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.

(Daily Mail)   Global warming stopped 16 years ago, so fire up the Corvette and go out and have some fun laughing at the drivers of Smart Cars   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Met Office, smart cars, corvettes, global warming, Phil Jones, climate variability, energy minister, temperatures  
•       •       •

5071 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Oct 2012 at 1:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-14 10:20:00 AM
I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.
 
2012-10-14 10:42:32 AM
lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.
 
2012-10-14 10:49:58 AM
It's the Daily Mail.

It's done for journalism what Jerry Sandusky did for college football.
 
2012-10-14 12:46:50 PM
I'm sorry, it's not "global warming," anymore it's "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" (TM). Who is to say that the warming cycle wasn't part of the natural way of things and human activity didn't stop it?
 
2012-10-14 01:12:34 PM
icons.wxug.com

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.
 
2012-10-14 01:14:42 PM
whyfiles.org
 
2012-10-14 01:27:44 PM

GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.


Silly lib, it's thirty degrees colder now in October than it was in June and July. Therefore global warming is false, Sarah Palin is automatically president, and free oil wells and clean coal deposits for everyone.
 
2012-10-14 01:31:36 PM
Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication
 
2012-10-14 01:38:15 PM

Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.


It sounds like you WANT global warming?

Must say though that the numbers show rising temperatures did stop 16 years ago. Whether it`s a plateau or whatever reason, the warming has stopped according to the met office. 4 more years and it`s significant according to some.

headline and sub headlines :

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"
 
2012-10-14 01:39:50 PM

LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication


Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.
 
2012-10-14 01:42:03 PM
ZAZ: I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.

As a 2 seater subcompact it has worse gas mileage(32 mpg) than many 4 seater compacts, and not that much better than many mid sized and full sized cars, unless you are buying it for parallel parking in a large city its more like the dumb car than the smart car.
 
2012-10-14 01:43:03 PM

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


This was a UK publication.
 
2012-10-14 01:45:31 PM

Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.


Nope. We're saying lets fire up the big old van that gets 12mpg and let's go chase smart cars down the highway
 
2012-10-14 01:45:54 PM
Just think, we might be making the world a better place to live for nothing.

Oh wait.
 
2012-10-14 01:49:11 PM
Well gee I'm glad we've settled that!
 
2012-10-14 01:49:18 PM
Even if global warming didn't exist, oil reserves are finite and mostly tied to a part of the world that is plagued with unrest. It is in the nation's interest to pursue alternative fuel and electric vehicles, climate change or none. Since we'll never be able to cover our need for petroleum with domestic sources, I'd go so far as to say that pursuing renewable energy and vehicles to take advantage of them is a matter of national security and should be treated as such from a funding point of view. We don't want another oil crisis crippling our nation like in the 70s.
 
2012-10-14 01:57:22 PM
Oddly enough, a Smart probably pollutes more than a Corvette.

Has to do with the weighting involved in the emissions testing. Also, Corvettes are absurdly fuel-efficient for what they are.
 
2012-10-14 02:10:59 PM

Mister Peejay: Oddly enough, a Smart probably pollutes more than a Corvette.

Has to do with the weighting involved in the emissions testing. Also, Corvettes are absurdly fuel-efficient for what they are.


Yup. They deactivate half the cylinders in the engine when they are not needed, like cruising at stead speeds.

/Still would buy a GM, they are less trustworthy than...well almost anyone else
 
2012-10-14 02:12:10 PM
This is what happens when science gets mixed with politics.

This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-10-14 02:13:46 PM
Well that wasn't a completely useless article, you just have to read it carefully and prise the op-ed components away from the actual reporting. But the first implication ('hey, lookit, global warming stopped... ya think maybe it's over for good???') and the final comments (butthurt about the 'denier' label combined with his own labeling other viewpoints as "catastrophist") kinda ruin any pretense of seeking after truth, here.

We'd be better served if models had been explored with a little more depth. What are their shortcomings? Are they even supposed to accurately predict what's going to happen in a given 16 year period? That last question seems like the obvious one that's raised by the data, I have no idea what the answer is, I'd really like to know, and the article does absolutely nothing about getting to the bottom of it. Mr. David Rose is either a lazy journalist, or a disingenuous one, or maybe a whole lot of both.

And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

i.dailymail.co.uk
"This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station."

No, it doesn't. That's water vapor billowing out of cooling towers.
 
2012-10-14 02:17:43 PM

GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.


So now GW is a myth? You guys were telling us that it did exist but was natural. Which is it?

How can you believe things that contradict each other?
 
2012-10-14 02:24:13 PM
From NOAA site:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2012 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F). This is the fourth warmest July since records began in 1880.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for July 2012 was the third warmest July on record, at 0.92°C (1.66°F) above average.


Article full of shiat cherry picking. If I can draw a line from any arbitrary points I can make up anything. GW is about a trend not saying every year will always get warmer every time, every where.
 
2012-10-14 02:25:34 PM

phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --


I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.
 
2012-10-14 02:31:23 PM

Mad_Radhu: Even if global warming didn't exist, oil reserves are finite and mostly tied to a part of the world that is plagued with unrest. It is in the nation's interest to pursue alternative fuel and electric vehicles, climate change or none. Since we'll never be able to cover our need for petroleum with domestic sources, I'd go so far as to say that pursuing renewable energy and vehicles to take advantage of them is a matter of national security and should be treated as such from a funding point of view. We don't want another oil crisis crippling our nation like in the 70s.


the nation was not crippled in the 70s. I should know, I was there.

What do you know about national security?

A battery operated M1 would just not work well on the battlefield. Neither would a battery operated fighter plane work well above the battlefield. Yes, I went to an absurd point but there is no way to build effective fighting vehicles that use renewable energy of any kind.

Oil reserves are finite, we only have a few hundred years left before they dry up.
 
2012-10-14 02:32:36 PM

OregonVet: phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.


Actually, TFA is technically right. It's a power station, and in the upper-left corner is a stack with smoke coming out. The fact that most of the picture is cooling towers and water vapour is just a coincidence.
 
2012-10-14 02:33:50 PM

spelletrader: Just think, we might be making the world a better place to live for nothing.

Oh wait.


When you make a comment like that, you are only showing that you have no idea concerning the proposals to fix the "problem". It has nothing to do with cleaner air, cleaner water or cleaner anything. It is not about electric cars or bio-fuels. I would suggest that you read the actual proposals at the IPCC web site.
 
2012-10-14 02:33:54 PM

Corvus: GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.

So now GW is a myth? You guys were telling us that it did exist but was natural. Which is it?

How can you believe things that contradict each other?


i575.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-14 02:36:34 PM

unyon: OregonVet: phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.

Actually, TFA is technically right. It's a power station, and in the upper-left corner is a stack with smoke coming out. The fact that most of the picture is cooling towers and water vapour is just a coincidence.



Hey, look --

www.adrants.com

It's an umbrella!
 
2012-10-14 02:44:34 PM

Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.


"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996."
 
2012-10-14 02:46:49 PM

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


Americans are less gullible?
 
2012-10-14 02:48:18 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.

This was a UK publication.


Forget it Jake, he's an envirotard.
 
2012-10-14 02:51:34 PM

phaseolus: unyon: OregonVet: phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.

Actually, TFA is technically right. It's a power station, and in the upper-left corner is a stack with smoke coming out. The fact that most of the picture is cooling towers and water vapour is just a coincidence.


Hey, look --

[www.adrants.com image 500x333]

It's an umbrella!


No. That's 11 umbrellas. The shorts don't count.
 
2012-10-14 02:55:08 PM
Oil reserves about to dry up in "hundreds of years" is no motivation for people who deny global warming (typically Republicans) to change up the status quo. Their planning isn't for thinking that far in the future. They can barely think a year or two into the future as to what unfunded wars and massive tax reductions primarily favoring the rich will do to the deficit.

Also, whether or not global warming is real, we should be looking for cleaner sustainable energy sources to make sure the environment is not totally trashed for our progeny. China's high level of pollution due to lack of environmental regulation does not make it a wonderland, it makes it a place where there's increased lung diseases and other illnesses related to being exposed to toxic waste. Reduction of pollution internationally will increase quality of life for flora and fauna globally.

Personally, I wonder if melting glaciers would actually eventually yield more arable land, but the issue is that it will take thousands of years for everything to melt anyway, so drought, pestilence in famine probably will be the interim between the two, which is not acceptable. If we're able to do something about it, we should.

Also, as for the water vapor coming from the nuclear plants, water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is. Nuclear power will not work in all places due to it's large water requirements for cooling not to mention the challenge of taking care of spent rods.

There is no truly neutral energy source. All forms of energy require mining at some point for materials and all forms modify the environment somehow. Solar panels take up massive amounts of space, wind power mixes the air and kills birds (though at a lower rate than cats do), hydro-power messes with fish reproduction oil and coal pollute the air and their harvesting can be dangerous.

I'm not saying "give up on electricity," I'm saying there's no perfect solution, the best we can do is to try to limit the impact as much as possible of our energy needs on the planet.

Also, it annoys me when people attribute things like the drought and heatwaves in the south western US and the flooding in Australia recently to global warming when in fact it was La Niña that has this effect on both locales.
 
2012-10-14 02:56:46 PM
Bontesla:
lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.

It sucks when people diss your religion, doesn't it?

Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too. More bad news: Soon, we'll start cooling for a couple decades. From the article:


i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-10-14 03:01:55 PM
ghare:
LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.

Yeah, go for it -- what's one more lie?

With the exception of the U.S. and G.B., most of the world is highly skeptical of AGW alarmism.

And, the planet is taking a dump on your pet hypothesis as we speak.
 
2012-10-14 03:06:26 PM
Actually, on further reflection, this is bad news for the deniers. The old cherry-picked graphs showed a small decline over the past decade or so. If the best the Daily Fail can come up with now is no change...

I forecast this thread to heat up.
 
2012-10-14 03:08:22 PM
Corvus:
So now GW is a myth? You guys were telling us that it did exist but was natural. Which is it?

Need some help? Okay. All true:

1. The planet WAS warming.
2. That warming started BEFORE the industrial revolution, and was natural, almost completely.
3. Human activities almost certainly contributed a TINY bit to the warming.
4. The warming has ended, and the current steady temperature is temporary.
5. The future holds decades of cooling, starting about now.
 
2012-10-14 03:17:02 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
dready zim: Sevenizgud will cream his pants when he sees this thread...

No shiat.

And I see the thread has now gone green (as opposed to having been greenlit).

Meanwhile...

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341] 

/oblig

Oh, yes, DO tell us how other people think.

Don't cherry-pick the time scale. We are in an ice age, in one of the brief interglacial periods.

And, we're almost done with it, and will be back in a major glaciation soon. Here's what it looks like. Where's your global warming god now?


earthintime.com
 
2012-10-14 03:24:00 PM

Oldiron_79: As a 2 seater subcompact it has worse gas mileage(32 mpg) than many 4 seater compacts, and not that much better than many mid sized and full sized cars, unless you are buying it for parallel parking in a large city its more like the dumb car than the smart car.


It's made by Daimler, makers of Mercedes Benz. Of course it's going to cost you more than you expected or what they lead folks to believe.
Smart Car=Hungry Mercedes.
/hungry hungry, eat eat.
//especially if you count repairs
 
2012-10-14 03:32:17 PM

Mister Peejay: Oddly enough, a Smart probably pollutes more than a Corvette.

Has to do with the weighting involved in the emissions testing. Also, Corvettes are absurdly fuel-efficient for what they are.


But until you get to that highway, not so much.
1990 Corvette combined mpg: 18.
2012 Corvette combined mpg: 18.

www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1990_Chevrolet_Corvette.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/.../2012_Chevrolet_Corvette.shtml
 
2012-10-14 03:36:35 PM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: dready zim: Sevenizgud will cream his pants when he sees this thread...

No shiat.

And I see the thread has now gone green (as opposed to having been greenlit).

Meanwhile...

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341] 

/oblig
Oh, yes, DO tell us how other people think.

Don't cherry-pick the time scale. We are in an ice age, in one of the brief interglacial periods.

And, we're almost done with it, and will be back in a major glaciation soon. Here's what it looks like. Where's your global warming god now?

[earthintime.com image 506x286]



Your graph shows a "Holocene high-low difference" in temperature of no more than 1C. You also claim that the anthropogenic effects on climate are trivial.

Unfortunately, this contradicts some of your most cherished supporting links, like these:

Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests, 2.0 to 4.5 K, at 66% certainty. Data from OBSERVATIONS show the least sensitivity, "data" from models show the most.

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)

An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Observational - Sensitivity: (1.7 to 2.3 K)

Probabilistic estimated of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: (Most Likely: 1.6 K, Range: 1.3 to 2.6 K, 90% certainty)

The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: 0.7-2.4 K using best fit, 1.0-3.6 K using worst case

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Analysis of other papers - Sensitivity: Upper limit of 4.5 K, > 95% certainty


So even your own sources, the ones you cite to minimize the effects of CO2, predict an anthropogenic warming effect which is greater than the entire natural Holocene temperature range.

This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to take you seriously. You post self-contradictory claims; then, instead of acknowledging the inconsistency and trying to find better evidence, you get upset and defensive when these contradictions are pointed out. Soon, a new AGW thread appears, and the whole sorry spectacle repeats itself.
 
2012-10-14 03:40:38 PM

GeneralJim: Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.
It sucks when people diss your religion, doesn't it?

Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too. More bad news: Soon, we'll start cooling for a couple decades. From the article:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 644x358]



Cherrypicking two points in a chart with a lot of variability and scatter doesn't "prove" anything. Just like starting in 2000 and ending in mid-2006 didn't "prove" that the earth is heating up 1 degree per year. And that's why nobody suggested that.
 
2012-10-14 03:42:21 PM
Deniers have sufficiently poisoned the well to the point that we will never do anything meaningful to combat climate change.
 
2012-10-14 03:45:02 PM
For the record, the temperature increase over the last 100 years or so just happens to be about 1C:

www.giss.nasa.gov

In just the last century, temperatures have increased enough to offset what is supposedly 8000 years of Holocene cooling. Funny how that doesn't show up on GeneralJim's graph.
 
2012-10-14 03:47:10 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to take you seriously.


Why do you take him seriously at all?
 
2012-10-14 03:50:10 PM
At this point, deniers are just a bunch of willfully ignorant arsewipes. Nothing more.
 
2012-10-14 03:56:51 PM

ohokyeah: water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is.


How can that be? Arizona is both really dry and really hot. The Sahara Desert is really dry and really hot.
 
2012-10-14 03:57:46 PM
 
2012-10-14 04:00:49 PM

GAT_00: common sense is an oxymoron: This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to take you seriously.

Why do you take him seriously at all?



I don't, but some people apparently do, or at least he claims to have convinced people. And while it may be a lost cause...


crab66: Deniers have sufficiently poisoned the well to the point that we will never do anything meaningful to combat climate change.



...I have a hard time letting that kind of shiat go unchallenged, especially when his defense is to call his opponents names, then simply repeat himself EVEN LOUDER.
 
2012-10-14 04:05:37 PM
Sure it did. Idiots.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report