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.

(NBC News)   Global warming drops to 50 below in Russia   (worldnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 285
    More: Interesting, Russia, Novosibirsk, global warming  
•       •       •

5001 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 03:42:27 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: Plz note cap letter. This has import in the English Language.
I do believe you do understand what farking Concensus we are yanking our puds about.
Compliment, you do keep up the stupid act, nonstop. Intentional?

Lecturing someone on the proper usage of the English language: You're doing it wrong.


We still on Fark? Yup.
You still missing the real and actual point? Yup.
 
2012-12-20 03:43:07 PM

chimp_ninja: Wook: /I'm firing up my wood burning stove when I get home. F you all.

I don't think burning biomass sends the message you think it does.


You're right.

For the Prious driving Latte' crowd: burning wood releases H2O and CO2. H2O has 4x the heat capacity of CO2. Which is basically the same thing as exhaling. I'm an evil person.
 
2012-12-20 03:44:40 PM

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: Tatterdemalian: if even a single one of the predictions comes true, that proves it was all caused by AGW, so it's all your fault and you need to be dragged, chained and screaming if need be, into our Brave New Reich Of Tomorrow.

Everyone point and laugh at how dumb you are.
Ah, we've reached the point where the warmer alarmists, having no science to back up their fictional horror stories, are reduced to using non-specific insults in lieu of scientific argument.


Except the citations above are from the side of the scientists, and you're quoting a denialist who is using the phrase "Brave New Reich Of Tomorrow". I don't think that quote says what you wish it did.

See also: "NASA faked the moon landing, therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science". The survey includes people who believe in UFO cults. You might find it interesting.
 
2012-12-20 03:47:45 PM

Wook: You're right.

For the Prious driving Latte' crowd: burning wood releases H2O and CO2. H2O has 4x the heat capacity of CO2. Which is basically the same thing as exhaling. I'm an evil person.


Posts like this are why the Internet comes pre-equipped with a page called "Breathing is Carbon-Neutral, Asshole".

This might not apply in your case, however, given your diet apparently consists entirely of leaded paint chips.
 
2012-12-20 03:48:20 PM

snocone: Dr Dreidel: snocone: No No No
Concensus is just Derivitive Banking for Dummies Attempting To Change The World.

OHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
 
You're an idiot.
 
Carry on, then.
 
// "consensus" is the word for "what happens when people generally agree on something"
// the consensus around DC is that we're Redskins fans
// even though I personally am not a Skins fan, that doesn't make the above statement any less true
// nor does it negate that the consensus exists

Plz note cap letter. This has import in the English Language.
I do believe you do understand what farking Concensus we are yanking our puds about.
Compliment, you do keep up the stupid act, nonstop. Intentional?


CDBDATCTW doesn't spell anything. Well, nothing in English, anyway - maybe it's a Muslim killing word... (a "killing word in the Muslim culture", not "a word used to kill Muslims"). Wait - maybe it's the cheat code for Mortal Kombat where you could set the Flags so the CPU always did the fatalities...?
 
Look, if there's sound science behind the theory, scientific consensus that the science is good and (thusly) the theory is good, combined with there being no good "alternate theory of the crime", so to speak, means either come up with a counterargument that isn't "Well, they lied in an e-mail about what pie they were bringing to Thanksgiving" or "AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" or "A Creationist dentist says the data don't look right, so that's not scientific consensus" or accept what the science lays out.
 
I can even agree with "Well, they're taking a worst-case scenario and presenting it as 'totally gonna happen soon, bro'" as being a good argument against, but all we'd be doing then is splitting hairs over exactly how bad you think AGW gets, not dismissing it out of hand. Also, you'd still need to convince me with science.
 
// I understood no part of your response beyond the definitions of the individual words
 
2012-12-20 03:55:03 PM

Dr Dreidel: Look, if there's sound science behind the theory, scientific consensus that the science is good and (thusly) the theory is good, combined with there being no good "alternate theory of the crime", so to speak, means either come up with a counterargument that isn't "Well, they lied in an e-mail about what pie they were bringing to Thanksgiving" or "AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" or "A Creationist dentist says the data don't look right, so that's not scientific consensus" or accept what the science lays out.


It's also worth noting that a consensus of practicing scientists (in relevant disciplines) is one thing, but climate science also has an overwhelming consensus of evidence:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

(Quoting meta-analysis from the journal Science.)
 
2012-12-20 03:55:33 PM

Dr Dreidel: snocone: Dr Dreidel: snocone: No No No
Concensus is just Derivitive Banking for Dummies Attempting To Change The World.

OHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
 
You're an idiot.
 
Carry on, then.
 
// "consensus" is the word for "what happens when people generally agree on something"
// the consensus around DC is that we're Redskins fans
// even though I personally am not a Skins fan, that doesn't make the above statement any less true
// nor does it negate that the consensus exists

Plz note cap letter. This has import in the English Language.
I do believe you do understand what farking Concensus we are yanking our puds about.
Compliment, you do keep up the stupid act, nonstop. Intentional?

CDBDATCTW doesn't spell anything. Well, nothing in English, anyway - maybe it's a Muslim killing word... (a "killing word in the Muslim culture", not "a word used to kill Muslims"). Wait - maybe it's the cheat code for Mortal Kombat where you could set the Flags so the CPU always did the fatalities...?
 
Look, if there's sound science behind the theory, scientific consensus that the science is good and (thusly) the theory is good, combined with there being no good "alternate theory of the crime", so to speak, means either come up with a counterargument that isn't "Well, they lied in an e-mail about what pie they were bringing to Thanksgiving" or "AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" or "A Creationist dentist says the data don't look right, so that's not scientific consensus" or accept what the science lays out.
 
I can even agree with "Well, they're taking a worst-case scenario and presenting it as 'totally gonna happen soon, bro'" as being a good argument against, but all we'd be doing then is splitting hairs over exactly how bad you think AGW gets, not dismissing it out of hand. Also, you'd still need to convince me with science.
 
// I understood no part of your response beyond the definitions of the individual words


And the only part of your nonsence I understand is that you value PROFIT above people.
You are determined to be the problem instead of part of the solution.
Go enjoy yourself and your PROFIT.
 
Is a warming planet a problem? Not unless it hurts people.
We alredy have a lot of hurt people. And they need help now.
Just unable to really help, are we not? Rather hold a bullchit contest and line the pockets of sociopathic political animals.
 
2012-12-20 04:00:57 PM
Abe Vigoda's Ghost: We could argue about Global Warming vs Climate Change, or we could post pictures of hot Russian women.

I know what I'd rather do.

[i45.tinypic.com image 520x676]


THIS, everyone that WARGARBLEs about Manbearpig instead of doing so has teh ghey
 
2012-12-20 04:03:18 PM

snocone: And the only part of your nonsence I understand is that you value PROFIT above people.
You are determined to be the problem instead of part of the solution.
Go enjoy yourself and your PROFIT.

Is a warming planet a problem? Not unless it hurts people.
We alredy have a lot of hurt people. And they need help now.
Just unable to really help, are we not? Rather hold a bullchit contest and line the pockets of sociopathic political animals.


The hell? Did you miss the part where I...
 
Oh, never mind. I'm playing word-games with the rhetorical equivalent of a college stoner. I have a manual to write.
 
// and if nothing else, we implement cleaner-burning energy-generation over dirtier fuels
// the farking horror
 
2012-12-20 04:08:31 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
It has been my experience that the right needs no invitation to demonize reality, especially when it threatens the Big Oil plutocrats whose dicks they worship

In a crowded field of excellent competitors, THIS has got to be the single most stupid argument of any used by warmer alarmists.

Whenever the greens have gone up against "oil companies," they have ALWAYS been handed their asses. And, of course, it's happening again. You're just too pre-programed to notice it. You didn't notice, I'm certain, that the oil companies have quit fighting carbon taxation of any kind. They quit fighting after they got their lobbyists in position to be WRITING the legislation. Now they are guaranteed that if the legislation passes, they will make more profit, more reliably, and for longer than if it does NOT pass. Oil companies are now carbon tax supporters. And the greenies are out doing their legwork for them. That's about normal.

This is just more knee-jerk socialism, the "I'm incompetent, punish the competent" style. You know, the idea that it's okay if the economy tanks, as long as the rich are hurt in the process. You know, bonehead, cardboard socialism -- like yours.
 
2012-12-20 04:09:30 PM

Dr Dreidel: snocone: And the only part of your nonsence I understand is that you value PROFIT above people.
You are determined to be the problem instead of part of the solution.
Go enjoy yourself and your PROFIT.

Is a warming planet a problem? Not unless it hurts people.
We alredy have a lot of hurt people. And they need help now.
Just unable to really help, are we not? Rather hold a bullchit contest and line the pockets of sociopathic political animals.

The hell? Did you miss the part where I...
 
Oh, never mind. I'm playing word-games with the rhetorical equivalent of a college stoner. I have a manual to write.
 
// and if nothing else, we implement cleaner-burning energy-generation over dirtier fuels
// the farking horror


Not so fun when the same tactics are returned?
Yes, I advanced and demonized your statement.
Yes, I attributed some other crap to you.
Sound familiar?
 
2012-12-20 04:27:41 PM

snocone: Dr Dreidel: snocone: And the only part of your nonsence I understand is that you value PROFIT above people.
You are determined to be the problem instead of part of the solution.
Go enjoy yourself and your PROFIT.

Is a warming planet a problem? Not unless it hurts people.
We alredy have a lot of hurt people. And they need help now.
Just unable to really help, are we not? Rather hold a bullchit contest and line the pockets of sociopathic political animals.

The hell? Did you miss the part where I...

Oh, never mind. I'm playing word-games with the rhetorical equivalent of a college stoner. I have a manual to write.

// and if nothing else, we implement cleaner-burning energy-generation over dirtier fuels
// the farking horror

Not so fun when the same tactics are returned?
Yes, I advanced and demonized your statement.
Yes, I attributed some other crap to you.
Sound familiar?


Wow, thirty five posts later and you're still avoiding even the most basic questions. Why is that Is it becasue you're trying to distract away from the issue. Here, I'll ask again

So since you feel so put out and misunderstood, perhaps you can clear this all up with a few simple answers.

1) Do you believe that average global temperatures are and have been getting warmer?
2) Do you beleive that human activity is responsible for any part of this rise? If so, how much?
3) Do you think that it is still possible to reverse, contain, or mitigate the human contribution to this problem?
 
2012-12-20 04:42:41 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: Dr Dreidel: snocone: And the only part of your nonsence I understand is that you value PROFIT above people.
You are determined to be the problem instead of part of the solution.
Go enjoy yourself and your PROFIT.

 
Is a warming planet a problem? Not unless it hurts people.
We alredy have a lot of hurt people. And they need help now.
Just unable to really help, are we not? Rather hold a bullchit contest and line the pockets of sociopathic political animals.

 
The hell? Did you miss the part where I...
 
Oh, never mind. I'm playing word-games with the rhetorical equivalent of a college stoner. I have a manual to write.
 
// and if nothing else, we implement cleaner-burning energy-generation over dirtier fuels
// the farking horror

 
Not so fun when the same tactics are returned?
Yes, I advanced and demonized your statement.
Yes, I attributed some other crap to you.
Sound familiar?

 
Wow, thirty five posts later and you're still avoiding even the most basic questions. Why is that Is it becasue you're trying to distract away from the issue. Here, I'll ask again
 
So since you feel so put out and misunderstood, perhaps you can clear this all up with a few simple answers.
 
1) Do you believe that average global temperatures are and have been getting warmer?
2) Do you beleive that human activity is responsible for any part of this rise? If so, how much?
3) Do you think that it is still possible to reverse, contain, or mitigate the human contribution to this problem?

 
 
What I "believe" means fark all, just like what you "believe".
Quite sure we are both wrong, sumptin you cannot embrace, apparently.
 
Why do you avoid the real issue? Human suffering.
I mean that is why "Climate Change is the GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY, send me money" is your mantra, eh?
Is there some other reason we are supposed impose The War on AGW?
 
2012-12-20 04:45:17 PM
Oh, yea, the polar bears.
My bad.
 
/personally, I was all for Saving the Whales before I was against it and went for polar bears, but then, look! a squirrel!
 
2012-12-20 04:52:06 PM
Clemkadidlefark:
chimp_ninja: thornhill: ZOMG! Winter is cold, thus, climate change is not happening. Somebody take a picture of Al Gore's book in the snow.

Hrm. No one has arrived to post that Al Gore is fat therefore climate change is God's way of keeping Urantia out of our brainwaves. Suspicious.

I will. Al Gore is fat. And Urantia was a damn good book, if a tad long and without a plot.

I find it amazing that my religious beliefs are attacked as a way to attack my scientific arguments -- and when this bit of hate speech was published, I hadn't even posted in the thread. I must be a bigger wheel than I thought if I'm getting preemptive ad hominem arguments.
 
2012-12-20 04:57:50 PM

GeneralJim: Clemkadidlefark: chimp_ninja: thornhill: ZOMG! Winter is cold, thus, climate change is not happening. Somebody take a picture of Al Gore's book in the snow.

Hrm. No one has arrived to post that Al Gore is fat therefore climate change is God's way of keeping Urantia out of our brainwaves. Suspicious.

I will. Al Gore is fat. And Urantia was a damn good book, if a tad long and without a plot.
I find it amazing that my religious beliefs are attacked as a way to attack my scientific arguments -- and when this bit of hate speech was published, I hadn't even posted in the thread. I must be a bigger wheel than I thought if I'm getting preemptive ad hominem arguments.


Well, that much fame does lead to Meme status,,,
Be careful out there.
 
/btw, thanks for your service as moving target, you're a good tank
 
2012-12-20 05:06:11 PM
Ctrl-Alt-Del:
snocone: The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.

Look how stupid you are

This is what Global Warming Denialists actually believe

Well, Sherlock, work it out for yourself... If we are in dire straights now, and a 20% turnover to renewables saves our bacon... wait a few years, and population is 20% more than now, nullifying the "gains" made. Population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production. Populations simply CANNOT continue to rise forever. That is the problem, not carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a red herring.
 
2012-12-20 05:26:23 PM
make me some tea:
The only thing those emails revealed is that there are and were disagreements between scientists over various items. That doesn't automatically mean that they're fabricating data. In fact, that's how science works! Not everyone agrees with everything at first. Imagine that, huh?

No, that's "the only thing it says" if you have the perception of a rock. Here, let a scientist not involved in the dispute explain it for you:


Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists.
 
2012-12-20 05:31:09 PM
Spaced Cowboy:
lexslamman: That's funny. Where I live we're wondering if there will be enough ice on the river to go ice fishing this year. It used to be an annual tradition, but the weather has been too warm the last 3 years.

/CSB

It's late December and for the about the 8th year in a row it's raining instead of snowing during the lead up to Christmas.  Years ago, the snow was guaranteed to be falling by at least November.  Now I'm lucky to see snow by January.

Anyone who has lived in the same area for the last 15 years has likely noticed similar trends with their local climate.

Despite what may or may not have happened where YOU live (remember that "climate != weather" argument?), the global temperature trend for the last 15 years is VERY slightly downward:

sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-20 05:33:50 PM
Ctrl-Alt-Del:
snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.

Stage 2 it is, then

So, you are saying that the climate cannot change without people changing it? That's weaponized stupidity.
 
2012-12-20 06:04:17 PM
THREADJACK HERE
 
Now that we are down to prize winning derp, for something completely different;
But, timely, Piers Morgan just stated he believes an AR-15 fires "40 bullets a second".
He has "experts".
He also states he can kill 100 Americans(shudder and weep) in 1, one, count 'em one minute with a 100 "bullet clip".
He has experts, and HE BELIEVES.
 
That BELIEF chit is so farking powerful, but still cannot alter reality, just fools.
 
/sorry for the interruption, but there is TV Gold out there.
 
2012-12-20 06:16:33 PM

chimp_ninja: occamswrist: Those are two different things. If you can find a study showing total water vapor in the earth's atmosphere has increased, I'd like to see it. Thanks!

Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback

Also:


Red line: Dai 2006, Recent Climatology, Variability, and Trends in Global Surface Humidity, J. Climate, 19, 3589-3606
Green line: Willett et al. 2008, Recent changes in surface humidity: development of the HadCRUH dataset, J. Clim..21, 5364-5383
Blue line: Berry & Kent, 2009, A New Air-Sea Interaction Gridded Dataset from ICOADS with Uncertainty Estimates, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(5), 645-656
Black line: Scaled version of global temperature anomaly from GISS

I'm not sure why this is surprising if you start with:
A) Global temperatures have been rising.
B) Satellite readings show that specific humidity tracks with temperature.
, though there have been some attempts to confuse this issue by citing relative humidity, instead of the relevant measurement of water molecules per unit volume.


Thanks for that data. I skimmed through:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/1 0.1175/JCLI3816.1#/doi/full/10.1 1 75/JCLI3816.1

And maybe it was RH I was confusing. Or maybe it was continental US specific humidity. Its been a while since I looked at it.

Thanks. You were right.
 
2012-12-20 06:18:49 PM
How did we go from posting pics of hot Russian women to a few gaseous anomalies blowing hot air all over this thread?
 
2012-12-20 06:24:48 PM

AbiNormal: How did we go from posting pics of hot Russian women to a few gaseous anomalies blowing hot air all over this thread?


That is really the tragedy here
 
/not being sarcastic
//love hot Russian women
 
2012-12-20 06:29:11 PM

GeneralJim: Spaced Cowboy: lexslamman: That's funny. Where I live we're wondering if there will be enough ice on the river to go ice fishing this year. It used to be an annual tradition, but the weather has been too warm the last 3 years.

/CSB

It's late December and for the about the 8th year in a row it's raining instead of snowing during the lead up to Christmas.  Years ago, the snow was guaranteed to be falling by at least November.  Now I'm lucky to see snow by January.

Anyone who has lived in the same area for the last 15 years has likely noticed similar trends with their local climate.
Despite what may or may not have happened where YOU live (remember that "climate != weather" argument?), the global temperature trend for the last 15 years is VERY slightly downward:

[sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com image 850x424]



Hate to post and run, but be aware that a graph posting a record for only the lower 48 states isn't the best way to make the case for a "global temperature trend". Plus, of course the usual problems with a potentially misleading short period of time relative to a high degree of variability (but in your favor that is also a problem with the post you're responding to).
 
2012-12-20 06:59:01 PM

snocone: What I "believe" means fark all, just like what you "believe".
Quite sure we are both wrong, sumptin you cannot embrace, apparently.

Why do you avoid the real issue? Human suffering.
I mean that is why "Climate Change is the GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY, send me money" is your mantra, eh?
Is there some other reason we are supposed impose The War on AGW?


snocone: THREADJACK HERE

Now that we are down to prize winning derp, for something completely different;
But, timely, Piers Morgan just stated he believes an AR-15 fires "40 bullets a second".
He has "experts".
He also states he can kill 100 Americans(shudder and weep) in 1, one, count 'em one minute with a 100 "bullet clip".
He has experts, and HE BELIEVES.

That BELIEF chit is so farking powerful, but still cannot alter reality, just fools.

/sorry for the interruption, but there is TV Gold out there.


As I said earlier, your approach towards this topic is somewhat telling. Of course it would seem to be all the same to you if you get your information from cable news - finance, guns, and climate - all just very superficially represented by talking heads on the TV. A veneer of expert opinion packaged in a news-like entertainment product.

A healthy disdain for that sort of thing is just fine, but be aware that what you see on TV isn't all there is to an issue, especially one like climate change in which the information gathered and presented is scientific in nature. Just be aware that the ambiguity and controversy you see on TV does not necessarily accurately represent the state of scientific knowledge.

 
2012-12-20 07:04:13 PM

GeneralJim: Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.

Stage 2 it is, then
So, you are saying that the climate cannot change without people changing it? That's weaponized stupidity.



GeneralJim: Oh, boy! Yet another arsehole claiming to be able to read minds -- and failing. Nice work.
 
2012-12-20 07:08:18 PM

snocone: What I "believe" means fark all


Yeah, that became abundantly clear when you started talking about how the earth is somewhere between 6000 and 60million years old.

I ask those questions because knowing what your position is on teh facts of global warming could go a long way in a discussion about global warming when it comes to deciding whether or not you are an honest actor in the discussion. Given that I already had you flagged as a denialist, your refusal to actually give an honest answer to some basic questions combined with your other behavior in this thread, it is clear you are not. I'll update you in my favorites accordingly.
 
2012-12-20 07:12:44 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: What I "believe" means fark all

Yeah, that became abundantly clear when you started talking about how the earth is somewhere between 6000 and 60million years old.

I ask those questions because knowing what your position is on teh facts of global warming could go a long way in a discussion about global warming when it comes to deciding whether or not you are an honest actor in the discussion. Given that I already had you flagged as a denialist, your refusal to actually give an honest answer to some basic questions combined with your other behavior in this thread, it is clear you are not. I'll update you in my favorites accordingly.


Plz, don't blither, er, bother.
 
2012-12-20 07:17:34 PM

GeneralJim: Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.

Look how stupid you are

This is what Global Warming Denialists actually believe
Well, Sherlock, work it out for yourself... If we are in dire straights now, and a 20% turnover to renewables saves our bacon... wait a few years, and population is 20% more than now, nullifying the "gains" made. Population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production. Populations simply CANNOT continue to rise forever. That is the problem, not carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a red herring.


Let's unpack this a bit.

You're right in that "populations simply CANNOT continue to rise forever" which is why world population growth continues to slow down and is projected to level off sometime this century. It's a problem, to be sure, but arguably not the dominant one, especially as the per capita carbon footprint in developing countries continues to rise due to an emerging middle class.

That you think "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production" is not somehow mutually exclusive with problems due to emissions of carbon dioxide.

Of course, all that aside, there's still the idea that even if population growth were the problem you think it is, it would still not mean that "the only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide".
 
2012-12-20 07:23:18 PM

snocone: Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: What I "believe" means fark all

Yeah, that became abundantly clear when you started talking about how the earth is somewhere between 6000 and 60million years old.

I ask those questions because knowing what your position is on teh facts of global warming could go a long way in a discussion about global warming when it comes to deciding whether or not you are an honest actor in the discussion. Given that I already had you flagged as a denialist, your refusal to actually give an honest answer to some basic questions combined with your other behavior in this thread, it is clear you are not. I'll update you in my favorites accordingly.

Plz, don't blither, er, bother.



An unwillingness to actually engage a topic in anything more than a superficial manner renders a discussion (and your resulting opinion) as superficial as those talking heads on TV.

Don't become part of the problem.
 
2012-12-21 01:26:59 AM

GeneralJim: Spaced Cowboy: lexslamman: That's funny. Where I live we're wondering if there will be enough ice on the river to go ice fishing this year. It used to be an annual tradition, but the weather has been too warm the last 3 years.

/CSB

It's late December and for the about the 8th year in a row it's raining instead of snowing during the lead up to Christmas.  Years ago, the snow was guaranteed to be falling by at least November.  Now I'm lucky to see snow by January.

Anyone who has lived in the same area for the last 15 years has likely noticed similar trends with their local climate.
Despite what may or may not have happened where YOU live (remember that "climate != weather" argument?), the global temperature trend for the last 15 years is VERY slightly downward:

[sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com image 850x424]


GeneralJim: Spaced Cowboy: lexslamman: That's funny. Where I live we're wondering if there will be enough ice on the river to go ice fishing this year. It used to be an annual tradition, but the weather has been too warm the last 3 years.

/CSB

It's late December and for the about the 8th year in a row it's raining instead of snowing during the lead up to Christmas.  Years ago, the snow was guaranteed to be falling by at least November.  Now I'm lucky to see snow by January.

Anyone who has lived in the same area for the last 15 years has likely noticed similar trends with their local climate.
Despite what may or may not have happened where YOU live (remember that "climate != weather" argument?), the global temperature trend for the last 15 years is VERY slightly downward:

[sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com image 850x424]



Forgot to mention that when you plot the global average instead of just the lower 48 states (as you did), it looks like this:

woodfortrees.org

What were you saying about the global temperature trend? ;)
 
2012-12-21 05:27:48 AM
Anyone see my keys?
 
2012-12-21 02:15:31 PM
Ctrl-Alt-Del:
1) Do you believe that average global temperatures are and have been getting warmer?
2) Do you beleive that human activity is responsible for any part of this rise? If so, how much?
3) Do you think that it is still possible to reverse, contain, or mitigate the human contribution to this problem?

Question 1: If you cherry-pick your time scale "correctly," yes. Using most reasonable time scales, no, i.e. for the following scales:

1. 15 Years: No.
2. 150 Years: Yes
3. 1500 Years: No
4. 8000 Years: No
5. 15000 Years: Yes (It was a major glaciation (colloquially, an ice age) at the time.)

And, unless you pick a major glaciation, it has NEVER been colder than today -- only the fortuitous arrangement of the continents prevents us from being "iceball Earth," as happened the LAST time it was nearly this cold.

Question 2:
Yes, probably less than 0.25 K, and even THAT has leveled off, as predicted.

Question 3: Why bother? Warming the planet AND increasing the carbon dioxide levels are both GOOD things.
 
2012-12-21 02:51:22 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
The fact that you're conflating finance with climatology says something about how superficially you may be approaching this topic. They would seem the same if you're not appreciating the fact that there is a great deal of scientific information behind the broad predictions of anthropogenic climate change.

You are a complete naif if you don't see the connection between finance and climatology. For starters, when "global warming" became a hot-button issue, funding for climatology increased TWENTY-FOLD. A climatologist today who says "the whole global warming issue poses no danger to human civilization" is saying, in other terms, "please cut funding for my field of science by 95%." If you believe that more than a handful of scientists have THAT much integrity, you are placing them on a pedestal, a treatment they do not deserve. Replacing the scientific method with the worship of scientists is NOT an adequate substitute.

I also note that the "great deal of scientific information behind the broad predictions of anthropogenic climate change" consist of readings, known to have been altered, showing the planet warming, and readings showing the carbon dioxide level to be increasing at a roughly similar rate, but only if a highly specific period of time is chosen. Do you remember "correlation does not equate to causation?" To allege this AGW-supporting connection, one must also deny the fact that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature. This observation falsifies the AGW hypothesis, but you are either too ignorant to understand the process, or too dishonest to admit it. From my vantage point, I cannot tell which of these accurately describes the situation, but one of them DOES describe it quite accurately. Would you care to clear up that point?
 
2012-12-21 03:02:22 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: The fact that you're conflating finance with climatology says something about how superficially you may be approaching this topic. They would seem the same if you're not appreciating the fact that there is a great deal of scientific information behind the broad predictions of anthropogenic climate change.
You are a complete naif if you don't see the connection between finance and climatology. For starters, when "global warming" became a hot-button issue, funding for climatology increased TWENTY-FOLD. A climatologist today who says "the whole global warming issue poses no danger to human civilization" is saying, in other terms, "please cut funding for my field of science by 95%." If you believe that more than a handful of scientists have THAT much integrity, you are placing them on a pedestal, a treatment they do not deserve. Replacing the scientific method with the worship of scientists is NOT an adequate substitute.

I also note that the "great deal of scientific information behind the broad predictions of anthropogenic climate change" consist of readings, known to have been altered, showing the planet warming, and readings showing the carbon dioxide level to be increasing at a roughly similar rate, but only if a highly specific period of time is chosen. Do you remember "correlation does not equate to causation?" To allege this AGW-supporting connection, one must also deny the fact that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature. This observation falsifies the AGW hypothesis, but you are either too ignorant to understand the process, or too dishonest to admit it. From my vantage point, I cannot tell which of these accurately describes the situation, but one of them DOES describe it quite accurately. Would you care to clear up that point?


Hmm, except that that is not even remotely what Damnhippyfreak meant. Try to read more better.


/you missed some really epic climate threads recently - I was starting to worry...(the derp just wasn't the same without you)
 
2012-12-21 03:22:24 PM
Dr Dreidel:
I suspect that will be the hard part. No matter how much science you use to show people that the disaster is coming or how it could be averted, you'll still have morons arguing that your science is wrong because god, or because some pseudoscience, or because aliens, or because some logical fallacy or something.

So you are utterly discounting the possibility that a "scientific" prediction of disaster could be incorrect? That's pretty weird, considering how many "scientific" predictions of disaster have not happened. A few examples, ONLY from the climate side:

In 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of Queensland University, warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white. He later admitted that the reef had made a "remarkable" recovery. Then, in 2006, he warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's great Barrier Reef could die within a month". He later admitted this bleaching had "a minimal impact".

In April of 2008, the papers were full of warnings the Arctic ice could all melt: "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free. In fact, the Arctic's ice cover in 2008 was almost 10 per cent above 2007's great low, and refroze rapidly.

Bill Clinton gloated: "It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It's going to lead to more hurricanes." In fact, if there is any connection, "global warming" has led to FEWER hurricanes.

A 2008 study in the Hydrological Sciences Journal checked six climate models, including one used by the CSIRO. It found they couldn't even predict the regional climate of the recent past: "Local model projections cannot be credible . . ." It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not "accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past".

Seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, claims ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams. Six meters, suggests Al Gore. Australia plans to take in "climate refugees" from low-lying Tuvalu, a policy of the Labor Party. In fact, while the seas have slowly risen since the last ice age, before man got gassy, they've stopped rising for the last two, according to data from the Jason-1 satellite. "There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rises," the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute declared in 2008.

And here are a bunch MORE failed doomsday predictions, predictions by the IPCC.
 
2012-12-21 03:27:16 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
Of course there's the larger issue here - even if a particular solution is not perfect, that does not mean it (and other solutions) aren't worth pursuing.

But when the alleged "problem" is falsified, NO "solution" to the imaginary "problem" is worth pursuing.
 
2012-12-21 03:49:03 PM
chimp_ninja:
occamswrist: Those are two different things. If you can find a study showing total water vapor in the earth's atmosphere has increased, I'd like to see it. Thanks!

Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback

Also:
[tamino.files.wordpress.com image 500x326]

Red line: Dai 2006, Recent Climatology, Variability, and Trends in Global Surface Humidity, J. Climate, 19, 3589-3606
Green line: Willett et al. 2008, Recent changes in surface humidity: development of the HadCRUH dataset, J. Clim..21, 5364-5383
Blue line: Berry & Kent, 2009, A New Air-Sea Interaction Gridded Dataset from ICOADS with Uncertainty Estimates, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(5), 645-656
Black line: Scaled version of global temperature anomaly from GISS

I'm not sure why this is surprising if you start with:
A) Global temperatures have been rising.
B) Satellite readings show that specific humidity tracks with temperature.
, though there have been some attempts to confuse this issue by citing relative humidity, instead of the relevant measurement of water molecules per unit volume.

Typical Monkey Boy shenanigans. According to AGW apologists, it is water vapor in the UPPER troposphere which generates the Greenhouse Effect. So, what has upper troposphere humidity done over the last few decades?

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

DISCUSSION HERE
 
2012-12-21 03:58:44 PM
chimp_ninja:
GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: Tatterdemalian: if even a single one of the predictions comes true, that proves it was all caused by AGW, so it's all your fault and you need to be dragged, chained and screaming if need be, into our Brave New Reich Of Tomorrow.

Everyone point and laugh at how dumb you are.

Ah, we've reached the point where the warmer alarmists, having no science to back up their fictional horror stories, are reduced to using non-specific insults in lieu of scientific argument.

Except the citations above are from the side of the scientists, and you're quoting a denialist who is using the phrase "Brave New Reich Of Tomorrow". I don't think that quote says what you wish it did.

Really? "Everyone point and laugh at how dumb you are" is cited, and from the "side of the scientists," whatever the Hell THAT means? I'm going to have to ask for the citations on that. And is that peer-reviewed?

See also: "NASA faked the moon landing, therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science". The survey includes people who believe in UFO cults. You might find it interesting.

You are UTTERLY missing the point. Of course, that easily could be organic brain damage, so you have a viable excuse. The point is, it matters NOT ONE WHIT who believes what. What counts is the science. So, you found a retard who doesn't believe in global warming... That proves nothing. And, it is hypocritical of you to think that it proves some point, while you protest associating Al Gore with the warmer alarmist movement.
 
2012-12-21 04:04:30 PM
Dr Dreidel:
I can even agree with "Well, they're taking a worst-case scenario and presenting it as 'totally gonna happen soon, bro'" as being a good argument against, but all we'd be doing then is splitting hairs over exactly how bad you think AGW gets, not dismissing it out of hand. Also, you'd still need to convince me with science.

I doubt, most seriously, that science will convince you. Your position appears to be either political or religious, rather than scientific, so evidence from science will be unconvincing. But, in the interest of giving the benefit of the doubt....

The Vostok ice cores prove that for hundreds of thousands of years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has FOLLOWED the global temperature. That means that carbon dioxide levels CANNOT be driving the temperature in any significant way.

Convinced?
 
2012-12-21 04:46:27 PM

Damnhippyfreak: projected to level off


Another assumption. Your entire "science" thingie is a string of assumptions.
You just do not get the problem with leaping to conclusion from little if any factual observation, do you?

And never will, 'cause of the Belief blinding you.
 
2012-12-21 05:45:09 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
The fact that you're conflating finance with climatology says something about how superficially you may be approaching this topic. They would seem the same if you're not appreciating the fact that there is a great deal of scientific information behind the broad predictions of anthropogenic climate change.

You are a complete naif if you don't see the connection between finance and climatology. For starters, when "global warming" became a hot-button issue, funding for climatology increased TWENTY-FOLD. A climatologist today who says "the whole global warming issue poses no danger to human civilization" is saying, in other terms, "please cut funding for my field of science by 95%." If you believe that more than a handful of scientists have THAT much integrity, you are placing them on a pedestal, a treatment they do not deserve. Replacing the scientific method with the worship of scientists is NOT an adequate substitute.


I think this speaks more towards what I was saying than against it. When one argues about motivations rather than evidence, then a discussion of the sort of thing you're talking about tends to swamp out the underlying and more important scientific one.


GeneralJim: I also note that the "great deal of scientific information behind the broad predictions of anthropogenic climate change" consist of readings, known to have been altered, showing the planet warming, and readings showing the carbon dioxide level to be increasing at a roughly similar rate, but only if a highly specific period of time is chosen. Do you remember "correlation does not equate to causation?" To allege this AGW-supporting connection, one must also deny the fact that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature. This observation falsifies the AGW hypothesis, but you are either too ignorant to understand the process, or too dishonest to admit it. From my vantage point, I cannot tell which of these accurately describes the situation, but one of them DOES describe it quite accurately. Would you care to clear up that point?


This is an example of what I was talking about. The attribution of climate change is not based upon simple correlation, as what you're talking about here. I suggest that since you're focusing more on the politics rather than the actual science, you're missing even some of the very basics.
 
2012-12-21 05:46:55 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Of course there's the larger issue here - even if a particular solution is not perfect, that does not mean it (and other solutions) aren't worth pursuing.
But when the alleged "problem" is falsified, NO "solution" to the imaginary "problem" is worth pursuing.


Fair enough. However, your allegations about falsification really haven't held up in the past, and I strongly suspect they will continue to be so.
 
2012-12-21 06:10:13 PM

snocone: Damnhippyfreak: projected to level off

Another assumption. Your entire "science" thingie is a string of assumptions.
You just do not get the problem with leaping to conclusion from little if any factual observation, do you?

And never will, 'cause of the Belief blinding you.



Heh. I suggest that the bit in bold applies more to yourself in this case. What else is "leaping to conclusion from little if any factual observation" but broad pronouncements such as "your entire "science" thingie is a string of assumptions"?

Some assumptions are justified, some less so. Stating without any evidence that "your entire "science" thingie is a string of assumptions" is in itself an unjustified assumption, demonstrating you yourself "leaping to conclusion from little if any factual observation".
 
2012-12-21 07:59:17 PM

GeneralJim: Dr Dreidel: I can even agree with "Well, they're taking a worst-case scenario and presenting it as 'totally gonna happen soon, bro'" as being a good argument against, but all we'd be doing then is splitting hairs over exactly how bad you think AGW gets, not dismissing it out of hand. Also, you'd still need to convince me with science.
I doubt, most seriously, that science will convince you. Your position appears to be either political or religious, rather than scientific, so evidence from science will be unconvincing. But, in the interest of giving the benefit of the doubt....

The Vostok ice cores prove that for hundreds of thousands of years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has FOLLOWED the global temperature. That means that carbon dioxide levels CANNOT be driving the temperature in any significant way.

Convinced?


This keeps coming up, so it's worth addressing. All you can say from the Vostok temperature record is that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration initially followed the global temperature. This proves the idea that "carbon dioxide levels CANNOT be driving the temperature in any significant way" only if you somehow believe that there is only one way to increase temperature. Your line of reasoning only works if existence of temperature changes due to orbital forcing is somehow excludes the separate mechanism of changes in temperature due to changes in carbon dioxide concentration.

Is this the case? Do you believe that the existence of orbital forcing is the only factor that can affect temperature and therefore excludes temperature changes due to changes in carbon dioxide concentration?
 
2012-12-21 08:14:23 PM

Damnhippyfreak: All you can say from the Vostok temperature record is that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration initially followed the global temperature at this one location.


Whoops. I should have corrected that before. Temperature from one location in Antarctica isn't necessarily the best proxy for global temperature:

i50.tinypic.com
a, The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5-6.5kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record42 (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (refs 12, 13; yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling-Allerød (B-A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1σ (Methods); p.p.m.v., parts per million by volume. b, The phasing of CO2 concentration and temperature for the global (grey), Northern Hemisphere (NH; blue) and Southern Hemisphere (SH; red) proxy stacks based on lag correlations from 20-10kyr ago in 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations (Methods). The mean and 1σ of the histograms are given. CO2 concentration leads the global temperature stack in 90% of the simulations and lags it in 6%.

From Shakun et al. 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

We can discuss what this means, GeneralJim, but I have a feeling you won't get this far ;)
 
2012-12-21 08:38:18 PM

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: occamswrist: Those are two different things. If you can find a study showing total water vapor in the earth's atmosphere has increased, I'd like to see it. Thanks!

Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback

Also:
[tamino.files.wordpress.com image 500x326]

Red line: Dai 2006, Recent Climatology, Variability, and Trends in Global Surface Humidity, J. Climate, 19, 3589-3606
Green line: Willett et al. 2008, Recent changes in surface humidity: development of the HadCRUH dataset, J. Clim..21, 5364-5383
Blue line: Berry & Kent, 2009, A New Air-Sea Interaction Gridded Dataset from ICOADS with Uncertainty Estimates, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(5), 645-656
Black line: Scaled version of global temperature anomaly from GISS

I'm not sure why this is surprising if you start with:
A) Global temperatures have been rising.
B) Satellite readings show that specific humidity tracks with temperature.
, though there have been some attempts to confuse this issue by citing relative humidity, instead of the relevant measurement of water molecules per unit volume.
Typical Monkey Boy shenanigans. According to AGW apologists, it is water vapor in the UPPER troposphere which generates the Greenhouse Effect. So, what has upper troposphere humidity done over the last few decades?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 520x390]

DISCUSSION HERE



I've was curious just how many times you've had the problems with the NCEP re-analysis pointed out to you. A quick google search reveals that you've had the problems with it pointed out more than two years ago, and yet you seem to have learned very little since then.
 
2012-12-21 08:50:46 PM
snocone:
GeneralJim: Clemkadidlefark: chimp_ninja: thornhill: ZOMG! Winter is cold, thus, climate change is not happening. Somebody take a picture of Al Gore's book in the snow.

Hrm. No one has arrived to post that Al Gore is fat therefore climate change is God's way of keeping Urantia out of our brainwaves. Suspicious.

I will. Al Gore is fat. And Urantia was a damn good book, if a tad long and without a plot.

I find it amazing that my religious beliefs are attacked as a way to attack my scientific arguments -- and when this bit of hate speech was published, I hadn't even posted in the thread. I must be a bigger wheel than I thought if I'm getting preemptive ad hominem arguments.

Well, that much fame does lead to Meme status,,,
Be careful out there.

/btw, thanks for your service as moving target, you're a good tank

You're welcome. It comes with the territory.

cdn.c.photoshelter.com
 
2012-12-21 09:43:26 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
Hate to post and run, but be aware that a graph posting a record for only the lower 48 states isn't the best way to make the case for a "global temperature trend". Plus, of course the usual problems with a potentially misleading short period of time relative to a high degree of variability (but in your favor that is also a problem with the post you're responding to).

Gee, you're right... More right than you would likely care to admit. 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate -- but, then again, so is 150 years. After all, our current blip, warming back up after the "little ice age" has been going on for over three hundred years. Here's what an actual climate trend looks like:


earthintime.com



Oh, ouch. Right after the last major glaciation ended, temperatures peaked, and have been declining ever since. We're headed to another major glaciation. Totally inappropriate.
 
Displayed 50 of 285 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report