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.

(The New York Times)   On a tiny island off Washington State, scientist find an acidic ocean, linked to rising carbon dioxide levels, as well as fewer mussels, barnacles, and seabirds. So, yes, everybody should panic   (nytimes.com) divider line 151
    More: Scary, atmospheric carbon dioxide, University of Washington, oceans, apex predator, islands  
•       •       •

11531 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Oct 2012 at 11:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-07 02:56:07 PM  

cirby: They also go completely nuts and assume that the small dissolved CO2 (0.1 pH over the course of the study) change they see is causing huge swings in local populations of all sorts of animals - when most oceans see that much change in an hourly basis, and some coastal areas often see natural change of as much as a full 1.0 pH swing per day.


citationneeded.jpg

Since you're such an expert, I assume you know that pH is a logarithmic scale, and so 0.1 change is hardly minor. But a daily swing of 1.0? Unless you're talking about volcanic vents, you'd better be able to back that up.
 
2012-10-07 02:56:50 PM  

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: This is how I know that you have no idea about this. The information that I provided comes directly from the IPCC reports. Are you familiar with the IPCC reports? Obviously not. Anybody who questions the information that I posted is just ignorant of the situation.

Care to post that information? Or are you just making a.....

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]


You have no idea what the IPCC is, do you?

Consensus seems to point to you being an idiot. Since this is not science, that consensus has a lot of validity.
 
2012-10-07 02:58:31 PM  

T-Servo: cirby: They also go completely nuts and assume that the small dissolved CO2 (0.1 pH over the course of the study) change they see is causing huge swings in local populations of all sorts of animals - when most oceans see that much change in an hourly basis, and some coastal areas often see natural change of as much as a full 1.0 pH swing per day.

citationneeded.jpg

Since you're such an expert, I assume you know that pH is a logarithmic scale, and so 0.1 change is hardly minor. But a daily swing of 1.0? Unless you're talking about volcanic vents, you'd better be able to back that up.


It does not matter what it takes to make the change or the math behind it. A change of 0.1 IS minor.
 
2012-10-07 03:01:51 PM  
You can't use a freshwater probe in the ocean... it reads wrong.

1.0 means nothing until you get to 8.5 anyway. The ocean swings back and forth because of the sun.
 
2012-10-07 03:02:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: It does not matter what it takes to make the change or the math behind it. A change of 0.1 IS minor.


Without knowing the scale, you can't possibly say that 0.1 is minor. For example, if the scale is "percent blood alcohol concentration" it's the difference between "stone cold sober" and "too drunk to drive".

And since you're claiming that 0.1 change in pH is minor, that indicates that you know nothing of pH.

/Hey, let's try changing your blood's pH by 0.1 and see how you like it!
//Actually, let's not, it'd make you very sick
 
2012-10-07 03:04:00 PM  

BronyMedic: born_yesterday: And don't ignore the cyclical ramifications that feed back into the derp. As America loses it's position as a leader in technology and manufacturing, the jobs associated with them go overseas (still fed by our consumerist dollars). As the country declines in every relevant way, they'll blame it on the lack of "Christ's Law", continuing to vote for and push an agenda that further suppresses science and technology, further leading to our decline.

THIS.

And you know what's sad? Cutting even part of the defense appropriations which make up, along with medicare, the majority of the yearly budget expenditure of the United States, and putting them into Science and Education is completely verboten. Because some imaginary enemy of our freedoms is just waiting out there to invade and take us over, despite no army on earth having that capability. (The Chinese MIGHT come close, but this isn't a Michael Bay movie, and the chinese have no massive sealift/airlift capabilities.)

We waste more in the Military each year than we spend on basic sciences and educating our children. Let that sink in, America.

All because some arrogant, elderly asshole in Washington, who's been in his position for DECADES thanks to the lack of term limits, thinks it's America's divine, Christ-given position to police the world, and that America is the exception to the rule that as we defund and ignore the arts and sciences, they won't rush overseas to fertile funding grounds.


Even if the Chinese had the airlift and sealift capability, our Seawolf and Los Angeles-class subs would sink the troop transports before they got halfway across the Pacific, and our existing Raptors would make mincemeat out of the the fighter escorts of the troop aircraft, leaving them sitting ducks for F-15s to shoot out of the sky. With less than half of what we have now, we could easily defend our borders.
 
2012-10-07 03:04:35 PM  

Mithiwithi: chuckufarlie: It does not matter what it takes to make the change or the math behind it. A change of 0.1 IS minor.

Without knowing the scale, you can't possibly say that 0.1 is minor. For example, if the scale is "percent blood alcohol concentration" it's the difference between "stone cold sober" and "too drunk to drive".

And since you're claiming that 0.1 change in pH is minor, that indicates that you know nothing of pH.

/Hey, let's try changing your blood's pH by 0.1 and see how you like it!
//Actually, let's not, it'd make you very sick


Why am I always confronted by ignorant people who want to make comparisons that make no sense? Are you really that stupid?
 
2012-10-07 03:04:45 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: ThrobblefootSpectre: I only said that the conclusions just of these particular scientists are tentative.

piperTom: Oh, goody goody; TFA says "Dr. Pfister and Dr. Wootton [are] testing the pH of water samples." Finally I'll get some answers!


Realize that articles in the popular press really are a pale (and more often than not misleading) shadow of the scientific literature. Said press is usually really poor at linking to the scientific literature (which is behind a paywall most times anyway). If you're interested in the actual science, you have to actually dig a bit yourself if you want that info.

However, the article gives us the clues we need: PNAS, 2008, Wootton and Pfeister as authors. If you don't have access across a paywall, you can sometimes luck out on one of the author's webpages. Fortunately, this is the case for this paper and it can be found here. Happy reading.


Or visit your local university's library and log into their searchable database as a guest.
 
2012-10-07 03:09:23 PM  

Tatterdemalian: If the climatologists were really worried about global warming, you'd think they'd support re-sequestering greenhouse gases. But instead, they insist that we can't seek any sort of engineered solution to global warming, because that wouldn't correct the disgusting producer/consumer behavior of our industrialized society. Better to let the human race die out than be tainted by the sins of biological imperatives, I guess.


And exactly how much would this cost compared to raising fuel economy? The mass of humanity pumps CO2 into the atmosphere at such a mind boggling rate that you'd have to spend trillions on sequestration at a scale necessary to counteract current warming.
 
2012-10-07 03:26:50 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: HighZoolander: So, it sounded like you were casting doubt on the strength of the evidence for human-caused climate change

No But just acknowledging that doubt exists. Not from you or I, but from some people. People who are wrong. I was pointing out that there are other issues, which even the "horrible ebil repuglicans" don't deny are happening.

You are trying to hard to purposely look for ideological enemies. Part of the point of my post was that I think that may be 90% percent of the blockade (on both sides) in trying to discuss environmental issues constructively.


Well, I'm really not trying to look for ideological enemies (and the ideology for me is not republican vs democrat, but science vs anti-science, though sadly all too often the republicans are lining up anti-science), but I am so used to seeing anti-science idiots here on fark that my perspective may have gotten out of whack.
 
2012-10-07 03:31:10 PM  
T-Servo:
Since you're such an expert, I assume you know that pH is a logarithmic scale, and so 0.1 change is hardly minor. But a daily swing of 1.0? Unless you're talking about volcanic vents, you'd better be able to back that up.

You do realize that, even though most ocean pH is around 7.8 or so, rainwater is around 5.2? River freshwater outflows are also on the low side, so anywhere near the coasts that have fresh water outflows, you can have hourly pH variations of well over 1.0?

Even the open ocean can have huge variations in a very small time period: upwelling deep-ocean currents can bring up water (in huge volumes) with pH variations of at least 1.0 from the existing body.

By the way: a 0.1 variation is definitely minor. Pretty much any spot in the coastal ocean will see that much change in a matter of an hour or so. The people who claim that's a lot are the ones who look at a lot of samples, average them out, and pretend that a 0.01 variation year-to-year is a big (and dangerous to sea life) deal.
 
2012-10-07 03:40:06 PM  
I really liked this article. It reminded me of a couple of Wes Anderson movies, especially the outfits in the photographs. I read the whole thing and even looked up more about the island afterwards. Pretty cool island they've got there.
 
2012-10-07 04:12:26 PM  

cirby: T-Servo:
Since you're such an expert, I assume you know that pH is a logarithmic scale, and so 0.1 change is hardly minor. But a daily swing of 1.0? Unless you're talking about volcanic vents, you'd better be able to back that up.

You do realize that, even though most ocean pH is around 7.8 or so, rainwater is around 5.2? River freshwater outflows are also on the low side, so anywhere near the coasts that have fresh water outflows, you can have hourly pH variations of well over 1.0?

Even the open ocean can have huge variations in a very small time period: upwelling deep-ocean currents can bring up water (in huge volumes) with pH variations of at least 1.0 from the existing body.

By the way: a 0.1 variation is definitely minor. Pretty much any spot in the coastal ocean will see that much change in a matter of an hour or so. The people who claim that's a lot are the ones who look at a lot of samples, average them out, and pretend that a 0.01 variation year-to-year is a big (and dangerous to sea life) deal.


No mention of the seismic events in the Juan De Fuca ridge? There are submarine volcanic eruptions in that area that have been monitored for years.
There was also a meeting of seaplane pilots from Seattle/BC/Oregon this weekend. The agenda being rescue in case of earthquake.

/we're doomed
 
2012-10-07 04:13:58 PM  
History will record that it was the Republican Party that denied climate change was real.
 
2012-10-07 04:41:47 PM  
"Barnacles, oysters and mussels find it more difficult to survive, which can cause chain reactions among the animals that eat those species, like birds and people."

Don't eat barnacles, your head might explode.
 
2012-10-07 05:03:50 PM  

montex: History will record that it was the Republican Party that denied climate change was real.


history will also record that if you had at least three active brain cells you would realize that what they deny is AGW, not climate change.

That is what happens when you don't know shiat about the subject but just HAVE to post something.
 
2012-10-07 05:11:55 PM  

croesius: Jacobin: There's an ocean on an island? How did they do that?

jaytkay: They found an ocean on an island? Interesting.

Howabout an island on a lake on an island on a lake on an island?
[pedanticposts.com image 300x210]


Where is this?!
 
2012-10-07 05:15:41 PM  
Also, came to discuss zombie apocalypse fortress possibilities of Tatoosh Island. Leaving disappoint.
 
2012-10-07 05:18:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: This is how I know that you have no idea about this. The information that I provided comes directly from the IPCC reports. Are you familiar with the IPCC reports? Obviously not. Anybody who questions the information that I posted is just ignorant of the situation.

Care to post that information? Or are you just making a.....

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]

You have no idea what the IPCC is, do you?

Consensus seems to point to you being an idiot. Since this is not science, that consensus has a lot of validity.


I know what the IPCC is. However, I believe less than absolute zero of anything you say or type. You've been proven to be a complete liar and shill when it comes to these threads.

Call me stupid all you want, doesn't change that fact.

Post up, or shut up, troll,
 
2012-10-07 05:28:18 PM  

chuckufarlie: history will also record that if you had at least three active brain cells you would realize that what they deny is AGW, not climate change.

That is what happens when you don't know shiat about the subject but just HAVE to post something.


Regardless, history will show that it was the Republican Party that claimed all evidence for global warming/climate change was false and concocted lies.
 
2012-10-07 05:29:46 PM  
There is no reason to panic.

The earth will be fine.

Life on this planet will not end.

Humans just won't be part of it anymore, and is that really a great loss?
 
2012-10-07 06:04:30 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BronyMedic: America, this is what you voted for. You voted for stupidity and conspiracy theory in the highest echelons of our Government. You voted to be "tough on them liberals!" and elected people who have less knowledge about the topic they govern than a fifth grade student learns in Science class.


Okay so their research will continue, while they see if they can reach more convincing conclusions. In the meantime, in peer review even other scientists are questioning their tentative conclusions. No need to freak out and start lynching people just yet.

Science information isn't limited to just the U.S. The scientific community is global and it doesn't have to rest on just the U.S. to "save the world". If there is merit to their future research, it will be heard and discussed.

Greenhouse emissions aren't unique to the U.S. either. China emits about 50% more than the U.S., and the EU, collectively, is about equal to us. And some other nations like India and Brazil are starting to pick up the pace very rapidly.

If there is a problem, it isn't a U.S. only problem. And we won't be the only ones who have to try to fix it. So try not to have a coronary about it just yet.

/tree-hugging vegetarian liberal here


But see, that is part of the problem. Everyone--and I mean everyone, it's not limited to one side of the aisle here--runs around saying "But the Chinese cause the problem too! The Indians do too! Etc! Etc!" and NOBODY seems willing to do anything because everyone else is contributing to the problem. It's a grown-up, international version of "But why do I have to clean my room when my little sister's room is just as dirty!" If your kid said that, your response would be to tell your kid to get in and clean her own room and not to worry about her sister's room. Yet we can't do that for our planet for some reason.

Yes, China's emissions are appalling. Yes, Europe and especially Russia are more than doing their share. But if we wait till everyone is on the same page to start doing something about climate change, we'll be sitting in a Mad-Max-Fallout-style post-apocalyptic world and it will be way too late to do anything about it. Maybe, just maybe, America needs to clean her own room and at least START doing something to correct the situation, show other industrial nations that it is possible to have a functional economy and still reduce carbon emissions, and be prepared to show the way when other nations come clamoring for assistance in cleaning up their own industries. Is that too hard for people to accept? Maybe it is.
 
2012-10-07 06:46:26 PM  

Gyrfalcon: ThrobblefootSpectre: BronyMedic: America, this is what you voted for. You voted for stupidity and conspiracy theory in the highest echelons of our Government. You voted to be "tough on them liberals!" and elected people who have less knowledge about the topic they govern than a fifth grade student learns in Science class.


Okay so their research will continue, while they see if they can reach more convincing conclusions. In the meantime, in peer review even other scientists are questioning their tentative conclusions. No need to freak out and start lynching people just yet.

Science information isn't limited to just the U.S. The scientific community is global and it doesn't have to rest on just the U.S. to "save the world". If there is merit to their future research, it will be heard and discussed.

Greenhouse emissions aren't unique to the U.S. either. China emits about 50% more than the U.S., and the EU, collectively, is about equal to us. And some other nations like India and Brazil are starting to pick up the pace very rapidly.

If there is a problem, it isn't a U.S. only problem. And we won't be the only ones who have to try to fix it. So try not to have a coronary about it just yet.

/tree-hugging vegetarian liberal here

But see, that is part of the problem. Everyone--and I mean everyone, it's not limited to one side of the aisle here--runs around saying "But the Chinese cause the problem too! The Indians do too! Etc! Etc!" and NOBODY seems willing to do anything because everyone else is contributing to the problem. It's a grown-up, international version of "But why do I have to clean my room when my little sister's room is just as dirty!" If your kid said that, your response would be to tell your kid to get in and clean her own room and not to worry about her sister's room. Yet we can't do that for our planet for some reason.

Yes, China's emissions are appalling. Yes, Europe and especially Russia are more than doing their share. But if we wait till ...


1. Working by ourselves, we can solve nothing about this "problem".
2. The UN "solution" to the "problem" gives both China and India a pass on any restrictions.
3. Your idea that things will get Mad Max like is based on nothing but ignorance.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:49 PM  

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: This is how I know that you have no idea about this. The information that I provided comes directly from the IPCC reports. Are you familiar with the IPCC reports? Obviously not. Anybody who questions the information that I posted is just ignorant of the situation.

Care to post that information? Or are you just making a.....

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]

You have no idea what the IPCC is, do you?

Consensus seems to point to you being an idiot. Since this is not science, that consensus has a lot of validity.

I know what the IPCC is. However, I believe less than absolute zero of anything you say or type. You've been proven to be a complete liar and shill when it comes to these threads.

Call me stupid all you want, doesn't change that fact.

Post up, or shut up, troll,


Are you so lazy that you cannot go to the IPCC website and read one of their reports? Who knows, maybe you might actually learn something.

But the fact that I have read the reports and you have not read them puts you at a disadvantage.

I agree with you on one thing, calling you stupid AN IDIOT does not change the facts. You were an idiot long before I pointed it out to you.
 
2012-10-07 06:53:28 PM  

fluffy2097: There is no reason to panic.

The earth will be fine.

Life on this planet will not end.

Humans just won't be part of it anymore, and is that really a great loss?


Really!!!! How old are you? There has been an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850. On top of that, the proxie data for the years prior to 1850 has a margin of error that is greater than the change recorded since 1850.


At the most, your parents will pay more for air conditioning.
 
2012-10-07 07:01:29 PM  

doglover: Who the uses the term "bellweather" in this day and age. I must've read 10,000 books in my day, and I've never come across it.


Bellwether books
 
2012-10-07 07:10:44 PM  

chuckufarlie: BronyMedic: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.

You seem confused. So sorry.

You shouldn't make fun of chuckufarlie. Early onset dementia is a sad, sad thing, and they get confused and frustrated easily when dealing with simple concepts..

You think that I am confused? I provided the actual facts;
There has been an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850. Most people would call that extremely stable, but I am sure that you think that they are wrong.

On top of that, the proxie data for the years prior to 1850 has a margin of error that is greater than the change recorded since 1850.

You are the one who is confused. You are getting all worked up over an extremely tiny increase in temperature and you have no idea when it started or why.


We all know nicksteel,er, I mean chuckie is deluded, lying sack of crap, but I'll point out a few things anyway.

He wants to pretend 1 degree C is a small increase, but the difference between a nice comfortable interglacial and an ice age is only 6-8C. It takes the planet thousands or even tens of thousands of years to warm/cool by that much naturally. Humans have contributed 1 degree in a hundred years and a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at 395ppm) from pre industrial levels will cause a temperature increase of 3C

He'll try to tell you that 1 degree seems so small, but he won't tell you why he thinks that's the case. "I mean, just look at it. It's only 1 degree. The temperature rose 20 degrees since 5am today!"

Other people will come along and give examples of seemingly small numbers that actually have huge effects (blood alcohol content, toxins and poisons that are deadly in small amounts), but he won't listen because 1 degree is just SO SMALL.

chuckufarlie: You are getting all worked up over an extremely tiny increase in temperature and you have no idea when it started or why.


When:
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org

Why: Link
Link
 
2012-10-07 07:17:21 PM  

girl6: croesius: Jacobin: There's an ocean on an island? How did they do that?

jaytkay: They found an ocean on an island? Interesting.

Howabout an island on a lake on an island on a lake on an island?
[pedanticposts.com image 300x210]

Where is this?!


Taal Volcano, Philippines. The island at the center is Vulcan Point, 40 meters across. Pretty cool.
 
2012-10-07 07:22:43 PM  

Baryogenesis: chuckufarlie: BronyMedic: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.

You seem confused. So sorry.

You shouldn't make fun of chuckufarlie. Early onset dementia is a sad, sad thing, and they get confused and frustrated easily when dealing with simple concepts..

You think that I am confused? I provided the actual facts;
There has been an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850. Most people would call that extremely stable, but I am sure that you think that they are wrong.

On top of that, the proxie data for the years prior to 1850 has a margin of error that is greater than the change recorded since 1850.

You are the one who is confused. You are getting all worked up over an extremely tiny increase in temperature and you have no idea when it started or why.

We all know nicksteel,er, I mean chuckie is deluded, lying sack of crap, but I'll point out a few things anyway.

He wants to pretend 1 degree C is a small increase, but the difference between a nice comfortable interglacial and an ice age is only 6-8C. It takes the planet thousands or even tens of thousands of years to warm/cool by that much naturally. Humans have contributed 1 degree in a hundred years and a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at 395ppm) from pre industrial levels will cause a temperature increase of 3C

He'll try to tell you that 1 degree seems so small, but he won't tell you ...


there is a big difference between ONE degree and SIX to EIGHT. It took 162 years to increase the temperature LESS than ONE degree. Your math is so bad that you state that humans raised the temperature one degree in one hundred years. The truth is a change of less than one degree in 162 years. And there is no proof that man is responsible for any of than increase. Even the most, rabid AND KNOWLEDGEABLE people admit that humans should be charged with only a part of the increase.

And are you stupid enough to believe that an increase in temperature is going to cause another ice age? If not, why did you bring that up? That is useless information that has no place here.

As the IPCC has pointed out in its reports, we really have no idea what temperatures were like prior to 1850 because that information is all based on proxy data that has a margin of error of almost on degree. With a margin of error that is the same as the recorded margin of change, you end up having no idea what has been happening on the long run,

The reason that I do not accept any arguments where one of something has a large impact is very simple, and yet you are unable to understand. Systems react differently to change on a proportional level. You cannot create a comparison between two systems that mean anything. You are comparing apples and oranges. None of you are intelligent enough to understand that simple fact.
 
2012-10-07 07:30:59 PM  
Well this thread seems sufficiently filled with hyperbolic hateful losers.
 
2012-10-07 07:34:01 PM  

chuckufarlie: Are you so lazy that you cannot go to the IPCC website and read one of their reports? Who knows, maybe you might actually learn something.

But the fact that I have read the reports and you have not read them puts you at a disadvantage.

I agree with you on one thing, calling you stupid AN IDIOT does not change the facts. You were an idiot long before I pointed it out to you.


If you've read these magical reports, then it should be trivial to link them. Why won't you link them? Why do you have to resort to pathetic berating, Chuckie?

Come on, you can shut me up with a simple URL. I'll even post in bold 32pt font that I'm wrong about climate change being caused through AGW.

Maybe nicksteel is close? Could he be bothered to link them?
 
2012-10-07 07:59:59 PM  

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: Are you so lazy that you cannot go to the IPCC website and read one of their reports? Who knows, maybe you might actually learn something.

But the fact that I have read the reports and you have not read them puts you at a disadvantage.

I agree with you on one thing, calling you stupid AN IDIOT does not change the facts. You were an idiot long before I pointed it out to you.

If you've read these magical reports, then it should be trivial to link them. Why won't you link them? Why do you have to resort to pathetic berating, Chuckie?

Come on, you can shut me up with a simple URL. I'll even post in bold 32pt font that I'm wrong about climate change being caused through AGW.

Maybe nicksteel is close? Could he be bothered to link them?


so, you are either too lazy or too stupid to do a simple google search? I have never met anybody that stupid/lazy.

Link
 
2012-10-07 08:06:47 PM  

chuckufarlie: so, you are either too lazy or too stupid to do a simple google search? I have never met anybody that stupid/lazy.

Link



nicksteel: They shout down anybody who dsagrees with them but when challenged, they don't know anything. It seems hypocritical to tell people that they are wrong when these two (an a few others) have no real idea why they are wrong. It is easy to answer a question by pointing somebody to a lengthy article. The hope that somewhere in that article is the answer. I merely ask them to provide those one or two sentences that actually ARE the answer. They can't.
 
2012-10-07 08:24:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: The reason that I do not accept any arguments where one of something has a large impact is very simple, and yet you are unable to understand. Systems react differently to change on a proportional level. You cannot create a comparison between two systems that mean anything. You are comparing apples and oranges. None of you are intelligent enough to understand that simple fact.


Explain why an increase in temperature of 1 degree in a hundred years is no big deal. Explain why a future increase of +3C, or more if emissions are left unchecked, is also no big deal.

I can provide information as to why rapid changes (compared to natural changes on geologic time scales) in temperature have predominantly negative consequences. Can you provide any real reason why that temperature change isn't something to worry about? You can't just say it's no big deal. You have to show your work.

The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.
A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.

chuckufarlie: And there is no proof that man is responsible for any of than increase. Even the most, rabid AND KNOWLEDGEABLE people admit that humans should be charged with only a part of the increase.


Get your proof right here! Come one come all!

From the IPCC report that everyone knows you love since you've cited it a half dozen times in this thread:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[12] This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM.4 and Table SPM.2). {9.4, 9.5}

I can't wait to hear your excuses about why the IPCC report can no longer be trusted even though you just cited it.

and some more links for kicks:

The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model with anthropogenic forcing (mainly GHGs)

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmerClimate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

There are many lines of independent empirical evidence for global warming

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

The human fingerprint in global warming
 
2012-10-07 08:49:32 PM  
Baryogenesis

Try to pay attention.

1. It is an increase of LESS than one degree in 162 years Most people would call that a stable system. Your proof of rapid changes means nothing because this is not a rapid change.
2. Nobody knows for sure what happened before that because the data prior to that is proxy data.
3. You are using output of a model to prove your point. Models are used to see if the proposed idea is feasible. Models should not be used as proof of anything beyond a proof of concept. Models make assumptions that may or may not be true.
4. The data that I accept from the report is just that - real data. Output from a model is NOT real data. I trust PARTS of the report. I am sure that you cannot understand that.
5. Linking to blogs on websites is just plain stupid. Do you even know what a blog is?
 
2012-10-07 08:55:28 PM  
Baryogenesis

Look at this statement from the report.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

"Most" "very likely" That is a statement with enough wiggle room to make any sane person realize that it means nothing.

Do you realize that the green house gas explanation that you were given in third grade science is just that? It is THIRD GRADE SCIENCE. I hate to break this to you but we do not live inside a giant soda bottle. I hate to break this to you but the planetary system that WE DO LIVE ON is much more complicated that a giant soda bottle and that there are lots of other things that influence the climate than you learned about in third grade.
 
2012-10-07 09:01:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: so, you are either too lazy or too stupid to do a simple google search? I have never met anybody that stupid/lazy.

Link


Good job. You linked to absolutely nothing I asked.

I didn't ask for a link to the IPCC front page. I asked you to cite the study you have so thoughtfully studied to give your expert opinion from.

Yet again, you avoid the request, and go straight into belittling me because I dare call you to provide evidence of your statement, beyond your "expert assurance" that what you say is true.

chuckufarlie: I have never met anybody that stupid/lazy.


Indeed, Chuckufarlie. Can I speak to Nicksteel, now? Is he awake yet?
 
2012-10-07 09:05:59 PM  

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: so, you are either too lazy or too stupid to do a simple google search? I have never met anybody that stupid/lazy.

Link

Good job. You linked to absolutely nothing I asked.

I didn't ask for a link to the IPCC front page. I asked you to cite the study you have so thoughtfully studied to give your expert opinion from.

Yet again, you avoid the request, and go straight into belittling me because I dare call you to provide evidence of your statement, beyond your "expert assurance" that what you say is true.

chuckufarlie: I have never met anybody that stupid/lazy.

Indeed, Chuckufarlie. Can I speak to Nicksteel, now? Is he awake yet?


I have a tendency to put incredibly stupid people on my ignore list. You are one stupid statement away from gaining membership.
 
2012-10-07 09:33:26 PM  

douchebag/hater: A story in the NYTimes about global warming?

Yeah, no agenda here.


I certainly hope there is.

This should be a point of no contention.

Climate change IS happening. I'm happy that some heavyweight names are fighting the right's silly "We wanna make money off fossil fuels for another generation!" slant. That's where the dollars are. 

Are you a "Jesus/God" will save us ostrich, or a liberals/treehuggers suck ostrich, or a "I hate science because it's hard to understand/my pastor says science is evil" ostrich? Or just an oil company executive?
 
2012-10-07 09:48:22 PM  

SoxSweepAgain: douchebag/hater: A story in the NYTimes about global warming?

Yeah, no agenda here.

I certainly hope there is.

This should be a point of no contention.

Climate change IS happening. I'm happy that some heavyweight names are fighting the right's silly "We wanna make money off fossil fuels for another generation!" slant. That's where the dollars are. 

Are you a "Jesus/God" will save us ostrich, or a liberals/treehuggers suck ostrich, or a "I hate science because it's hard to understand/my pastor says science is evil" ostrich? Or just an oil company executive?


If you go to the IPCC website, you can look at the proposals on the table for fixing this "problem". It seems that what they want to do is tax or fine the western world and give the developing countries a free pass to do as they please. You should realize that China and India are included in that list of developing countries, What this means is that more jobs will be going to those countries at the expense of jobs in the western world. If you believe that people who own businesses will not send their manufacturing to China, take a look at that dimwit running for President for the GOP.

Before you start thinking that this is an argument with big oil on one side and tree huggers on the other, check the facts. This is about redistributing the world's wealth. Even the IPCC is willing to admit that.
 
2012-10-07 10:12:21 PM  

chuckufarlie: Really!!!! How old are you? There has been an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850. On top of that, the proxie data for the years prior to 1850 has a margin of error that is greater than the change recorded since 1850.


At the most, your parents will pay more for air conditioning.



Old enough to know that what I said is true, regardless of if global warming is true or not.

Species become extinct all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Life always finds a way. Usually through new species.

Something will come along to replace us eventually, or we will eventually move everyone offworld and turn earth into a museum.
 
2012-10-07 10:21:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: 1. It is an increase of LESS than one degree in 162 years Most people would call that a stable system. Your proof of rapid changes means nothing because this is not a rapid change.


That's not an explanation for the severity, or lack thereof, of the temperature change. That's just you repeating that's it's not rapid because you say so.

chuckufarlie: 2. Nobody knows for sure what happened before that because the data prior to that is proxy data.


The past climate and temperature is understood well enough. Error bars aren't the same thing as having "no idea" what happened. Stop pretending like any amount of uncertainty is equivalent to knowing nothing.

chuckufarlie: 3. You are using output of a model to prove your point. Models are used to see if the proposed idea is feasible. Models should not be used as proof of anything beyond a proof of concept. Models make assumptions that may or may not be true.


The PEER REVIEWED paper which modeled natural vs. anthropogenic forcings I linked to was one of TEN links that supported my position. The links which aren't direct links to papers themselves link to papers. As in, those skeptical science links all cite primary literature. You have done nothing but stamp your feet and repeat your point over and over.

chuckufarlie: 4. The data that I accept from the report is just that - real data. Output from a model is NOT real data. I trust PARTS of the report. I am sure that you cannot understand that.


My data is REAL data and your data is fake data. Riiiight.

chuckufarlie: Linking to blogs on websites is just plain stupid. Do you even know what a blog is?


Here's the direct link to Berekley Earth's findings (the skeptical group which confirmed global warming) which is what that blog post you were so upset about referenced.

By the way, I also linked a peer reviewed paper directly, NASA, and skeptical science which always includes citations back to peer reviewed literature. This skeptical science page Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming has around a dozen such citations.

chuckufarlie: Look at this statement from the report.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

"Most" "very likely" That is a statement with enough wiggle room to make any sane person realize that it means nothing.


The IPCC defines "very likely" (and other such terminology) in the report. You know, the report that you keep citing and telling everyone else to read.

Very likely = >90% probability

chuckufarlie: Do you realize that the green house gas explanation that you were given in third grade science is just that? It is THIRD GRADE SCIENCE. I hate to break this to you but we do not live inside a giant soda bottle. I hate to break this to you but the planetary system that WE DO LIVE ON is much more complicated that a giant soda bottle and that there are lots of other things that influence the climate than you learned about in third grade.


CO2 is not the sole factor, but it is the primary factor in current warming.

www.global-greenhouse-warming.com

By the way, if you look on the right corner you can see that graph is from the IPCC which we all know you hold in the highest esteem.

Now, would you like to explicitly list other factors that are responsible for this warming and explain to what extent those factors affect said warming?
 
2012-10-07 11:14:11 PM  

BronyMedic: born_yesterday: And don't ignore the cyclical ramifications that feed back into the derp. As America loses it's position as a leader in technology and manufacturing, the jobs associated with them go overseas (still fed by our consumerist dollars). As the country declines in every relevant way, they'll blame it on the lack of "Christ's Law", continuing to vote for and push an agenda that further suppresses science and technology, further leading to our decline.

THIS.

And you know what's sad? Cutting even part of the defense appropriations which make up, along with medicare, the majority of the yearly budget expenditure of the United States, and putting them into Science and Education is completely verboten. Because some imaginary enemy of our freedoms is just waiting out there to invade and take us over, despite no army on earth having that capability. (The Chinese MIGHT come close, but this isn't a Michael Bay movie, and the chinese have no massive sealift/airlift capabilities.)

We waste more in the Military each year than we spend on basic sciences and educating our children. Let that sink in, America.

All because some arrogant, elderly asshole in Washington, who's been in his position for DECADES thanks to the lack of term limits, thinks it's America's divine, Christ-given position to police the world, and that America is the exception to the rule that as we defund and ignore the arts and sciences, they won't rush overseas to fertile funding grounds.


^All of that^...
 
2012-10-07 11:34:34 PM  

croesius: Jacobin: There's an ocean on an island? How did they do that?

jaytkay: They found an ocean on an island? Interesting.

How about an island on a lake on an island on a lake on an island?

pedanticposts.com


userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2012-10-08 12:22:39 AM  

Gyrfalcon: But see, that is part of the problem. Everyone--and I mean everyone, it's not limited to one side of the aisle here--runs around saying "But the Chinese cause the problem too! The Indians do too! Etc! Etc!" and NOBODY seems willing to do anything because everyone else is contributing to the problem


Gyrfalcon, take my response as being very very specific to the context of the post I was responding to. So go back and read the post I was responding to.....Now, I'm NOT saying the U.S. shouldn't spearhead any scientific effort.

What I AM saying is that if you genuinely want that to happen, the absolutely 100% wrong way to go about it is to come out saying "America is stupid and ignorant piece of trash that caused this problem and this is what you voted for and you are all farking stupid teabaggers!!!!!!"

No, pointing out that the U.S. isn't the only problem is not "part of the problem". The truth shouldn't be considered a problem in a scientific discussion.

What I DO think is part of the problem is kicking off any environmental discussion by singling out the U.S. in a very childish, partisan, and insulting way for something that is happening all over the world. Not only is it false, but it alienates people who otherwise might have listened to you. It automatically derails any attempt at rational discussion within the first 5 seconds.  THAT is part of the problem.
 
2012-10-08 02:33:38 AM  
Brony, there's absolutely no chance of convincing those who don't believe that they could be wrong, that goes for both sides, that being said, you've cited your sources responded to critiques from Chuck, and for all of that the chances that he'll change his mind are slim.

People take stances on issues for sometimes completely illogical reasons, and of those illogical reasons, ignorance trumps all. That someone is forced to go outside their own narrow circle of knowledge and look at things from the opposite viewpoint and try to see why such an idea would bad for them is often the crux of why people think certain things are good in the first place.

This all comes down to Chuck seeing the climate change zeitgeist as a sort of chicken little too hyped up on it's own fear to rationally assess the situation.

Likewise for Brony this comes down to seeing the deniers as obstinate, ignorant fools, bent on their own oblivion, and too greedy to change their own destructive tendencies.

The truth will be met in the middle as time unfolds, our stewardship of this world will convert it to a hell if we so desire, or a heaven if we seek it, that people see no responsibility to the land is a foolhardy position, and certainly Chuck does not see himself above being a responsible steward. In the same token while you present several studies the easiest option you can give a person like Chuck is a clear and present course of action, and then what that would mean in the long term.

I myself often say, what would happen if plankton crashed in this area of the world, what sort of disruptions would that have..,.The complete earth viewed as a functioning chemical machine converting gigatons of material in the course of the day spread out over vast incomprehensible areas and how such production and energy fixing, production and consumption affects things like global climate is to imagine one tiny spec of the entirety of the galaxy and barely a mote worth even being concerned about in the universe. However it matters to us, since this mote, is all we got.
 
2012-10-08 09:22:20 AM  

doglover: Who the uses the term "bellweather" in this day and age. I must've read 10,000 books in my day, and I've never come across it.


You must not have read Bellweather
 
2012-10-08 05:44:31 PM  

Tatterdemalian: If the climatologists were really worried about global warming, you'd think they'd support re-sequestering greenhouse gases. But instead, they insist that we can't seek any sort of engineered solution to global warming, because that wouldn't correct the disgusting producer/consumer behavior of our industrialized society. Better to let the human race die out than be tainted by the sins of biological imperatives, I guess.


If you really understood the issue, you'd spend less time shooting the messengers...who aren't saying what you think they're saying anyway.
 
2012-10-08 05:49:04 PM  

Tatterdemalian: T-Servo: Um, except that any current CCS technology is so energy intensive that it's not viable... except planting trees. But sure, blame the scientists.

Planting trees isn't viable, because even though it's the most compact sequesterization, it takes too long for the trees to grow to the ideal size, so it loses out over growing, harvesting, and burying less space-efficient but faster-growing plants like sugar cane and switchgrass. The sticking point remains the intractable determination of the climatologist community to allow the pursuit of such geo-engineering processes, instead burying them beneath voluminous claims that they involve filling the skies with sulfur and the seas with iron, rather than farming, harvesting, and sequestering large amounts of plant matter.

/google "geo-engineering NPR" for a sample of news articles
//you will not see one mention of carbon burial, instead only of atmospheric sulfur dioxide releases and iron fertilizing


Yes, the problem with this planet is the iron grip climatologists have on our political and industrial processes...

Funny. You string words together fairly well...superficially.
 
2012-10-08 06:20:34 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: What I DO think is part of the problem is kicking off any environmental discussion by singling out the U.S. in a very childish, partisan, and insulting way for something that is happening all over the world. Not only is it false, but it alienates people who otherwise might have listened to you. It automatically derails any attempt at rational discussion within the first 5 seconds. THAT is part of the problem.


This seems to be a new GOP meme, poutrage. "You didn't say it nicely, so we're going to ignore you until you say pretty please with double sugar on it!"

/meanwhile, of course, using volatile insults in your own arguments
 
Displayed 50 of 151 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report