10 03:07:45 AM
FTA: "The first of the Sutro-class algae-diesel attack subs is expected to contain the southern incursions of the Vancouver Island-Cascadia Alliance..."

Never! You will never stop the Alliance!

To arms! To arms! Ye Sasquatch Militia!
The trumpet call obey!
Arise from dreary siesta
To march and fight in San Francisco Bay!
 
2012-06-10 08:23:38 AM

namatad: but the end of the world? LOL


But since the only one claiming that are the voices in your head...well.
Good luck with them.
 
2012-06-10 09:48:37 AM

theorellior: HotIgneous Intruder: //Like your lame response.

I tried, man. Did you even read a smidge of it?

Fark it. Why bother. Maybe you should rename yourself Rhododendron.


Whatevs, yo.
It's sad to see that you're a CHESAPEAKE BAY DENIER.
That degree of denial must hurt.
 
2012-06-10 12:15:03 PM
FTFA:
For coastal cities, rising sea levels due to climate change are questions of when and how high, not if.

Huh...someone better remind Mother Nature. She seems to have misplaced the memo about 15 years ago.

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-06-10 12:23:59 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
For coastal cities, rising sea levels due to climate change are questions of when and how high, not if.

Huh...someone better remind Mother Nature. She seems to have misplaced the memo about 15 years ago.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


The memo that every one of those 15 years is warmer than baseline?

It's almost like you have no idea what's on that graph you post.
 
2012-06-10 01:55:59 PM

HighZoolander: It's almost like you have no idea what's on that graph you post.


No, he knows, he just keeps posting it because there are still n00bz that will fall for it even though it's been debunked thousands of times in these threads.
 
2012-06-10 01:59:04 PM

theorellior: HighZoolander: It's almost like you have no idea what's on that graph you post.

No, he knows, he just keeps posting it because there are still n00bz that will fall for it even though it's been debunked thousands of times in these threads.


I know, but part of me would rather believe that he's just monumentally stupid.
 
2012-06-10 07:34:53 PM

HighZoolander: The memo that every one of those 15 years is warmer than baseline?


You mean the baseline that was chosen in a total act of cherry-picking, and based on no scientific rationale at all? Is that the baseline of which you speak?
 
2012-06-10 07:37:34 PM

theorellior: No, he knows, he just keeps posting it because there are still n00bz that will fall for it even though it's been debunked thousands of times in these threads


The people at Hadley will be relieved to learn that their last 15 years of data have been debunked.
 
2012-06-10 09:15:27 PM

SevenizGud: theorellior: No, he knows, he just keeps posting it because there are still n00bz that will fall for it even though it's been debunked thousands of times in these threads

The people at Hadley will be relieved to learn that their last 15 years of data have been debunked.



The data itself is fine. The way you're misusing said data and misinterpreting it has been debunked repeatedly.

It looks like you're not giving much credence to the idea that looking at just 15 years captures more short-term variation and therefore is misleading in terms of determining longer-term trends. Therefore, we can try a different tack. Let's look at the last five years then:

www.woodfortrees.org

According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years. You will have a very hard time arguing against this in a way that does does not also undermine your own assertion in regards to 15 years.
 
2012-06-10 09:52:46 PM

Damnhippyfreak: It looks like you're not giving much credence to the idea that looking at just 15 years captures more short-term variation and therefore is misleading in terms of determining longer-term trends.


Yeah, it's only 15 years of no warming. Probably just weather.
 
2012-06-10 10:00:37 PM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: It looks like you're not giving much credence to the idea that looking at just 15 years captures more short-term variation and therefore is misleading in terms of determining longer-term trends.

Yeah, it's only 15 years of no warming. Probably just weather.



Yet again, not weather, but misleading for the exact same reason that weather is - it's such a short period of time that it emphasises short-term variation. It's one of the things you should be taking away from that graphic I keep on hitting you over the head with:

i39.tinypic.com

However, if you do not find this compelling, you're still welcome to address the fact that according to your own flawed reasoning, it has started warming again over the last 5 years.
 
2012-06-11 08:20:50 AM

Damnhippyfreak: However, if you do not find this compelling


What I don't find compelling is everything about the warmist positions on every aspect of this. Every criticism that is ever leveled at the "denier" is EXACTLY what the alarmists are doing.

The hockey-teamers complain about cherry-picking, but they ignore the thousands of counts of cherry-picking that they do as matter of course, from the station selection, to the reference datum selection, to the outlier selection, to the homogeneity selection, to the truncation of the proxy data set when it no longer serves its purpose, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

And the selection of starting year is the perfect example.

The Chicken Little's always minimize the climategate emails, but there is one in there that I think it particularly revealing, and is not referenced much in these threads. It's the one where Phil Jones says "I hope you are wrong about the lack of warming continuing" or something very similar.

What lack of warming, Phil?
 
2012-06-11 11:51:24 AM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: However, if you do not find this compelling

What I don't find compelling is everything about the warmist positions on every aspect of this. Every criticism that is ever leveled at the "denier" is EXACTLY what the alarmists are doing.

The hockey-teamers complain about cherry-picking, but they ignore the thousands of counts of cherry-picking that they do as matter of course, from the station selection, to the reference datum selection, to the outlier selection, to the homogeneity selection, to the truncation of the proxy data set when it no longer serves its purpose, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

And the selection of starting year is the perfect example.

The Chicken Little's always minimize the climategate emails, but there is one in there that I think it particularly revealing, and is not referenced much in these threads. It's the one where Phil Jones says "I hope you are wrong about the lack of warming continuing" or something very similar.

What lack of warming, Phil?



For the bit in bold, the existence of the argument you put forward about 15 years would speak against this. The flawed reasoning I've caught you in is not something that is "EXACTLY what the alarmists are doing" - it's just you. The choice of a time frame to look at isn't as arbitrary as you seem to think.

In addition, trying to change the subject to the 'climategate' e-mails doesn't change this, nor the point I've caught you on. Your own flawed reasoning would suggest the opposite of what you claim is now true. It's an untenable position you've taken.
 
2012-06-11 12:07:11 PM

Damnhippyfreak: For the bit in bold, the existence of the argument you put forward about 15 years would speak against this. The flawed reasoning I've caught you in is not something that is "EXACTLY what the alarmists are doing" - it's just you. The choice of a time frame to look at isn't as arbitrary as you seem to think.


Uhm-hmmm. Outline the non-arbitrary scientific basis for the selection of 1880 as start year for data representation, or for the selection of the temperature anomaly datum years selection from anything coming from NASA and/or IPPC. Kthnxbai.

But keep concluding the premise on that "flawed logic" part.
 
2012-06-11 01:35:15 PM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: For the bit in bold, the existence of the argument you put forward about 15 years would speak against this. The flawed reasoning I've caught you in is not something that is "EXACTLY what the alarmists are doing" - it's just you. The choice of a time frame to look at isn't as arbitrary as you seem to think.

Uhm-hmmm. Outline the non-arbitrary scientific basis for the selection of 1880 as start year for data representation, or for the selection of the temperature anomaly datum years selection from anything coming from NASA and/or IPPC. Kthnxbai.

But keep concluding the premise on that "flawed logic" part.



1880 was not arbitrarily selected, but instead is one of the earliest dates in which a 'global' instrumental temperature record is currently possible. Keep in mind that temperature records, in the form of proxies, are available prior to that date. What you base your perception of "selection of 1880 as start year for data representation" seems to be based on is that when this instrumental record is published, it's graphed on it's own. There's no conspiracy here.

As for "temperature anomaly datum years selection", they do differ based on the data set, and were based on the period covered, but is now followed by convention so that they're comparable. For example, Jones et al. 1999 provided a more robust record for 1961-1990, which is why you see the average over that time used a lot. Not really arbitrary, but now convention.

There's reasons why certain scales are used. What is missing is your justification for using just 15 years. Again, this is not "EXACTLY what the alarmists are doing" - it's just you.
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report