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.

(Slate)   Last month was warmer than average. This is a repeat of the last 331 months   (slate.com) divider line 420
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4365 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-19 03:44:32 AM  

abb3w: MarkEC: The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC.

That seems more peripheral than core, to me. At the very least, it needs the qualifier of "human history" rather than "geologic history".

Shakin_Haitian: Does regional mean the same thing as global?

Actually, that's kind of moot. #56.

MarkEC: Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.

Not everywhere was warmer, as I understand.


Ha ha I love this. MWP "doesn't count" because not everywhere was warmer?

Then why did you need to change your silly religion's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

Durrrrrr!!!??!??!!!!
 
2012-11-19 05:29:23 AM  
With reference to some areas being cooler during the global medieval warm period, aren`t we told that global warming can make some areas colder due to climate change?

Which way is it? Does it have to be warmer everywhere for global warming or can some areas get cooler?
 
2012-11-19 05:51:18 AM  
The reason most people get their panties in a twist about it being this warm before is because the claim that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual was used as a main point of the `proof` that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual and therefore anthropogenic. If it is unprecedented then lots of species will die and the whole thing is something to panic about.

It is not unprecedented or unusual.

In the last 5000 years (no, not millions) we have had four times (about once every thousand years) where the sea level has risen between 1-4.5 meters in a time frame of about 100-200 years which means MORE and FASTER warming than we are currently undergoing. This is scary because how can you get people to change their behavior if the temperatures and rate of change are well within natural parameters? Also, if it got this warm a few times in recent history that means all the species on the planet are already adapted and there will not be a global ecosystem crash.

So no need to panic

Try disproving anything I say instead of just posting "derp" or insults, it`s the adult way and stops you looking like an idiot.

For those hard of reading I`m talking about the claim that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual, nothing else. It`s a bogus claim. It would be poor logic to claim that it is unusual and unprecedented because it is anthropogenic because the claim made is that it is anthropogenic because it is unusual and unprecedented so that is a circular argument...
 
2012-11-19 07:40:03 AM  

dready zim: For those hard of reading I`m talking about the claim that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual, nothing else. It`s a bogus claim. It would be poor logic to claim that it is unusual and unprecedented because it is anthropogenic because the claim made is that it is anthropogenic because it is unusual and unprecedented so that is a circular argument...


Koch Brothers paying you by check, or thirty pieces of silver?
 
2012-11-19 08:11:27 AM  
www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Lets see here, nope no extreme melting compared to recent melting. Hard to increase sea levels without melting ice.

Oh, and from the NOAA page that came from:

"Note that the melting that has occurred during the 20th Century is greater than almost all periods for ~4000 years. (See dashed line)."

Well, ok, maybe the water came from somewhere else to have a spike in sea levels, one that wasn't sustained:

www.globalwarmingart.com

Citations here. Nope, no world wide spike in sea levels. Some regional shifts but the over all average was for stable sea levels. Then we started increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere:

www.globalwarmingart.com

But hey, you just go ahead and keep telling yourself that you know what's REALLY going on there Dready Zim. It's not like your flat out wrong declarations haven't been shown to be false previously or anything.
 
2012-11-19 11:50:03 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.

Wow, this is completely and utterly false. I can only assume that you're either completely uninformed on the subject or abjectly lying about it. Which one?I

I'll say it again. There is evidence that temps rose a little between 1978 and 1998, but there IS NOT any evidence for this being due to human activity. If I am wrong, cite some.


This has already been covered a bit in the thread, but here is another summary:

Here, with links to original sources too

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas
2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned
4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

So here is some evidence - would you care to address it?

OK, so this was a brave attempt. But 1. is merely stating what we already know, and says nothing about global warming. 2. and 4. are obvious (its no different than saying every time we take a breath were breathing in a molecule Napoleon breathed out). 3. is kind-of irrelevant, and only dropped in there to sound alarmist. CO2 has risen by about 70 parts per MILLION but oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. So not much to be alarmed about there but nice try.


Your response to number one is REASON #1 that you should never be taken seriously here again.
 
2012-11-19 11:51:07 AM  
Wow, has it really been 332 months? Time just flies when your not caring about about things that don't affect you.
 
2012-11-19 11:56:15 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.

Wow, this is completely and utterly false. I can only assume that you're either completely uninformed on the subject or abjectly lying about it. Which one?I

I'll say it again. There is evidence that temps rose a little between 1978 and 1998, but there IS NOT any evidence for this being due to human activity. If I am wrong, cite some.


This has already been covered a bit in the thread, but here is another summary:

Here, with links to original sources too

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas
2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned
4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

So here is some evidence - would you care to address it?

OK, so this was a brave attempt. But 1. is merely stating what we already know, and says nothing about global warming. 2. and 4. are obvious (its no different than saying every time we take a breath were breathing in a molecule Napoleon breathed out). 3. is kind-of irrelevant, and only dropped in there to sound alarmist. CO2 has risen by about 70 parts per MILLION but oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. So not much to be alarmed about there but nice try.


No. This is so painfully ignorant it literally hurts my brain.

When you burn a fossil fuel, the carbon combines with oxygen from the atmosphere (hence a measurable, predictable reduction in atmospheric O2), to produce CO2. That CO2 comes from carbon with specific proportions of different isotopes, which leads to a measurable change in the isotope proportions in the atmosphere (I'm simplifying, and trying to avoid big words).

read more here: Link


Here's how breathing works: Link

Maybe you'll take your head of the sand long enough to try again?
 
2012-11-19 11:57:35 AM  
um, head out of the sand...
 
2012-11-19 12:36:47 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Folks, please disregard graphs such as this:

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 680x700]

The alarmist part of the graph (the short spike at the very right) is made up of different data, from different sources as the rest of the graph. All the graph is showing you is the heat island effect as well as cherry-picking by pseudoscientists who have a pro AGW agenda. There was indeed a rise between 1978 and 1998, but it was small, and there was actually a fall before it, and temps have levelled out since.

"Hockey-stick" graphs such as these should not convince anybody.



Contrary to your claim, the source of the data for the "rise between 1978 and 1998" and data subsequent to that point are from the exact same source, and compiled by the same people - and is clearly labelled in the graph itself. As for the heat island effect, it has shown to be negligible, both through corroboration with other data sources such as the satellite record (RSS and UAH here):

tamino.files.wordpress.com
From here. Note the lack of large differences between
different sources of the instrumental record and the satellite record - this would strong argue against the existence of some sort of change in the instrumental data after 1998.

The heat island effect has also been investigated directly:

i49.tinypic.com
From BEST . Note the lack of difference between sites classified as 'urban' vs 'rural'. Again, strong evidence arguing against the existence of an urban heat island effect.

As for temperature leveling out since 1998, in the context of climate, this really isn't true. One needs at least 20-30 years to be able to overcome short-term variability (such as the strong El Nino during 1997-1998). Put graphically so it's easier to grasp intuitively:

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-11-19 12:48:46 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: abb3w: MarkEC: The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC.

That seems more peripheral than core, to me. At the very least, it needs the qualifier of "human history" rather than "geologic history".

Shakin_Haitian: Does regional mean the same thing as global?

Actually, that's kind of moot. #56.

MarkEC: Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.

Not everywhere was warmer, as I understand.

Ha ha I love this. MWP "doesn't count" because not everywhere was warmer?

Then why did you need to change your silly religion's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

Durrrrrr!!!??!??!!!!



abb3w did not state that the MWP dosen't count, but was instead responding to the bit in bold.

As for differences in nomenclature, keep in mind that different terms can have different meanings, and to make things more complicated, to different groups (such as the scientific literature vs. the popular press). If you're interested, we can explain this graphic out a bit:
img260.imageshack.us

Or if you just need a quick indicator, ask yourself what the two 'C's in the acronym IPCC stand for, then ask yourself when the organization was established.
 
2012-11-19 01:47:51 PM  
God, get over the climate change thing. It doesn't matter if it's real or not, ir if humans are responsible or not.
We're not gonna change our lifestyle either way. We'll just adapt to whatever comes.
Get over it.
 
2012-11-19 03:03:06 PM  

That Guy...From That Show!: Everyone knows human emissions aren't causing temperature increase. WTF? Cows emit lots more.


#129.

THE GREAT NAME: "Hockey-stick" graphs such as these should not convince anybody.


#18.

THE GREAT NAME: MWP "doesn't count" because not everywhere was warmer?


I didn't say it "doesn't count". Rather, I provided two links, which also don't say that, but explain that the warming was not globally uniform, and from identified causes which are not able to explain the current trend.

dready zim: It is not unprecedented or unusual.


#2.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:59 PM  
That game seems pretty fun, abb3w, but I'm not sure there's a win state.
 
2012-11-19 09:22:59 PM  

Ambitwistor: Slam1263: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming - stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart -prove-it.html

Hmm, from the same group that espouses AGW.

I hate to break it to you, but despite the Daily Fail's sensationalistic reporting, their conclusions are neither new (the previous version of the HadCRUT data set showed the same thing), nor correct (recent global temperatures do not prove that AGW has "stopped").


Nor do they "prove" that it is accelerating.

But if you are happy thrusting your money towards government programs of dubious quality, and effect, continue to do so. Stop asking others to jump off the cliff and swim across the next puddle, because you have bought into the scheme.
 
2012-11-19 10:12:25 PM  

Slam1263: But if you are happy thrusting your money towards government programs of dubious quality, and effect, continue to do so. Stop asking others to jump off the cliff and swim across the next puddle, because you have bought into the scheme.


"Do nothing! Do nothing!!"

You are a good little soldier preaching the mantra of your corporate masters.

You do realize that they have no plans to share their riches with you right??
 
2012-11-19 11:09:03 PM  

cthellis: That game seems pretty fun, abb3w, but I'm not sure there's a win state.


Sure there is.
www.spelabingo.org
 
2012-11-20 10:17:46 PM  

Farking Canuck: Slam1263: But if you are happy thrusting your money towards government programs of dubious quality, and effect, continue to do so. Stop asking others to jump off the cliff and swim across the next puddle, because you have bought into the scheme.

"Do nothing! Do nothing!!"

You are a good little soldier preaching the mantra of your corporate masters.

You do realize that they have no plans to share their riches with you right??


I am one of the "Corporate Masters".

I just don't want to share my hard earned money with Farking Canucks.

But as I said, if you want to toss your own money around, it is your money, toss it around.

There are more pressing needs for mine. Keeping employees employed, rather than giving it to the government is tops on my list right now.
 
2012-11-20 11:52:50 PM  

Slam1263:
I am one of the "Corporate Masters".

I just don't want to share my hard earned money with Farking Canucks.

But as I said, if you want to toss your own money around, it is your money, toss it around.

There are more pressing needs for mine. Keeping employees employed, rather than giving it to the government is tops on my list right now.


LOL ... I guess you're one of the 'job creators' we hear so much about.

Sadly, it is people like you that are ensuring all the jobs created in the green industries are going overseas. Painting everything that could help reduce pollution and dependance on foreign as a "waste of money" when, in fact, it is eventually going to be the future. Sure it takes some investment but anything profitable does.

People like you are just making sure that the future arrives as slow as possible and none of the jobs or profit created will be in North America.

But hey ... big oil wants to wring out all the profit they can from the status quo so make sure everyone drags their feet.

"Do nothing! Do nothing!!" *salute*
 
2012-11-20 11:53:57 PM  
Doh!

That would be "... dependance on foreign oil ..."
 
Displayed 20 of 420 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report