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)   Climate Changists have gone from "it's a scientific consensus" to "odds are" it affects weather. We have to get these guys to Vegas. The House is a lot like Mother Nature   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 337
    More: Interesting, El Nino, Atmospheric Administration, scientific consensus, National Oceanographic, government scientists, Arctic sea ice, National Climatic Data Center, citizen scientists  
•       •       •

2084 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jul 2012 at 9:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 09:23:03 AM  
Donuts.
 
2012-07-11 09:39:59 AM  
The data doesn't care what you have to say.

But rather than pushing whatever agenda you've got going here, you should probably listen to what it has to say.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-11 09:40:31 AM  
So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.
 
2012-07-11 09:43:12 AM  
The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.
 
2012-07-11 09:44:22 AM  
We are inching closer to finally proving that correlation = causation!
 
2012-07-11 09:46:33 AM  
Really?

Global Climate Change is scientific consensus. The odds of a specific weather event have increased due to Global Climate Change.

/Click bait headline is click baity.
 
2012-07-11 09:47:33 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then than a cult. It is nothing more then than a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


Now I get my "Help an Idiot" merit badge !
 
2012-07-11 09:47:59 AM  
I'm sure lots of worthwhile and scientifically accurate things will be said in this thread and people will definitely be convinced to switch to the opposite side of the climate change debate by all of the brilliant climatologists that post.

/or it will be a worthless troll thread like the 500000 climate threads before it, gotta get those clicks!
 
2012-07-11 09:48:37 AM  

cabbyman: We are inching closer to finally proving that correlation = causation!


no we are not.
 
2012-07-11 09:50:40 AM  

vpb: So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.


that would be great if:

a. there actually was a consensus.
b. science is a popularity contest


but neither A. nor B. is correct.
 
2012-07-11 09:50:58 AM  
media-cache3.pinterest.com
 
2012-07-11 09:51:13 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


Derpity derp derp.
You're right about the wealth transfer thing.
But warming is happening. It's just not caused by humans.

Glaciers melting for the past 13,000 years, formation of the Chesapeake Bay by meltwaters, sea level up 400 feet since then, etc. We're in an interglacial warming period.
 
2012-07-11 09:51:24 AM  
Subby, your headline is BS. Climate scientists have not changed. It is still a scientific consensus. Normally a single event is linked to weather and not climate (learn the difference between the two things, it's pretty important. Conservatives like to say things like "It's snowing! This proves global warming isn't real!!!). Now they are saying that the drought in Texas was most likely brought on by global warming.
 
2012-07-11 09:52:13 AM  
Hmm, it's almost as if theories on environmental change are challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced?!
 
2012-07-11 09:53:17 AM  
I'm not here to fight global warming....
I'm here because Texas is almost always in drought. For the 28 years I've lived here, there has been drought 4 out of 5 years.
It's become a running joke that rain on the radar will literally go around our city to not rain on us.
 
2012-07-11 09:53:27 AM  
Data, biatches, how does it work?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-11 09:54:05 AM  

js34603: I'm sure lots of worthwhile and scientifically accurate things will be said in this thread and people will definitely be convinced to switch to the opposite side of the climate change debate by all of the brilliant climatologists that post.

/or it will be a worthless troll thread like the 500000 climate threads before it, gotta get those clicks!


If every climate thread is a troll thread, what does that say about the topic?
OK, I'll bite: Climate is an politically and religiously loaded ideological topic.
Nothing anybody says will make a difference.

/Derecho, biatches.
 
2012-07-11 09:54:22 AM  
Is this headline a translation of the one a couple of links down?
 
2012-07-11 09:55:09 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones.


You sure you don't mean the oil industry? Because the Saudis weren't always rich.
 
2012-07-11 09:58:11 AM  
farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2012-07-11 09:59:14 AM  
I like reading about historical weather events like warming in Africa a couple 1000 years ago, to the cooling of Europe in the middle ages. I'm glad to see the elimination of CFCs and HCFCs across the globe. I'm just not sold on the carbon foot print and stuff like that saying that excess man-made carbon has lead to the current warming. I'd like to see how much heat island effect is effecting average temperature increases. I get it; statistical data showing it's getting warmer is truth. Just not sold on the reasons.
 
2012-07-11 10:01:14 AM  

serial_crusher: Hmm, it's almost as if theories on environmental change are challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced?!


But let's live according to it, then change with it?
 
2012-07-11 10:02:37 AM  

thecpt: Just not sold on the reasons.


At least you know you are being solicited.
 
2012-07-11 10:03:50 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


You're suggesting some cabal with semi-religious overtones that incorporates virtually every climatologist, which for some unfathomable reason has as its sole agenda enriching poorer nations at the expense of richer ones, and you still have the temerity to sit there and smugly lecture the rest of us about critical thinking?
 
2012-07-11 10:08:28 AM  

vpb: So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.


I like Fark. Whenever there's a troll headline, there's usually someone who's paying attention to point out the BS in the first five comments or so.
 
2012-07-11 10:08:30 AM  
Fractional attribution of extreme weather events != the robust consensus that anthropogenic radiative forcings (mainly but not only long-lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) have altered the planetary energy balance, causing us to warm towards a higher equilibrium.

You're welcome.

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period.


How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-11 10:09:02 AM  

s2s2s2: thecpt: Just not sold on the reasons.

At least you know you are being solicited.


meh, more of an expression. Unless there is someone asking me to buy carbon offset credits. They can fark themselves
 
2012-07-11 10:10:36 AM  
Can't tell if subby is trolling or not. At any rate, having a consensus isn't jeopardized by the statistical analysis of specific weather events as it relates to climate trends.
 
2012-07-11 10:14:56 AM  
The day Opama stops making me gay with fluoride is the day I might maybe consider listening to Climate Chang-ists (because so many sciencetists are yellow).
 
2012-07-11 10:19:04 AM  
media.comicvine.com
 
2012-07-11 10:19:37 AM  

Hoboclown: [farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]


If only that would worked. But now we have people cutting down the rainforest to make flyers promoting the Climate Change rock concert. We have piles of trash from the Climate Change Awareness Rally. We use to "Think globally, act locally" now we are trying to act globally and we aren't doing squat locally. And trying to act globally isn't doing it.
And now that Man Made Global Warming has been debunked (for real or imagined) people have lost the willingness to do anything. It's like they have lost faith in trying anything. MMGW has set back the real environmental movement decades so much so that you can't even get a highway clean up crew together.
 
2012-07-11 10:19:58 AM  

Jon Snow: How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?


Yes. However. The only climate change causality relevant to humans is the present, ongoing interglacial warming process. It doesn't matter a fark what is causing it, but the evidence is absolutely clear and established science that the warming is happening and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Nothing. Warming or cooling, who really gives a fark, Mister Irrefutable?
The effect to which we will need to adapt is THIS ONE, this warming cycle.

Who cares if cycles nested within cycles driven by whateverthefarkandwhocares go on and on, as they have always done and always will?

Humans face warming now. Later, they might face other things, but right now, there is warming, as there has been for 13,000 years. It is the problem of the moment. Adapt or die.
 
2012-07-11 10:21:13 AM  

thecpt: s2s2s2: thecpt: Just not sold on the reasons.

At least you know you are being solicited.

meh, more of an expression. Unless there is someone asking me to buy carbon offset credits. They can fark themselves


AlGore has some you can buy.
 
2012-07-11 10:21:24 AM  
www.woodfortrees.org
/posting in advance of what's-his-face who only posts the last 10 years of this data
 
2012-07-11 10:21:33 AM  

thecpt: I like reading about historical weather events like warming in Africa a couple 1000 years ago, to the cooling of Europe in the middle ages. I'm glad to see the elimination of CFCs and HCFCs across the globe. I'm just not sold on the carbon foot print and stuff like that saying that excess man-made carbon has lead to the current warming. I'd like to see how much heat island effect is effecting average temperature increases. I get it; statistical data showing it's getting warmer is truth. Just not sold on the reasons.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical about something for which you haven't been shown the relevant evidence. Despite claims by climate denialists to the contrary, people don't jump down your throat for asking questions.

If you want to understand the issue of climate change, and how we can confidently say that humans are warming the planet, you have to understand a few basic concepts.

The first is the issue of logical fallacies- that is, you need to be sure that the arguments you read that seem to contradict the scientific mainstream are actually logically sound and in disagreement. Take your example of pre-industrial climate change. Why would pre-industrial climate change preclude anthropogenic (i.e. human-driven) climate change? Forest fires have existed for hundreds of millions of years. That in no way means that we cannot start any by arson. Cancer has existed long before tobacco smoking. That doesn't mean you cannot attribute an increase in cancer incidence to smoking.

Climate science is often framed by climate denialists as somehow denying the existing of non-human changes of the climate, but this is an absurd strawman. The climate has changed quite dramatically in the past without humans, and these changes greatly inform our understanding of how the climate system works, and in the end strengthen our confidence that humans are warming the climate now.

The main reason for this is the second concept- which is planetary energy balance. The earth has an incoming and an outgoing budget for energy. Very simply, increasing GHGs retards some of the outgoing energy, trapping it in the climate system, necessitating warming to a higher equilibrium temperature. This is not something specific to humans. The same is true of any change in planetary energy balance- when a large, tropical volcano injects reflective aerosols into the stratosphere and a fraction of solar energy earth normally receives is instead reflected back to space, we expect Earth to cool slightly in response. Changes in the amount of dark, open ocean (which are very good absorbers of incoming shortwave radiation) and light ice (which is a very good reflector of incoming radiation) also affect planetary energy balance.

Once you get a handle on energy balance, everything else becomes detail- i.e. "how much will X change Y", instead of "is it possible for X to change Y".

If you have any questions, let me know. I'm happy to discuss things via email if you're more comfortable that way.
 
2012-07-11 10:23:02 AM  

Jon Snow: How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?


I just read a book about the history of mammalian evolution and it mentioned that it was probably the closing of the Straits of Panama that altered the global thermal circulation enough that orbital effects could drive ice ages. I think that suggests the obvious solution: we need to open the Isthmus back up.

Sure, it'll be hard, but it's gotta be easier than the other solution, which is to dam the ocean between Cape Horn and Trinity Peninsula to redirect the South Circumpolar Current.
 
2012-07-11 10:25:11 AM  
Funny thing is, a true scientist is never really 100% certain about anything.

And, that's actually a very good way to live.
 
2012-07-11 10:25:51 AM  
I should start smoking. I'll only be 15-30 times more at risk to get lung cancer so it's not like there's scientific consensus that I will get cancer from smoking.
 
2012-07-11 10:27:06 AM  

Jon Snow: Fractional attribution of extreme weather events


Jon, you are aware how "extreme weather events" are defined by the NOAA right? It is defined as an event that causes 1 billion in economic damages... and they keep this straight face without adjusting those costs with inflation. So through natural inflation, extreme weather events will keep increasing. They really need to change their definition.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-economics-at-noaa.html

It's these types of issues I have with the NOAA and parts of the IPCC. And yes, the above links to primary sources showing this definition from the NOAA.
 
2012-07-11 10:28:20 AM  

chuckufarlie: that would be great if:

a. there actually was a consensus.


From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

You were saying?

As an aside, note that this is not a consensus of personal opinion. It's a consensus of the published evidence.
 
2012-07-11 10:28:32 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Funny thing is, a some true scientists is are never really 100% certain about anything.


Unless you've met all true scientists, you can't say that for sure.
 
2012-07-11 10:30:48 AM  

chimp_ninja: As an aside, note that this is not a consensus of personal opinion. It's a consensus of the published evidence.


You have a hilarious notional definition of "evidence."
Evidence proving WHAT?
To what end?
Have you thought your cunning plan through?
I doubt it.
 
2012-07-11 10:31:48 AM  

MightyPez: lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then than a cult. It is nothing more then than a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

Now I get my "Help an Idiot" merit badge !


Beat him over the head with a rock and you'll get your "Helping the rest of Humanity" badge
 
2012-07-11 10:32:26 AM  
Anyone else notice the pro - against, pattern on Fark?

First of the month - greenlight pro global warming belief - watch results
Second week of the month- greenlight anti global warming belief - watch results

Fark - Profit.
 
2012-07-11 10:32:39 AM  

Theaetetus: Vodka Zombie: Funny thing is, a some true scientists is are never really 100% certain about anything.

Unless you've met all true scientists, you can't say that for sure.


True.

But, I know this from looking at the data and from having seen a few scientists in my day.
 
2012-07-11 10:34:40 AM  
Apparently the denialists don't understand English either.
 
2012-07-11 10:37:50 AM  

Hoboclown:


It's been said a million times...that's not the point.

No one is against an better, cleaner world so please stop posting this. People are against useless and extraneous restrictions against themselves and employers.
 
2012-07-11 10:38:25 AM  

Jon Snow:

Thanks, sincerely.
A common problem I've found is that as much as denialists try to apply improper reasoning, the same is true for the other side. This makes a skeptic (of any theory or disproval of a theory) not want to care. I remember seeing the statistic of how much water absorbs sunlight, and how much ice reflects it which makes a snow-ball (yay pun) effect for warmth. I brought it up in an argument as a counter argument to the pro-carbon-is-causing-global-warming side after they stated that earth's atmosphere is thinned at the poles(also true). They kept getting their theories mixed (carbon makes excess atmosphere, atmosphere has been thinned) and they ended up looking like idiots so my side won the debate (engineering science, junior class at my college).

Albeit we won based on the Thank you for Smoking monta. "I'm not right, but I proved you wrong."

All in all, I believe in climate change but people believe in global warming and suck at facts. But I'm also the nut who is convinced we need nuclear energy.

 
2012-07-11 10:39:41 AM  

Hoboclown: [farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]


Because wind and solar require subsidies. If climate change is a problem, they may be worth it in terms of reducing CO2. If not, they may not be. If solar or public transport cost us nothing, we'd be doing it anyway.
 
2012-07-11 10:39:56 AM  
farked up the italics. argh
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report