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.

(BusinessWeek)   August 2012 was the fourth-warmest August globally since 1880 and the 330th consecutive month in which temperatures worldwide were above the 20th-century average -- Trend? What trend?   (businessweek.com) divider line 174
    More: Obvious, temperatures, Dan Stets, U.S. National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  
•       •       •

1053 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Sep 2012 at 8:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-19 08:22:59 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: cthellis: nmemkha: He is referring to this:

Still no. For more reason than one.

The scare and propaganda were real enough, just like the AGW scare going on today. I know, because I was alive, and paying attention during that time. Try to rewrite history all you like, but it happened.
If it doesn't exist on the net, it doesn't exist, right? Here ya go.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsh e et-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

You saw the same newsmagazine cover stories that everyone else did. And, once again, you have chosen to ignore evidence to the contrary (you don't try to refute it, you just pretend it doesn't exist).

On the other hand, I took a look at your "evidence," and it is weak:

Your Climate Depot link references the Newsweek cover and quotes climatologists...as saying that long-term warming due to CO2 may be offset by short-term cooling due to increased pollution. Even then, the real threat was thought to be warming, not cooling.

Your second link is the Newsweek article itself.

There was no propaganda, and the "scare" was manufactured by Newsweek. If that's the best you can come up with to refute these (just in case you merely overlooked them earlier):

[thinkprogress.org image 450x257]


[www.skepticalscience.com image 448x261]

...then maybe you shouldn't be posting arguments in science threads.

Once again, a denier is done in by not understanding links cribbed from some other denier's blog somewhere.


What I really want to know is how you guys can be so sure this isn't just part of the climate cycle?

This all sounds like a religious debate to me. I can't use this link because it doesn't come from your Bible.
 
2012-09-19 09:03:11 PM

RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: cthellis: nmemkha: He is referring to this:

Still no. For more reason than one.

The scare and propaganda were real enough, just like the AGW scare going on today. I know, because I was alive, and paying attention during that time. Try to rewrite history all you like, but it happened.
If it doesn't exist on the net, it doesn't exist, right? Here ya go.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsh e et-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

You saw the same newsmagazine cover stories that everyone else did. And, once again, you have chosen to ignore evidence to the contrary (you don't try to refute it, you just pretend it doesn't exist).

On the other hand, I took a look at your "evidence," and it is weak:

Your Climate Depot link references the Newsweek cover and quotes climatologists...as saying that long-term warming due to CO2 may be offset by short-term cooling due to increased pollution. Even then, the real threat was thought to be warming, not cooling.

Your second link is the Newsweek article itself.

There was no propaganda, and the "scare" was manufactured by Newsweek. If that's the best you can come up with to refute these (just in case you merely overlooked them earlier):

[thinkprogress.org image 450x257]


[www.skepticalscience.com image 448x261]

...then maybe you shouldn't be posting arguments in science threads.

Once again, a denier is done in by not understanding links cribbed from some other denier's blog somewhere.

What I really want to know is how you guys can be so sure this isn't just part of the climate cycle?


It's a matter of physics. Carbon dioxide has specific physical properties which are well documented. Among these are its ability to absorb infrared radiation. The temperature changes that have been observed are consistent with the expected effects of increased CO2--not only an increase in mean surface temperature, but changes in the vertical temperature profile as well, with warming near the surface and cooling at higher altitudes (exactly the opposite of what's seen following volcanic eruptions, by the way).

While there are other factors which have an effect on temperatures, such as solar radiation, in recent decades temperatures have decoupled from these other inputs, but not from CO2 levels:

www.skepticalscience.com

Statistical analysis has shown that the correlation between CO2 levels and Arctic sea ice is stronger than it is for solar radiation or normal climatic variation:

i1054.photobucket.com

And that's just scratching the surface. The evidence is there, if you choose not to ignore it.

This all sounds like a religious debate to me. I can't use this link because it doesn't come from your Bible.

What Bible is that? I simply pointed out that your link was self-contradictory and proved nothing.
 
2012-09-19 09:27:54 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: cthellis: nmemkha: He is referring to this:

Still no. For more reason than one.

The scare and propaganda were real enough, just like the AGW scare going on today. I know, because I was alive, and paying attention during that time. Try to rewrite history all you like, but it happened.
If it doesn't exist on the net, it doesn't exist, right? Here ya go.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsh e et-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

You saw the same newsmagazine cover stories that everyone else did. And, once again, you have chosen to ignore evidence to the contrary (you don't try to refute it, you just pretend it doesn't exist).

On the other hand, I took a look at your "evidence," and it is weak:

Your Climate Depot link references the Newsweek cover and quotes climatologists...as saying that long-term warming due to CO2 may be offset by short-term cooling due to increased pollution. Even then, the real threat was thought to be warming, not cooling.

Your second link is the Newsweek article itself.

There was no propaganda, and the "scare" was manufactured by Newsweek. If that's the best you can come up with to refute these (just in case you merely overlooked them earlier):

[thinkprogress.org image 450x257]


[www.skepticalscience.com image 448x261]

...then maybe you shouldn't be posting arguments in science threads.

Once again, a denier is done in by not understanding links cribbed from some other denier's blog somewhere.

What I really want to know is how you guys can be so sure this isn't just part of the climate cycle?

It's a matter of physics. Carbon dioxide has specific physical properties which are well documented. Among these are its ability to absorb infrared radiation. The temperature changes that have been observed are consistent with the expected effects of increased CO2--not only an increase in mean surface temperature, but c ...


Oooh! I just had a light bulb moment. So the heating is happening in the lower atmosphere, and cooling in the upper, as opposed to reflective cooling/ warming in your volcano example, pointing to a heavy gas trapping heat. I can see the mechanism now, and it makes sense. Thank you.

As for my other comment, I was referring to the constant media hype/ scare that muddies the waters so much I don't know what to believe, so I believe none of it.

I may come back with more questions.
 
2012-09-19 10:09:26 PM
Just in case anyone thinks redventure is actually being honest, he's been down this "I'm just asking questions" road before, and been answered on multiple occasions. Yet he still pops in with claims that are unsupported by actual scientific knowledge.

Jon Snow does so here.

Multiple people do so here.

chimp_ninja does so here.

Jon Snow, FloydA, and Baryogenesis does so again here.

Long story short: he's not honest, he's not a skeptic, he's an obtuse troll.
 
2012-09-20 12:27:46 AM

Baryogenesis: Good job chopping a lengthy post down to two context free quotes.


Pot calling the kettle black pal.
or
You started it.

I'm so far beyond taking your trolls seriously, fyi. I was several weeks ago when you started stalking me.

RedVentrue: This all sounds like a religious debate to me. I can't use this link because it doesn't come from your Bible.


Watch out, they don't quite understand that, I noted something similar earlier and it baffled them.

Can't really take any pride in that, it's like baffling SkinnyHead, SteveB, or I drunk what.
 
2012-09-20 12:38:42 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: untaken_name: common sense is an oxymoron: Looks like the latest talking point has been issued recycled: Climate changed before there were humans; therefore, humans are incapable of changing climate.

This is what deniers actually believe.

No, it's more like "climate changed before humans, therefore, it's not logical to assume that any climate change should be automatically attributed to humans." But then, I wouldn't expect someone who got "humans are incapable of changing climate" from any of the posts you quoted to be capable of understanding things.

True or false: All of the posts I quoted used the fact that climate has changed in the past to ridicule the notion that humans could somehow be responsible for climate change in the present.


As one of the aforementioned posters, I'll go with "false." I didn't say anything, one way or another, about humans being responsible for climate change. Didn't even elude to it.
 
2012-09-20 12:39:44 AM
Allude, even.
 
2012-09-20 12:41:53 AM

cthellis: Gain perspective.


We're presently following an ice age, there's no where to go but get warmer. A perspective of decades is pointless because we're on that upcurve. The planet, in a majority of the time in that larger picture, has no ice caps. The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
 
2012-09-20 12:59:08 AM

omeganuepsilon: RedVentrue: This all sounds like a religious debate to me. I can't use this link because it doesn't come from your Bible.

Watch out, they don't quite understand that, I noted something similar earlier and it baffled them.

Can't really take any pride in that, it's like baffling SkinnyHead, SteveB, or I drunk what.


It's true; there's no pride in ignoring what you don't want to see. And, if anything, I would have tagged your Three Wise Men as deniers rather than tree-hugging, Third-World-loving, socialist warmers.

common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: This all sounds like a religious debate to me. I can't use this link because it doesn't come from your Bible.

What Bible is that? I simply pointed out that your link was self-contradictory and proved nothing.


I'd just like to add that I also meant that most of the links posted by deniers lead to other deniers and not to original sources (with the exception of a certain digit-liking cherry-picker, who gets his data from a statistics sandbox intended to show how easy it is to manipulate data to suit your own ends).
 
2012-09-20 01:22:48 AM

DrPainMD: common sense is an oxymoron: untaken_name: common sense is an oxymoron: Looks like the latest talking point has been issued recycled: Climate changed before there were humans; therefore, humans are incapable of changing climate.

This is what deniers actually believe.

No, it's more like "climate changed before humans, therefore, it's not logical to assume that any climate change should be automatically attributed to humans." But then, I wouldn't expect someone who got "humans are incapable of changing climate" from any of the posts you quoted to be capable of understanding things.

True or false: All of the posts I quoted used the fact that climate has changed in the past to ridicule the notion that humans could somehow be responsible for climate change in the present.

As one of the aforementioned posters, I'll go with "false." I didn't say anything, one way or another, about humans being responsible for climate change. Didn't even elude to it.


Here's your post: On a planet that is several billion years old, you can't establish a trend with 130 years of data.

Why would conditions billions of years ago, when solar radiation, atmospheric composition, and other critical factors were nothing at all like they are now, be of any relevance today? Especially when the present-day primary driver of climate change has only existed for a couple of centuries.

You raised a discredited criticism straight out of the deniers' playbook. The argument for anthropogenic warming is that the known long-term drivers of climate simply aren't enough to explain the observed changes. In the case of the most obvious driver (solar radiation), a previous long-term correlation has been wiped out in recent decades by an even stronger driver. At the same time, CO2 levels have increased by nearly 40% in just over a half-century, and the only plausible source is human activity. CO2 has known physical properties which, given the change in concentration, can account for the observed temperature increase. At the present time, no other known forcing mechanisms can make the same claim.

The only reason to bring it up is to trivialize the notion that anything occurring over a time span of mere centuries can have any significance compared to the "billions of years" of natural climate change.
 
2012-09-20 01:29:20 AM

omeganuepsilon: cthellis: Gain perspective.

We're presently following an ice age, there's no where to go but get warmer. A perspective of decades is pointless because we're on that upcurve. The planet, in a majority of the time in that larger picture, has no ice caps. The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.


This really is the bottom line for you deniers, isn't it? The science doesn't matter, but as long as liberals and ivory-tower elitists think it's true, then it's got to be a lie.
 
2012-09-20 01:35:22 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: It's true; there's no pride in ignoring what you don't want to see.


Quite right......

Baryogenesis: Does anyone in class want to know why we don't care about temperature data from 5 billion (or 4 billion or 3 or 2 or even a million) years ago?

[quoting for purpose]

Just because people are awake and functioning during the daylight hours, does not mean that is what causes the heat. We all know that's a ridiculous argument because we can see the grander scale, the big picture.

You've got to look that far back to get a decent control, and if you do look that far back, we're on schedule, we're warming after a cool period.

Now, unless you're going to argue that we've got precise rates from those previous warming periods millions of years ago, which would be the control.....you've got nothing. Note: In just the graph I linked, it shows many different grades.

Science doesn't simply do away with a control that it doesn't "want to see". Sure scientists can, and do on occasion, but they're really not supposed to. When studying what is theorized as an anomaly, you do not throw out all inconvenient history of similar circumstances.

Cooling and warming periods happen, we know that. Why jump to a different conclusion on such relatively little data? One of two things, Belief or Agenda.

Do we influence it? Possibly.
Is it coincidence? Possibly. (much to the dismay of what you learned about coincidence from House)
Does it matter in the slightest? Not at the rate we're killing and attempting to destroy or limit eachother.
 
2012-09-20 01:42:29 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: This really is the bottom line for you deniers, isn't it? The science doesn't matter, but as long as liberals and ivory-tower elitists think it's true, then it's got to be a lie.


Your paraphrasing skills are sorely underdeveloped.

If there was a class where in you get graded on your use of the Jump to ConclusionsTM mat, you'd pass with your hands tied behind your back and wearing a blindfold, so you've got that going for you.
 
2012-09-20 02:14:17 AM

omeganuepsilon: common sense is an oxymoron: It's true; there's no pride in ignoring what you don't want to see.

Quite right......

Baryogenesis: Does anyone in class want to know why we don't care about temperature data from 5 billion (or 4 billion or 3 or 2 or even a million) years ago?[quoting for purpose]

Just because people are awake and functioning during the daylight hours, does not mean that is what causes the heat. We all know that's a ridiculous argument because we can see the grander scale, the big picture.

You've got to look that far back to get a decent control, and if you do look that far back, we're on schedule, we're warming after a cool period.

Now, unless you're going to argue that we've got precise rates from those previous warming periods millions of years ago, which would be the control.....you've got nothing. Note: In just the graph I linked, it shows many different grades.

Science doesn't simply do away with a control that it doesn't "want to see". Sure scientists can, and do on occasion, but they're really not supposed to. When studying what is theorized as an anomaly, you do not throw out all inconvenient history of similar circumstances.


The same simple argument bloviated into several paragraphs.

And, once again, you haven't answered my question about how conditions on what was essentially a different planet must, by necessity, be more relevant today than observable, quantifiable, short-term changes in a known forcing mechanism which correlate well with the observed, quantifiable, short-term changes in climate.

Cooling and warming periods happen, we know that. Why jump to a different conclusion on such relatively little extensive, multidisciplinary data? One of two things, Belief Accepting the science or Agenda.

FTFY

Do we influence it? Possibly. p > 0.9999
Is it coincidence? Possibly. p < 0.0001
Does it matter in the slightest? Not at the rate we're killing and attempting to destroy or limit eachother.


For something that doesn't matter, you're spending quite a bit of time arguing about it.
 
2012-09-20 02:20:49 AM

omeganuepsilon: common sense is an oxymoron: This really is the bottom line for you deniers, isn't it? The science doesn't matter, but as long as liberals and ivory-tower elitists think it's true, then it's got to be a lie.

Your paraphrasing skills are sorely underdeveloped.

If there was a class where in you get graded on your use of the Jump to ConclusionsTM mat, you'd pass with your hands tied behind your back and wearing a blindfold, so you've got that going for you.


If you're accusing me of misunderstanding you, perhaps you could rephrase your statement to make your meaning more clear:

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Otherwise, I'll stand by my post and take your response as a backhanded compliment.
 
2012-09-20 02:39:46 AM

omeganuepsilon: common sense is an oxymoron: It's true; there's no pride in ignoring what you don't want to see.

Quite right......

Baryogenesis: Does anyone in class want to know why we don't care about temperature data from 5 billion (or 4 billion or 3 or 2 or even a million) years ago?[quoting for purpose]

Just because people are awake and functioning during the daylight hours, does not mean that is what causes the heat. We all know that's a ridiculous argument because we can see the grander scale, the big picture.

You've got to look that far back to get a decent control, and if you do look that far back, we're on schedule, we're warming after a cool period.

Now, unless you're going to argue that we've got precise rates from those previous warming periods millions of years ago, which would be the control.....you've got nothing. Note: In just the graph I linked, it shows many different grades.

Science doesn't simply do away with a control that it doesn't "want to see". Sure scientists can, and do on occasion, but they're really not supposed to. When studying what is theorized as an anomaly, you do not throw out all inconvenient history of similar circumstances.

Cooling and warming periods happen, we know that. Why jump to a different conclusion on such relatively little data? One of two things, Belief or Agenda.

Do we influence it? Possibly.
Is it coincidence? Possibly. (much to the dismay of what you learned about coincidence from House)
Does it matter in the slightest? Not at the rate we're killing and attempting to destroy or limit eachother.


And what is your expertise exactly that you're confident enough to dictate to scientists what they are or are not *supposed* to do?

It's rather amazing that you accept so much of climate science (previous warming and cooling periods) but ignore the mountains of evidence regarding a human cause for recent warming, because what? You think every climate scientist is somehow in cahoots with Greenpeace?

And what is the goal of this Greenpeace-climatologist coalition? To destroy your lifestyle for their own evil ends?
 
2012-09-20 03:51:59 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Good job chopping a lengthy post down to two context free quotes.

Pot calling the kettle black pal.
or
You started it.

I'm so far beyond taking your trolls seriously, fyi. I was several weeks ago when you started stalking me.


This is priceless. Do go on. I want to see where this derp goes from here.


omeganuepsilon: common sense is an oxymoron: It's true; there's no pride in ignoring what you don't want to see.

Quite right......

Baryogenesis: Does anyone in class want to know why we don't care about temperature data from 5 billion (or 4 billion or 3 or 2 or even a million) years ago?[quoting for purpose]

Just because people are awake and functioning during the daylight hours, does not mean that is what causes the heat. We all know that's a ridiculous argument because we can see the grander scale, the big picture.

You've got to look that far back to get a decent control, and if you do look that far back, we're on schedule, we're warming after a cool period.

Now, unless you're going to argue that we've got precise rates from those previous warming periods millions of years ago, which would be the control.....you've got nothing. Note: In just the graph I linked, it shows many different grades.

Science doesn't simply do away with a control that it doesn't "want to see". Sure scientists can, and do on occasion, but they're really not supposed to. When studying what is theorized as an anomaly, you do not throw out all inconvenient history of similar circumstances.

Cooling and warming periods happen, we know that. Why jump to a different conclusion on such relatively little data? One of two things, Belief or Agenda.

Do we influence it? Possibly.
Is it coincidence? Possibly. (much to the dismay of what you learned about coincidence from House)
Does it matter in the slightest? Not at the rate we're killing and attempting to destroy or limit eachother.


Good lord. You outright ignored every single piece of information I gave you and linked to regarding the timescales of different climate forcings. The rates of warming in the distant past aren't needed to establish man made warming in the present. It was a substantially different planet. The atmosphere was different, the ocean currents were different, the location of continents were different. It's not a control for recent warming because the factors, forcings, feedbacks, etc involved were different.

There is plenty of data supporting man made CC/GW ( The human fingerprint in global warming ). You just choose to ignore every explanation and link provided to you.

omeganuepsilon: cthellis: Gain perspective.

We're presently following an ice age, there's no where to go but get warmer. A perspective of decades is pointless because we're on that upcurve. The planet, in a majority of the time in that larger picture, has no ice caps. The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.


The last ice age ended ~10,000 years ago and the climate has been pretty stable (maybe even cooling slightly from the pre human peak ~8kya) since then (graph below). We also know that the orbital cycles that drive ice ages and interglacials operate on too large of a timescale to be a factor in current warming. We also know that solar irradiance over the past ~30 years is flat/declining while temperatures are rising.

And finally we arrive at the part in bold/underline/enbiggened. Now everyone understands why you're so stubbornly contrary and misinformed. Anyone who disagrees with your disjointed, laughably misinformed viewpoint has an "anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense" perspective. I guess all those facts, graphs and links that cite peer reviewed literature are nonsense too. I suppose all those climate scientists and every major scientific organization in the world are just anti-corporation for shiats and giggles and their position has nothing to do with empirical research. Who are we to disagree with such an intellectually honest climate skeptic as yourself?

You don't understand even the basics of AGW/ACC and built a "sky is falling" strawman so you can herpderp about "both sides are bad". Truly magnificent work.

ossfoundation.us
 
2012-09-20 11:57:27 AM
My but you people get riled up easily. I mention how science shouldn't ignore data, and I'm lambasted for ignoring things.

What the fark ever people, enjoy your zealotic existances.
 
2012-09-20 03:57:23 PM

omeganuepsilon: My but you people get riled up easily. I mention how science shouldn't ignore data, and I'm lambasted for ignoring things.


That's what happens when you say things like this:

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
 
2012-09-20 04:04:32 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: omeganuepsilon: My but you people get riled up easily. I mention how science shouldn't ignore data, and I'm lambasted for ignoring things.

That's what happens when you say things like this:

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.


As well as not posting any examples of data that has actually been ignored, and repeatedly demonstrating a lack of even basic knowledge on a subject, all while repeatedly posting talking points that are, in some cases, 10 years debunked. You get corrected, and the laughed at when you dig deeper.
 
2012-09-20 04:09:18 PM
Some day climate change deniers will be treated the same way we'd treat people who think the earth is still flat.
 
2012-09-20 09:30:07 PM

Red_Fox: Some day climate change deniers will be treated the same way we'd treat people who think the earth is still flat.


How about those who think the world is only 6000 years old? The scary part is they have political power.
 
2012-09-21 12:25:21 AM

Zafler: As well as not posting any examples of data that has actually been ignored,


omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Does anyone in class want to know why we don't care about temperature data from 5 billion (or 4 billion or 3 or 2 or even a million) years ago?[quoting for purpose]


Whatever, if you can't remember that few posts up, i'll just keep in mind to pay you no heed in the future.
 
2012-09-21 03:21:03 AM

omeganuepsilon: Zafler: As well as not posting any examples of data that has actually been ignored,

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Does anyone in class want to know why we don't care about temperature data from 5 billion (or 4 billion or 3 or 2 or even a million) years ago?[quoting for purpose]

Whatever, if you can't remember that few posts up, i'll just keep in mind to pay you no heed in the future.


Says the guy who has consistently ignored every post and link provided to explain the "problems" that you brought up. I've explained multiple times why temperature trends from 500 million years ago have little bearing on the current trend (outside of confirming the planet's sensitivity to CO2 and other forcings). It'd be like referencing statistics and win/loss records from the Jordan era Bulls to explain how good or bad the Rose era Bulls team is/will be. Sure, it's the same sport and the same franchise, but the roster is entirely different and the rules have changed.

Let me repeat. You flat out ignored the explanation provided to you. No discussion, no further questions, no "hmm, I'll have to read up on that", nothing at all. You didn't provide a single shred of evidence to back up any of your claims. You just went back and repeated the same points as if no one had even said anything. You refuse to even consider evidence and arguments presented to you. You are a climate change denier.

Just for fun, here's your derp again

omeganuepsilon: The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

 
Displayed 24 of 174 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report