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.

(Live Science)   Antarctic sea ice reaches record high levels. Scientists round up the usual suspect   (livescience.com) divider line 74
    More: Interesting, Antarctica, NASA Earth Observatory, sea ice, Antarctic Peninsula, ice shelfs, weather satellites, Ice Data Center, ozone holes  
•       •       •

2751 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Oct 2012 at 4:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-14 08:32:56 AM  
I love how my quoting of the NASA data verbatim, and even including the URL so anyone can check is "lies".

Nothing says lies like the NASA data itself.

Oh wait....
 
2012-10-14 08:46:46 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: much less that human activity can actually become a dominant factor.


That's theoretically possible, but take a second to compare the scale of the natural changes to even the worst-case-scenario changes predicted from anthropomorphic climate change over the next say, 500 years. To the best of my knowledge no one is legitimately predicting human activity to have a change on a scale larger than the sorts of natural changes we've already seen. The rate of change might be higher, and certainly if the human-driven change is in the same direction as the natural change it could make the extremes more extreme/etc., but it seems disingenuous to look at historical changes and current climate change models and declare that human activity is likely to become a dominate factor in climate change anytime in the foreseeable future -- that sort of overreach only weakens the argument.

/ I also understand that deniers aren't really interested in logical arguments
// Still not an excuse to overstep the actual science
 
2012-10-14 08:51:46 AM  
And of course the real argument ought to be not whether humans are causing climate change, but how much we should spend (i.e. what we should do) to try to stop climate change, regardless of the cause.
 
2012-10-14 08:53:53 AM  

Baryogenesis: Ready-set: Ahhrrghhgh!!! The hole on the ozone layer!!!

Oh wait, that was the BS in the 80's. What are we pretending at now? Any hippie types want to make a difference, stop eating red meat. Cow gas is THE major cause. Or is that not 'sexy'...

Actually, the depletion of the ozone layer is a great example of a problem that was solved through sensible international cooperation and regulation.

It is believed that if the international agreement is adhered to, the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050.[1] Due to its widespread adoption and implementation it has been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation, with Kofi Annan quoted as saying that "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol".[2]


I'm curious whether the current political climate would have allowed such a successful response, were the ozone layer to become an issue today.
 
2012-10-14 08:56:37 AM  

profplump: And of course the real argument ought to be not whether humans are causing climate change, but how much we should spend (i.e. what we should do) to try to stop climate change, regardless of the cause.


Clearly, and far and away the number one factor affecting any detriment humans may be to the environment is population growth.

And yet, NO politician is advocating population growth curbs in policy.

Which just shows they don't really take it seriously.
 
2012-10-14 11:00:31 AM  

GAT_00: notmtwain: This proves global warming.

Actually, it does. Moisture content increases exponentially with temperature. Since the average temp in Antarctica is still far below freezing, but increasing, snow and ice is building up at a higher rate.


Oh Really?
"David Bromwich of Ohio State University has studied the history of snowfall over Antarctica over the past 50 years and found his results don't match the predictions of most climate warming models.

David Bromwich: There were increases in some decades in some places, and decreases in the same places. There was lots of variability, but essentially no significant trend going on in snowfall variation.

And again that result is unexpected because computer models show snowfall increasing as climate warms. "
 
2012-10-14 11:20:02 AM  

born_yesterday: Baryogenesis: Ready-set: Ahhrrghhgh!!! The hole on the ozone layer!!!

Oh wait, that was the BS in the 80's. What are we pretending at now? Any hippie types want to make a difference, stop eating red meat. Cow gas is THE major cause. Or is that not 'sexy'...

Actually, the depletion of the ozone layer is a great example of a problem that was solved through sensible international cooperation and regulation.

It is believed that if the international agreement is adhered to, the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050.[1] Due to its widespread adoption and implementation it has been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation, with Kofi Annan quoted as saying that "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol".[2]

I'm curious whether the current political climate would have allowed such a successful response, were the ozone layer to become an issue today.


The big difference is there were replacements for the gasses ready to go and keep the refrigerators and car air-conditioners in production. No such replacement is ready to go to replace carbon. With the growing battery technology, and nuclear energy, we may see a future that doesn't need to burn carbon for our energy. That time is just not near enough.
 
2012-10-14 11:47:06 AM  

profplump: That's theoretically possible, but take a second to compare the scale of the natural changes to even the worst-case-scenario changes predicted from anthropomorphic climate change over the next say, 500 years. To the best of my knowledge no one is legitimately predicting human activity to have a change on a scale larger than the sorts of natural changes we've already seen.


Changes in anthropogenic radiative forcings are already responsible for basically all of the warming since 1950[1]. I think you're dramatically overestimating the net natural radiative forcings over the period in question.

[1]Huber, M., and R. Knutti (2012), Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance, Nature Geoscience, 5(1), 31-36, doi:10.1038/ngeo1327.
 
2012-10-14 11:55:33 AM  

MarkEC: The big difference is there were replacements for the gasses ready to go and keep the refrigerators and car air-conditioners in production. No such replacement is ready to go to replace carbon.


That's wrong. DuPont (who produced the replacement chemicals) did not have a market-competitive alternative ready to go. Rather, the threat of regulation made chemicals that had been previously seen as too expensive to pursue look like plausible alternatives. It's a bit like saying that solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies now are not viable because they can't compete economically with fossil fuels. With regulation properly pricing in the externalities of fossil fuel use, existing potential alternatives seen as too expensive now would become viable.

SevenizGud: far and away the number one factor affecting any detriment humans may be to the environment is population growth.


Consumption habits + population are far more important than population growth. If everyone alive ca. 2005 (~6 billion) consumed like Americans, it would exceed the net terrestrial productivity of the entire earth. 9 billion people consuming less has far less of an impact.

Educating women and giving them control over their reproductive health will slow population growth and is absolutely something considered in mitigation plans. It's just not that big of a potential GHG savings compared to transitioning to a cleaner energy global infrastructure.
 
2012-10-14 12:31:16 PM  

Jon Snow: Consumption habits + population are far more important than population growth. If everyone alive ca. 2005 (~6 billion) consumed like Americans, it would exceed the net terrestrial productivity of the entire earth. 9 billion people consuming less has far less of an impact.

Educating women and giving them control over their reproductive health will slow population growth and is absolutely something considered in mitigation plans. It's just not that big of a potential GHG savings compared to transitioning to a cleaner energy global infrastructure.


I guess what I should have said is that we should extinguish the human species, just to be sure. If our population is zero, then our environmental impact would be minimized. You'd agree with that, right?
 
2012-10-14 12:43:00 PM  

Jon Snow: profplump: That's theoretically possible, but take a second to compare the scale of the natural changes to even the worst-case-scenario changes predicted from anthropomorphic climate change over the next say, 500 years. To the best of my knowledge no one is legitimately predicting human activity to have a change on a scale larger than the sorts of natural changes we've already seen.

Changes in anthropogenic radiative forcings are already responsible for basically all of the warming since 1950[1]. I think you're dramatically overestimating the net natural radiative forcings over the period in question.

[1]Huber, M., and R. Knutti (2012), Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance, Nature Geoscience, 5(1), 31-36, doi:10.1038/ngeo1327.


I think his point was something like:
"This is Steve. Steve is climate change. We should all hate Steve. F*ck you, Steve."
 
2012-10-14 01:02:21 PM  
but georgie bush jr and pals said that global warming is liberal lies.
 
2012-10-14 01:11:25 PM  

profplump: common sense is an oxymoron: much less that human activity can actually become a dominant factor.

That's theoretically possible, but take a second to compare the scale of the natural changes to even the worst-case-scenario changes predicted from anthropomorphic climate change over the next say, 500 years. To the best of my knowledge no one is legitimately predicting human activity to have a change on a scale larger than the sorts of natural changes we've already seen.


Agreed. Neither am I.

The rate of change might be higher, and certainly if the human-driven change is in the same direction as the natural change it could make the extremes more extreme/etc., but it seems disingenuous to look at historical changes and current climate change models and declare that human activity is likely to become a dominate factor in climate change anytime in the foreseeable future -- that sort of overreach only weakens the argument.

/ I also understand that deniers aren't really interested in logical arguments
// Still not an excuse to overstep the actual science


Except that, right now, CO2 (or, as you pointed out, the ongoing CHANGE in CO2 levels) is indeed the primary factor driving atmospheric temperature. The increase in CO2 has broken the correlation between temperature and solar output:

www.climate-skeptic.com

In addition, the recent decline in Arctic ice coverage correlates far more strongly with changes in CO2 than with other possible drivers:

i1054.photobucket.com

These climate changes may not be record-breaking in terms of Earth's history, but they certainly are in terms of our modern civilization and its infrastructure, at the present time CO2 level does appear to be the single most important agent driving these changes.
 
2012-10-14 01:13:11 PM  
These climate changes may not be record-breaking in terms of Earth's history, but they certainly are in terms of our modern civilization and its infrastructure, and at the present time CO2 level does appear to be the single most important agent driving these changes.

FTFM
 
2012-10-14 01:25:37 PM  

Jon Snow: That's wrong. DuPont (who produced the replacement chemicals) did not have a market-competitive alternative ready to go. Rather, the threat of regulation made chemicals that had been previously seen as too expensive to pursue look like plausible alternatives. It's a bit like saying that solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies now are not viable because they can't compete economically with fossil fuels. With regulation properly pricing in the externalities of fossil fuel use, existing potential alternatives seen as too expensive now would become viable.


The price of a refrigerator going up by several percent is something that was not too hard to swallow. We only buy one every 10 or so years. If the technology wasn't there, we would not have gone without refrigeration to save the O-Zone. We buy gas and electricity far more often. It's also not the price alone that is keeping replacements from happening quicker now. Land use and the NIMBY factor are much stronger forces, since even among those that support reducing carbon usage, the technologies that can replace carbon are fought because of environmental impact. Until there is an alternative that fits both the expense and the environmental factors, carbon is going to be used.
 
2012-10-14 01:30:30 PM  

SevenizGud: I love how my quoting of the NASA data verbatim, and even including the URL so anyone can check is "lies".

Nothing says lies like the NASA data itself.

Oh wait....



Here's the introductory paragraph from your source website:

Welcome to WoodForTrees.org. This site hosts some C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data.

In other words, it's a sandbox in which anyone can create custom graphs of global temperature data. The data may be accurate, but (as has been pointed out every time you post your graph) your graph is nothing more than a textbook illustration of cherry-picking.
 
2012-10-14 01:35:28 PM  

SevenizGud: profplump: And of course the real argument ought to be not whether humans are causing climate change, but how much we should spend (i.e. what we should do) to try to stop climate change, regardless of the cause.

Clearly, and far and away the number one factor affecting any detriment humans may be to the environment is population growth.

And yet, NO politician is advocating population growth curbs in policy.

Which just shows they don't really take it seriously understand that it would be political suicide.


FTFY.

Funny how it's the conservatives who are both in denial of anthropogenic climate change AND opposed to contraception.
 
2012-10-14 01:53:32 PM  

MarkEC: It's also not the price alone that is keeping replacements from happening quicker now. Land use and the NIMBY factor are much stronger forces, since even among those that support reducing carbon usage, the technologies that can replace carbon are fought because of environmental impact.


NIMBYism is largely based on perceptions of the good something does relative to its harm or inconvenience, as well as its cost. It's not a fixed and unchangeable value. People who say they are against wind turbines being built nearby who are educated about the good they do change their minds. NIMBYism is surmountable.

The idea that we currently lack the technology to move away from fossil fuels is just not true[1][2][3][4][5].

The idea that it's too expensive depends on fossil fuels not reflecting their unpriced externalities.

[1]Pacala, S., and R. Socolow (2004), Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, Science, 305(5686), 968-972, doi:10.1126/science.1100103.
[2] Grieshop, A. P., C. C. O. Reynolds, M. Kandlikar, and H. Dowlatabadi (2009), A black-carbon mitigation wedge, Nature Geoscience, 2(8), 533-534, doi:10.1038/ngeo595.
[3] Nolon, J. R. (2009), The Land Use Stabilization Wedge Strategy: Shifting Ground to Mitigate Climate Change, SSRN eLibrary.
[4] Dietz, T., G. T. Gardner, J. Gilligan, P. C. Stern, and M. P. Vandenbergh (2009), Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions, PNAS, 106(44), 18452-18456, doi:10.1073/pnas.0908738106.
[5] Bahor, B., M. V. Brunt, J. Stovall, and K. Blue (2009), Integrated waste management as a climate change stabilization wedge, Waste Manag Res, 27(9), 839-849, doi:10.1177/0734242X09350485.
 
2012-10-14 01:59:41 PM  

SevenizGud: I guess what I should have said is that we should extinguish the human species, just to be sure. If our population is zero, then our environmental impact would be minimized. You'd agree with that, right?


The desired outcome is maximum human and ecological well-being at the least cost. So no, I don't agree.

Also, painting those realistic about the future cost to humanity of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions as anti-human is so amusing coming from people who (implicitly or explicitly) advocate the continued burning of coal and dung for fuel and the enormous negative health consequences that follow.

Please don't take this as an actual response to you. I know that you're just trolling. I'm responding for those who might mistakenly think your arguments have merit.
 
2012-10-14 02:38:26 PM  

Jon Snow: The desired outcome is maximum human and ecological well-being at the least cost.


I couldn't agree more with that statement. We have the 3rd world rapidly growing into 1st world standards with the internet and cell phones. Energy needs will necessarily increase dramatically. Regardless of whether CO2 will cause the world to heat up, we have just as much reason to not let it go up too much for our own health. We would not want to live in a world with over 1000ppm.
Do you doubt that in 100 years, energy technology will have advanced well beyond fossil fuels? I don't. Mr. Fusion may not be just around the corner, but I fully believe we will get there. The pace may not be as fast as some would like, but it will happen, and life will go on.
 
2012-10-14 07:29:06 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Here's the introductory paragraph from your source website:

Welcome to WoodForTrees.org. This site hosts some C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data.

In other words, it's a sandbox in which anyone can create custom graphs of global temperature data. The data may be accurate, but (as has been pointed out every time you post your graph) your graph is nothing more than a textbook illustration of cherry-picking.


Except that my source website, you know, has nothing to do with woodfortrees.org, and instead, you know, the source data comes from, you know, NASA. Uhm, maybe putting the URL right on the FARKing graphic itself wasn't enough for you. Errr...no mayb about it.

But since you won't understand even that much, let me say it in a way that even you will understand:

durf hurp derrrrr, hurrp durp drrrrrrrr huh huh hueffff durrffff hurf.
 
2012-10-14 07:31:03 PM  

Jon Snow: Also, painting those realistic about the future cost to humanity of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions as anti-human is so amusing coming from people who (implicitly or explicitly) advocate the continued burning of coal and dung for fuel and the enormous negative health consequences that follow.


Don't look at me, Holmes. If I had my way, we would have been 100% nuke 40 years ago.
 
2012-10-14 11:53:35 PM  

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: Here's the introductory paragraph from your source website:

Welcome to WoodForTrees.org. This site hosts some C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data.

In other words, it's a sandbox in which anyone can create custom graphs of global temperature data. The data may be accurate, but (as has been pointed out every time you post your graph) your graph is nothing more than a textbook illustration of cherry-picking.

Except that my source website, you know, has nothing to do with woodfortrees.org, and instead, you know, the source data comes from, you know, NASA. Uhm, maybe putting the URL right on the FARKing graphic itself wasn't enough for you. Errr...no mayb about it.

But since you won't understand even that much, let me say it in a way that even you will understand:

durf hurp derrrrr, hurrp durp drrrrrrrr huh huh hueffff durrffff hurf.



Really? Are you denying having laid your choice steamer of a woodfortrees.org graph in every AWG thread you could find for the past few months? Maybe this will refresh your memory:

Link

Putting a new label on it doesn't change the fact that you're still peddling the same old cherry-picked crap.
 
2012-10-15 01:07:12 PM  
Scientists with the NSIDC have noted that the growth in Antarctic sea ice does not disprove global warming. For one thing, the two hemispheres are in opposite seasons; the geology between the Arctic and Antarctic is also different, leading to different effects on sea ice. The ozone hole may also be linked, as it influenced the atmospheric circulation, and therefore the winds, above Antarctica.

No matter what one may think about AGW inclusion of that statement is stupid.
 
Displayed 24 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report