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 Register)   Swedish scientists claim ice age is coming, only CO2 can save us. Norway that's happening, man. Norway   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 151
    More: Unlikely, carbon dioxide, Swedish, ice ages, Little Ice Age, warm period, University of Gothenburg, atmospheric carbon dioxide, quiet period  
•       •       •

2870 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Nov 2012 at 7:34 PM (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
 
2012-11-10 06:51:12 PM  
Swedish scientists claim ice age is coming

The sun's zooming in;
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin?

/i live by the river
 
2012-11-10 06:51:55 PM  
someone needs to double check their math
 
2012-11-10 07:06:07 PM  
perhaps explaining why temperatures have been merely flat for the last 15 years or so, rather than descending.

Aaaaaaaaannd flaming bullshiat.
 
2012-11-10 07:16:54 PM  

RodneyToady: Swedish scientists claim ice age is coming

The sun's zooming in;
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin?

/i live by the river


Nice catch.
 
2012-11-10 07:40:52 PM  
"CO2, save us. You're our only hope."
www.pocobor.com
 
2012-11-10 07:48:50 PM  
That would be pretty peculiar, considering that glacial periods have been occurring on a 100,000 year cycle for some time now and the last one ended what, 13,000 years ago? I think somebody misplaced a decimal point somewhere along the line.
 
2012-11-10 08:00:21 PM  
FTMFA: The scientists have calculated that the potential is there for Swedish peatlands to triple in extent, enormously increasing their carbon sink effect. By extrapolating to include the rest of the world's high-latitude temperate areas - the parts of the globe where peatland can expand as it does in Sweden - they project the creation of an extremely powerful carbon sink.

The CO2-sink effect of peatlands is real, but it's not restricted to those in high latitudes, and peatlands worldwide are on the decline as they are harvested for fuel and drained for development.

2/10

Nevertheless, this argument will soon "go green."
 
2012-11-10 08:02:20 PM  
Norway, Swedish scientists, you're Finnished.
 
2012-11-10 08:07:55 PM  

Dorf11: Norway, Swedish scientists, you're Finnished.


You would doom them to live in an Iceland?
 
2012-11-10 08:16:29 PM  
The effects of carbon dioxide level changes on planetary temperature are negligible. We'll need a better "savior" than that.
The ice age (technically, a major glaciation) IS coming - probably in about 1500 years.
 
2012-11-10 08:17:00 PM  
Re: peat
 
2012-11-10 08:22:20 PM  
malaktaus
That would be pretty peculiar, considering that glacial periods have been occurring on a 100,000 year cycle for some time now and the last one ended what, 13,000 years ago? I think somebody misplaced a decimal point somewhere along the line.

It is roughly a 110,000 year cycle, but only 10-20 thousand of that is interglacial, like now. MOST of the time spent in a geological ice age is spent in a colloquial ice age. Until the planet warms up, after we leave the galactic arm, we will be in a cycle like this.
 
2012-11-10 08:24:40 PM  
I'm looking forward to a calm, reasonable and polite discussion on this topic.
 
2012-11-10 08:24:50 PM  
Do your part. Hyperventilate.
 
2012-11-10 08:26:05 PM  
Working to solve the graph shortage:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-10 08:40:03 PM  
Just more scientists trying to push the obvious lie that CO2 has any impact at all on the climate. Amirite, my republican brethren?
 
2012-11-10 08:40:51 PM  
Bah. Repeat from 1977:

www.kiwiblog.co.nz
 
2012-11-10 08:42:35 PM  
Hey look it's Mr. Special Green Text, now with more out of context and cropped graphs!
 
2012-11-10 08:42:58 PM  

untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]


Fake.
 
2012-11-10 08:44:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]

Fake.


No, really?

bbsimg.ngfiles.com
 
2012-11-10 08:45:08 PM  

untaken_name: LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]

Fake.

No, really?

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 452x339]


What can I say? GW deniers still try to pull this one over on people.
 
2012-11-10 08:48:54 PM  

GeneralJim: The effects of carbon dioxide level changes on planetary temperature are negligible. We'll need a better "savior" than that.
The ice age (technically, a major glaciation) IS coming - probably in about 1500 years.



And Romney will win the popular vote, 54.5% to 45.5%. Right?

Your problem is that you believe in data that fits your preconceptions rather than reality.


GeneralJim: Working to solve the graph shortage:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 570x475]



And no matter how many times you've been shown that your data and/or your interpretation of it is wrong, you persist in saying the same old things in the same old way.

These two things aren't unrelated. When will you learn that reality isn't something that adjusts to your wishes?
 
2012-11-10 08:59:44 PM  
Good, I'd like it to bloody snow for once like when I was a kid.
 
2012-11-10 09:01:31 PM  

Kazan: someone needs to double check their math


Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?
 
2012-11-10 09:05:29 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]

Fake.

No, really?

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 452x339]

What can I say? GW deniers still try to pull this one over on people.


Tsk. You should capitalize the "D." As in" "LOOK! Over there! A nest of Global Warming Deniers! STONE THEM! PUT THEM IN REEDUCATION CAMPS!"

See? That is SO much more effective.
 
2012-11-10 09:06:28 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


Religious people scare me.
 
2012-11-10 09:12:08 PM  
I'll take the word of a non scientist over a real scientist any day
 
2012-11-10 09:25:58 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?



All you have to do is read the article. They looked at expanding peatlands in Norway and extrapolated that trend while ignoring the global data, which shows that peatlands are actually shrinking on a global basis. Not only is the CO2 sink getting smaller, but burning peat is an active contributor to atmospheric CO2, so what's presented as a potential offset to warming (changes in peatland area) is in reality a twofold contributor.

The basic facts in the article are correct (peatlands do act as CO2 sinks, and they are expanding in Norway). Unfortunately, the extrapolated conclusion (expanding peatlands will suck up enough CO2 to trigger a new glaciation) is contradicted by other basic facts which are conveniently left unmentioned.
 
2012-11-10 09:52:56 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?


It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?
 
2012-11-10 10:02:19 PM  
it's too early for an ice age, we don't have a country in space
or flying ramjet space craft either

I'm not looking to rescuing angels off the ice
 
2012-11-10 10:15:14 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


All you have to do is read the article. They looked at expanding peatlands in Norway and extrapolated that trend while ignoring the global data, which shows that peatlands are actually shrinking on a global basis. Not only is the CO2 sink getting smaller, but burning peat is an active contributor to atmospheric CO2, so what's presented as a potential offset to warming (changes in peatland area) is in reality a twofold contributor.

The basic facts in the article are correct (peatlands do act as CO2 sinks, and they are expanding in Norway). Unfortunately, the extrapolated conclusion (expanding peatlands will suck up enough CO2 to trigger a new glaciation) is contradicted by other basic facts which are conveniently left unmentioned.


precisely.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


i'm an earth sciences nerd, and i CAN farkING READ AND DO BASIC MATH.
 
2012-11-10 10:16:42 PM  
Didn't Niven and Pournelle write about this one?

i43.tower.com
 
2012-11-10 10:17:35 PM  

untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.


People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.
 
2012-11-10 10:19:17 PM  

Kazan: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


All you have to do is read the article. They looked at expanding peatlands in Norway and extrapolated that trend while ignoring the global data, which shows that peatlands are actually shrinking on a global basis. Not only is the CO2 sink getting smaller, but burning peat is an active contributor to atmospheric CO2, so what's presented as a potential offset to warming (changes in peatland area) is in reality a twofold contributor.

The basic facts in the article are correct (peatlands do act as CO2 sinks, and they are expanding in Norway). Unfortunately, the extrapolated conclusion (expanding peatlands will suck up enough CO2 to trigger a new glaciation) is contradicted by other basic facts which are conveniently left unmentioned.

precisely.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

i'm an earth sciences nerd, and i CAN farkING READ AND DO BASIC MATH.


I'm sure you can. But did you gather and enterpet the data yourself?
 
2012-11-10 10:20:47 PM  

RedVentrue: People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.


That's what I said. Religious people scare me.
 
2012-11-10 10:25:46 PM  

RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.



People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.
 
2012-11-10 10:54:04 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.


What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.
 
2012-11-10 11:02:47 PM  

RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.


*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.
 
2012-11-10 11:24:02 PM  

Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.


The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?
 
2012-11-10 11:28:09 PM  

RedVentrue: The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?


*are you farking kidding me look*

CO2 and temperature record show situations where one leads and the other follows, for both. It's called a self-reinforcing cycle. Some CO2 sinks don't work as well (or at all) when they get to warm.
 
2012-11-10 11:30:05 PM  
I'd rather it got warmer instead of colder. Warmer means we have more arable land. Colder means we start having problems feeding everyone.

Climates going to change. That's why it's climate
 
2012-11-10 11:51:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?

It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?


Well.... except for the inconvenient fact that not 100% of all climatologists agree that global warming even exists. I was making the distinction between those climatologists and the GW religious fanatics.
 
2012-11-10 11:51:30 PM  

RedVentrue: Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.

The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?



Link to an explanation (original sources included).

The periodic temperature spikes observed in the ice-core data are driven by Earth's rotational and orbital cycles, but their effect is greatly amplified by the CO2 released as a result. It's a two-stage process: Changes in Earth's rotation and orbit have a modest effect on temperature and CO2; the increased CO2 then triggers more significant additional warming of its own. As noted in the link, this initial CO2 lag and subsequent amplification was first predicted over 20 years ago.

This isn't some new discovery disproving the old global-warming paradigm, it's a handful of feathers and lube from the Politics tab.
 
2012-11-10 11:54:24 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.


???? So concern about the unintended consequences of fanatical meddling to "fix" something that has not yet been proven all of a sudden = fundamentalist religious belief? Really? Really?
 
2012-11-10 11:55:29 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?

It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?

Well.... except for the inconvenient fact that not 100% of all climatologists agree that global warming even exists. I was making the distinction between those climatologists and the GW religious fanatics.



Three percent of climatologists are GW religious fanatics (whatever the fark they are)?
 
2012-11-11 12:02:47 AM  

RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.


THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.
 
2012-11-11 12:06:18 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

???? So concern about the unintended consequences of fanatical meddling to "fix" something that has not yet been proven all of a sudden = fundamentalist religious belief? Really? Really?



Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Do you believe this as well? Or do you simply believe there is no "proof" that climate change is taking place (which raises the question of what proof you would accept)?
 
2012-11-11 12:10:21 AM  

Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.


>>>>the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption

You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics
 
2012-11-11 12:15:08 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?

It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?

Well.... except for the inconvenient fact that not 100% of all climatologists agree that global warming even exists. I was making the distinction between those climatologists and the GW religious fanatics.


Three percent of climatologists are GW religious fanatics (whatever the fark they are)?


I used the term "religious fanatics" because the most vocal GW Believers have a religious intensity to their beliefs and - like Xian/Islamic fundies - quickly resort to personal attack and demonization of those that refuse to march in lockstep with their pronouncements.
 
2012-11-11 12:16:26 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics


as i suspected.. you're a conspiracy theorist.

You refuse to agree that reality is reality. Until such a time that you join the real world we can hold no meaningful conversation. Good day, sir.
 
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


  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