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 286
    More: Interesting, Russia, Novosibirsk, global warming  
•       •       •

4996 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»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-20 09:28:22 AM
Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.
 
You are the worst.
 
2012-12-20 09:30:38 AM
You laugh, but it used to be 80 below. It's warming up fast, smitty!
 
2012-12-20 09:35:01 AM
The girls in the picture in TFA, however, are hot.
 
2012-12-20 09:40:13 AM
cold in siberia?  you don't say.
 
2012-12-20 09:48:18 AM

SlothB77: cold in siberia?  you don't say.


It never really took off as a resort community.
 
2012-12-20 09:49:55 AM
everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!
 
2012-12-20 09:54:25 AM
I think minus fifty is actually considered picnic weather in Siberia.
 
2012-12-20 10:08:39 AM
Meanwhile here in Buffalo it's supposed to be 45 and sunny. I ain't complaining.
 
2012-12-20 10:16:09 AM
 
2012-12-20 10:26:50 AM
Boris and Natasha are right at home.
 
2012-12-20 10:40:01 AM
I don'y blame subby for the troltastic title. I blame the mod for greenlighting it.

/back to Reddit
//wheeeeeeee
 
2012-12-20 10:40:06 AM
Meanwhile, here in Maine, it couldn't get below freezing for 2-3 days, when it should be in the single digits (at night). Made for an interesting "snowstorm" ... :/
 
2012-12-20 10:40:44 AM

Gulper Eel: 57 below in Ojmjakon, Chet.



Temperature
-57 °F
Feels Like -57 °F

/helpful
 
2012-12-20 10:41:52 AM
we're getting a foot of global warming today

/thats how it works right?
 
2012-12-20 10:42:33 AM
That's a windchill factor of 50 below. Air temperature is 20 below. That's damn cold this early in the season, but hey, it's Siberia.
 
2012-12-20 10:43:34 AM
As a Canadian,( Northern Canadian) I say that's getting a little cool.
 
2012-12-20 10:43:43 AM
There's going to be some glass-cutting nipples on some of those Russian girls.

msnbcmedia.msn.com
 
2012-12-20 10:44:21 AM
So when it is cold near the Arctic circle in the Winter, that proves there is no such thing as global warming, and Sarah Palin is automatically President.
 
2012-12-20 10:46:48 AM
Lot of disappointed little kids in Siberia then... (They don't let the little kids stay home from school until it gets to -30°C)
 
2012-12-20 10:47:39 AM
I'm sitting here in Chicago and we are supposed to get our first snow today - 2 records of note were broken this year - longest time period between measurable snows and also latest date for a measurable snow to occur.

Hope the snow holds off until I get home
 
2012-12-20 10:47:54 AM

superdude72: That's a windchill factor of 50 below. Air temperature is 20 below. That's damn cold this early in the season, but hey, it's Siberia.


Lot of disappointed little kids in Siberia then... (They don't let the little kids stay home from school until it gets to -30°C)
 
2012-12-20 10:49:22 AM
I don't think it is 52 below in the picture where pretty girls are walking without hats and gloves. No matter how hot they are.
 
2012-12-20 10:49:35 AM
So what's a hungover elephant like in the morning, after you burned his trailer down in weather so cold you can't even write your name in the snow?
 
2012-12-20 10:49:50 AM

FlashHarry: everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!


Everyone else can point and laugh at the "experienced" Farkers that don't know an obvious trolling headline on here when they see one. This is Fark, not FreeRepublic, after all.

Zasteva: Lot of disappointed little kids in Siberia then... (They don't let the little kids stay home from school until it gets to -30°C)


-50F is colder than -30C; the break-even point is -40F = -40C
 
2012-12-20 10:50:31 AM
In case anyone is curious as to who shifted the discussion from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change..."

Certain memes need to DIAF.
 
2012-12-20 10:51:45 AM
Global stupid still at record levels though.
 
2012-12-20 10:51:52 AM
It's called global warming. Not Russia warming.
 
2012-12-20 10:52:28 AM
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
 
2012-12-20 10:52:32 AM
ZOMG! Winter is cold, thus, climate change is not happening. Somebody take a picture of Al Gore's book in the snow.
 
2012-12-20 10:52:43 AM
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
 
2012-12-20 10:53:57 AM

FlameDuck: I don't think it is 52 below in the picture where pretty girls are walking without hats and gloves. No matter how hot they are.


Earlier in the article: In Moscow it felt like 10 below

Caption for the picture: These women were among those who braved the subzero temperatures in Moscow on Wednesday.

Using my amazing powers of deduction, I am able to conclude that no, no it was not 52 below in that picture.
 
2012-12-20 10:54:06 AM

FlashHarry [TotalFark]


everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!


Yeah, that's only appropriate in all the threads about how hot it is.
 
2012-12-20 10:54:15 AM
Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.

lol, so it really is "global warming" with a political spin put on it. So subby is right after all.
 
2012-12-20 10:55:17 AM
Maximum Trolling or Maximum Willful Ignorance?

which is it submitter?
 
2012-12-20 10:55:55 AM
www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Hey, look! "Near average" in parts of Russia! And it was cold in small portions of the north Pacific! Take that, climate science!  (Larger version here. Full NOAA/NCDC report here. tl;dr version: 2012 was unusually warm, globally. Just like every recent year. )
 
2012-12-20 10:57:14 AM
Troll troll troll your boat
Modmins make it green
Merrily merrily merrily merrily 
Make the Farkers scream
 
2012-12-20 10:57:42 AM

BitwiseShift: So what's a hungover elephant like in the morning, after you burned his trailer down in weather so cold you can't even write your name in the snow?


Welcome the jungle! said the unnamed handler
 
2012-12-20 10:58:02 AM

devilEther: Maximum Trolling or Maximum Willful Ignorance?

which is it submitter?


Seeing as global warming deniers always seem to get green-lighted, for the sheer fact that farkers will flood the comment section and drive up ad revenue, I'm going to go ahead and say trolling, if not a mod-min trolling.
 
2012-12-20 10:58:17 AM
padresteve.files.wordpress.com
 
Can't be less than -20° C...
 
2012-12-20 11:00:02 AM

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]


More, please.
 
2012-12-20 11:01:16 AM
After all the stupid shiat the last administration started around the world I always suspected they would try to invade Siberia just before winter as a finishing touch and to prove to the world they had no strategy. Or reference to previous bad strategy. That guy's library should be filled with Dick and Jane books.
 
2012-12-20 11:01:58 AM

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.
 
2012-12-20 11:02:13 AM
trappedspirit:

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.

lol, so it really is "global warming" with a political spin put on it. So subby is right after all.


Well, when even Luntz repudiates it, that's kinda like Karl Rove saying that someone pulled a jerk move, or Dick Cheney saying someone was heartless.
Yes, there's politics involved. No, it's not on the side that some people claim.
 
2012-12-20 11:02:30 AM

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.


I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.
 
2012-12-20 11:02:51 AM

FlashHarry: everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!


Pretty much what I was going to say. Things like the jet streams cause fluctuations all the time, between being unusually warm and unusually cold. That's different from long term trends that transcend local variations.
 
2012-12-20 11:03:19 AM

factoryconnection: FlashHarry: everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!

Everyone else can point and laugh at the "experienced" Farkers that don't know an obvious trolling headline on here when they see one. This is Fark, not FreeRepublic, after all.

Zasteva: Lot of disappointed little kids in Siberia then... (They don't let the little kids stay home from school until it gets to -30°C)

-50F is colder than -30C; the break-even point is -40F = -40C


Yeah, that was intended as a response to superdude's comment about that only being 20 below, and it was the windchill bringing it to 50 below. They don't count the windchill :-/
 
2012-12-20 11:04:12 AM
There is a HUGE difference between a windchill of -47 and a temperature of -47.

It was -37 here in a North American city yesterday morning and below -30 for most of the month. On the other side, it is sad what is happening, the big difference here is we can afford all the insulation and high tech clothing and car heaters we need.
 
2012-12-20 11:04:21 AM
i1275.photobucket.com>
 
2012-12-20 11:06:15 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: There's going to be some glass-cutting nipples on some of those Russian girls.

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 600x424]


The one on the right is cuter, but obviously lethaly stupid. No hat or gloves.
 
2012-12-20 11:06:36 AM

Tommy Moo: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.


The base prediction is a warming planet, which is demonstrably happening. That doesn't mean that every point on the surface of the planet is going to be hotter than it was before at all points at all times.

It'd be like predicting that the ocean level is rising, overall, and then some guy points at some small harbor that's experiencing low tide at that exact moment, and saying "Nah uh! the ocean levels are DROPPING"

It's the difference between a point sample and a long term averaged trend-line.
 
2012-12-20 11:06:37 AM
But it's a dry cold.
 
2012-12-20 11:06:51 AM
Can the global warming/climate change wtf ever you wanna call it threads start going in the politics thread already?
 
2012-12-20 11:06:56 AM
vestona22:

i1275.photobucket.com

Aaaand here we have an example of a true believer!
 
2012-12-20 11:08:05 AM
Mindless zealot believing in global warming? Accepted.

Mindless zealot disbelieving in global warming? Accepted.

Any other opinion? You're a wacko.

This has been my experience of sharing an honest opinion about the matter. So, yeah, make with the Russian babes.
 
2012-12-20 11:10:36 AM
Tommy Moo:

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.


Ok... So in your understanding, the various models haven't predicted anything?

Actually, do you know ANYTHING about the models at all, or are you just spouting at random?

Seriously... What (in your mind) do the models predict?
 
2012-12-20 11:10:43 AM

vestona22: [i1275.photobucket.com image 300x240]>


Yeah it's funny how every time they point at an example of a localized weather pattern, we point that out, and correct them that it's not equivalent to climate, and then we point out the climate change that's actually an indicator of global warming is climate change.

Seriously, this isn't complicated. Having a nice sunny day is not equivalent to a 100s-of-years established average climate for a geographical region.
 
2012-12-20 11:11:03 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Can the global warming/climate change wtf ever you wanna call it threads start going in the politics thread already?


Its almost each party has backed a side and won't give. I think that means we will start actually doing something.
 
2012-12-20 11:11:09 AM

Zasteva: Yeah, that was intended as a response to superdude's comment about that only being 20 below, and it was the windchill bringing it to 50 below. They don't count the windchill :-/


A ha. That makes sense.

maxheck: Aaaand here we have an example of a true believer!


How ironic that such a position makes him/her more of an Agnostic. They see all the piles of evidence, and still can't be sure.
 
2012-12-20 11:12:45 AM
We're getting a foot of snow today. Suck it
 
2012-12-20 11:13:21 AM
Tennessee is supposed to get snow showers tomorrow. It's not going to get above 32 here. I'm hoping for a snow day (I work for a university)
 
2012-12-20 11:16:03 AM
factoryconnection:


maxheck: Aaaand here we have an example of a true believer!

How ironic that such a position makes him/her more of an Agnostic. They see all the piles of evidence, and still can't be sure.


Now, now... They want to be called "skeptics." And they will stamp their feet, close their eyes and cover their ears if you *dare* call them "deniers."
 
2012-12-20 11:16:07 AM

Tommy Moo: If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something.


Here's an article by a Nobel laureate predicting that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming of the surface. The author also calculates the rough impact of such an increase, which is within the range later put forward by the IPCC.

Of course, the author didn't think that burning fossil fuels would lead to this, because when Svante Arrhenius wrote the article in 1896 we weren't burning them quite so aggressively.

So, you're only a little over a century behind on the science. Yay, you.

i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-20 11:16:09 AM
-33F at my house right now.

/Alaskan
 
2012-12-20 11:16:52 AM
Ah, but that was also predicted by AGW. Hot weather, cold weather, bad weather, good weather, even no weather at all... 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.

/we even promise not to make the same mistake the astrologers and eugenicists made
//the USA will be enlightened first of all, and only after it is thoroughly enlightened into submission will we break our promises not to enlighten other nations like China and India
 
2012-12-20 11:17:03 AM
I love these global warming threads.
www.troll.me
 
2012-12-20 11:17:17 AM

blatz514: We're getting a foot of snow today. Suck it


Strangely, that's bound to happen when you take a planet of mostly water and crank up the heat a bit. That makes much more water vapor, and all you need are regions that are still
It's not like snow production is a directly proportional line to temperature. It's more of a bell curve that starts at zero, goes up to some maximum amount, and then drops again, and depending on what side of that curve your region starts, an increase in global temperature can produce either more or less snow locally.

Some of the driest, least precipitation places on the planet are in ultra-cold areas, because there isn't enough heat to produce water vapor in the air.
 
2012-12-20 11:17:57 AM
i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2012-12-20 11:18:39 AM

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.
 
2012-12-20 11:19:13 AM

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.


it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.
 
2012-12-20 11:20:12 AM

Tatterdemalian: Ah, but that was also predicted by AGW. Hot weather, cold weather, bad weather, good weather, even no weather at all... 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.

/we even promise not to make the same mistake the astrologers and eugenicists made
//the USA will be enlightened first of all, and only after it is thoroughly enlightened into submission will we break our promises not to enlighten other nations like China and India


Can you cite anyone saying anything like that? I keep asking this, but never get an answer. What I typically get are dishonest misrepresentations of what people are saying, typically, among other reasons, because they can't comprehend any topic that's more nuanced than "Hot out mean global warming but cold out mean not global warming".

... just like this one.
 
2012-12-20 11:22:43 AM

trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.


Gore is irrelevant. He made a movie. He's not the scientific community. The fact people keep bringing him up demonstrates that they'd rather throw out red herrings than actually deal with the facts.

Climate change and global warming are two different things.

Global warming is when the planet heats up. Climate change are the changes in the climate because of that.

This is very straight forward.
 
2012-12-20 11:23:19 AM

chimp_ninja: Tommy Moo: If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something.

Here's an article by a Nobel laureate predicting that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming of the surface. The author also calculates the rough impact of such an increase, which is within the range later put forward by the IPCC.


See also: "Successful Predictions", Ray Pierrehumbert's talk at AGU this year.
 
2012-12-20 11:23:54 AM

FlameDuck: I don't think it is 52 below in the picture where pretty girls are walking without hats and gloves. No matter how hot they are.


In my part of (northern) Canada, you should see how women go out no matter how cold it gets.

//Being hot (or getting sexually assaulted) trumps not dying in the -30 degree temperatures and snow, I guess.
 
2012-12-20 11:24:33 AM
chimp_ninja:

From the looks of it, Svante Ahrrhenius frowns on EVERYTHING!
 
2012-12-20 11:26:24 AM

maxheck: chimp_ninja:

From the looks of it, Svante Ahrrhenius frowns on EVERYTHING!


Shenanigans were at historically high levels in the 1890s.
 
2012-12-20 11:27:13 AM

trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.


Actually when I was in college studying this stuff in the early 90s this was a topic of conversation, that is, the idea that "Global Climate Change" was a better name for the phenomenon because while the "Global Warming" was the net effect, that would confuse many people who would just expect that everything would get warmer, whereas actually we would see dramatic changes in weather patterns (aka climate). Gore didn't become a target for the anti-science crowd until 2006 when his movie was released.
 
2012-12-20 11:28:41 AM
Drasancas:

trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Gore is irrelevant. He made a movie. He's not the scientific community. The fact people keep bringing him up demonstrates that they'd rather throw out red herrings than actually deal with the facts.

Climate change and global warming are two different things.

Global warming is when the planet heats up. Climate change are the changes in the climate because of that.

This is very straight forward.


Or, to be more specific...

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-20 11:30:11 AM

Deep Contact: [i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x413]


"I came"
 
2012-12-20 11:31:00 AM
One of the smartest guys I know is quite conservative and a skeptic.  But even he concedes, "It can't have been a good thing to increase the partial pressure of CO2 by 50%."
 
2012-12-20 11:31:22 AM
chimp_ninja:

maxheck: chimp_ninja:

From the looks of it, Svante Ahrrhenius frowns on EVERYTHING!

Shenanigans were at historically high levels in the 1890s.


So, just as he predicted, we've come full circle...

(frowns)
 
2012-12-20 11:34:41 AM

Tatterdemalian: Brave New Reich Of Tomorrow


It's only a matter of time before some bagger decides that science == Hitler.
 
2012-12-20 11:37:10 AM

Lesbian-Jesus: There is a HUGE difference between a windchill of -47 and a temperature of -47.

It was -37 here in a North American city yesterday morning and below -30 for most of the month. On the other side, it is sad what is happening, the big difference here is we can afford all the insulation and high tech clothing and car heaters we need.


You mean the stuff that when manufactured generates CO2?
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
 
All the rest is just redistribution of wealth by carpet bagging Profiteers.
Not a farking thing anyone can do to even slow CO2 production in the Real World.
 
I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.
 
2012-12-20 11:37:28 AM

Drasancas: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Gore is irrelevant. He made a movie. He's not the scientific community. The fact people keep bringing him up demonstrates that they'd rather throw out red herrings than actually deal with the facts.

Climate change and global warming are two different things.

Global warming is when the planet heats up. Climate change are the changes in the climate because of that.

This is very straight forward.


I think it would've been better had Gore stayed out of the fray on climate change, honestly. With that film, he turned a scientific theory based on decades of data into a partisan battle. It may have already been somewhat partisan before he got involved, but his profile gave the Right a way to demonize it using Gore as their whipping boy. Al Gore is still the first thing that comes out of their mouth whenever the subject is brought up. This has nothing to do with politics, it's farking physics.
 
2012-12-20 11:39:30 AM
i1239.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-20 11:39:38 AM

make me some tea: Drasancas: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Gore is irrelevant. He made a movie. He's not the scientific community. The fact people keep bringing him up demonstrates that they'd rather throw out red herrings than actually deal with the facts.

Climate change and global warming are two different things.

Global warming is when the planet heats up. Climate change are the changes in the climate because of that.

This is very straight forward.

I think it would've been better had Gore stayed out of the fray on climate change, honestly. With that film, he turned a scientific theory based on decades of data into a partisan battle. It may have already been somewhat partisan before he got involved, but his profile gave the Right a way to demonize it using Gore as their whipping boy. Al Gore is still the first thing that comes out of their mouth whenever the subject is brought up. This has nothing to do with politics, it's farking physics.


W/o the film, he doesn't get the Nobel he was promised for going away after winning against The Shrub.
 
2012-12-20 11:39:39 AM
i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-20 11:40:29 AM

Wayne 985: [i1239.photobucket.com image 300x225]


Well, Pilgrim, this is Fark. You lost?
 
2012-12-20 11:41:00 AM

make me some tea: It may have already been somewhat partisan before he got involved, but his profile gave the Right a way to demonize it using Gore as their whipping boy.


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. I've never seen a conservatard conspiracy theory about global warming that isn't at least an order of magnitude more impressive than anything the conspirators have been accused of actually doing with it.
 
2012-12-20 11:41:25 AM
Global warmingz!

So take away all the gunz!

So more people survive!

And we can accelerate it!!!
 
2012-12-20 11:41:26 AM
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-20 11:42:48 AM

Zasteva: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming. You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Actually when I was in college studying this stuff in the early 90s this was a topic of conversation, that is, the idea that "Global Climate Change" was a better name for the phenomenon because while the "Global Warming" was the net effect, that would confuse many people who would just expect that everything would get warmer, whereas actually we would see dramatic changes in weather patterns (aka climate). Gore didn't become a target for the anti-science crowd until 2006 when his movie was released.


It's also worth noting that the scientific community has been using "climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" (a subset of the former) as the preferred nomenclature in journals for decades. Here's a link to a Science article from 1979 by Carl Sagan illustrating this.

There was never any moment where some unspecified "they" changed the terminology on everyone for whatever reason.
 
2012-12-20 11:43:48 AM

Drasancas: blatz514: We're getting a foot of snow today. Suck it

Strangely, that's bound to happen when you take a planet of mostly water and crank up the heat a bit. That makes much more water vapor, and all you need are regions that are still
It's not like snow production is a directly proportional line to temperature. It's more of a bell curve that starts at zero, goes up to some maximum amount, and then drops again, and depending on what side of that curve your region starts, an increase in global temperature can produce either more or less snow locally.

Some of the driest, least precipitation places on the planet are in ultra-cold areas, because there isn't enough heat to produce water vapor in the air.


I was merely saying that we are getting a shiatload of snow and I have the day off. Win!
 
2012-12-20 11:44:47 AM

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.
 
2012-12-20 11:45:02 AM
Well that settles it. I'm gonna BBQ me a whale over a patch of burning rainforest, you know, to help the poor cold Russians.

/ not really
// weather != climate.
 
2012-12-20 11:46:05 AM

snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.


Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.
 
2012-12-20 11:46:17 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tatterdemalian: Brave New Reich Of Tomorrow

It's only a matter of time before some bagger decides that science == Hitler.


I'd say it's only a matter of time before someone forgets that, between the fall of the Weimar Republic and the start of WWII, everyone did in fact believe that Hitler == science, but as the famous "Would we have allowed Hitler to host the Olympics?" protest photo shows, that ship already sailed years ago.

/those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it
//those who rewrite their history won't even understand why it keeps repeating
 
2012-12-20 11:48:04 AM
Russia's interior minister has warned all hot females to stay indoors. All other get your asskies back to workskei.
 
2012-12-20 11:48:20 AM
Last one and i'm giving up here. 
 
i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-20 11:48:44 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: There's going to be some glass-cutting nipples on some of those Russian girls.

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 600x424]


I think you underestimate just how cold it really is; I bet they could cut diamonds.
 
2012-12-20 11:49:02 AM

Galloping Galoshes: The Irresponsible Captain: There's going to be some glass-cutting nipples on some of those Russian girls.

 
[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 600x424]
 
The one on the right is cuter, but obviously lethaly stupid. No hat or gloves
 
Lethally stupid is right. That's how Windir died. Went for a walk in Norway to visit his mom, died of hypothermia. Took the searchers three days to find his body. When I went to live in Norway, there was NO WAY you were getting my Cali girl butt out of the house without some serious arctic type clothing on my bod. I was in the far South, too. Shoulda seen it when I went to visit a friend and her family in the far North, above the arctic circle. I thought I was gonna die the minute I left her bro's car and started dashing for the house, doing a frantic "let me in, let me in!" dance. Or, as others would call it, "completely spazzing out". 
 
It can get seriously cold in those types of places. They're not anywhere you'd want to be homeless, that's for sure. That would be a death sentence. 
 
/laughed when her cousin fainted in the heat after walking out of the airport,  coming to Sacramento from Norway
//then took pity and just dragged her to the car and poured some bottled water on her
///"wake up, dudette! wake up!" with the water seemed to work very well, as she is still alive
 
2012-12-20 11:51:06 AM

chimp_ninja: Zasteva: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming. You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Actually when I was in college studying this stuff in the early 90s this was a topic of conversation, that is, the idea that "Global Climate Change" was a better name for the phenomenon because while the "Global Warming" was the net effect, that would confuse many people who would just expect that everything would get warmer, whereas actually we would see dramatic changes in weather patterns (aka climate). Gore didn't become a target for the anti-science crowd until 2006 when his movie was released.

It's also worth noting that the scientific community has been using "climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" (a subset of the former) as the preferred nomenclature in journals for decades. Here's a link to a Science article from 1979 by Carl Sagan illustrating this.

There was never any moment where some unspecified "they" changed the terminology on everyone for whatever reason.


I think pop culture favored "global warming" because it sounds more dramatic than climate change.
 
2012-12-20 11:51:44 AM

chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.


I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.
 
2012-12-20 11:53:18 AM

Tatterdemalian: Weimar Republic


Glenn Beck Like Typing Detected.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:09 AM
russianwomenblog.hotrussianbrides.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-20 11:57:11 AM

snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.



I believe the point of those particular solutions (Princeton's Stabilization Wedges) is that they are relatively practical and easy to implement with existing technology. Honestly, take a look if you have a chance.
 
2012-12-20 11:59:22 AM

Damnhippyfreak: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.


I believe the point of those particular solutions (Princeton's Stabilization Wedges) is that they are relatively practical and easy to implement with existing technology. Honestly, take a look if you have a chance.


It is a farking board game you moron.
I suspect a large component of humor.
 
What, you not in favor of the clown that wants money to study throwing chaff into orbit to "shade" the planet.
 
2012-12-20 12:02:48 PM

snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented. I will also throw out all obvious money grinders. Good luck, sucker.


I notice you do not address any of the plan's content. Again. It's almost as if you have a predetermined political agenda and don't care about the facts of the matter.

For example, why don't you think the world can add 700 GW of installed wind power? We have 238 GW up globally today, and it's not exactly like we're going all-out to build it. Germany gets ~8% of their power from wind, and they have terrible geography for it. The US gets 3.3% despite a vast advantage in resources, largely out of political laziness. Several countries get more than 10%, and in Denmark it's about 25%.
 
2012-12-20 12:03:43 PM

snocone: Damnhippyfreak: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.


I believe the point of those particular solutions (Princeton's Stabilization Wedges) is that they are relatively practical and easy to implement with existing technology. Honestly, take a look if you have a chance.

It is a farking board game you moron.
I suspect a large component of humor.

What, you not in favor of the clown that wants money to study throwing chaff into orbit to "shade" the planet.



Not sure what you're trying to say here, but again I point out that the Princeton's Stabilization Wedges tend towards practical solutions with existing technology - an approach very different from the wide-scale engineering that you're referencing.

I suggest it might seem like much less of a 'board game' to you if you read up on some of this stuff. One of the advantages of the particular set of solutions that was linked to you is that they're presented in a very accessible way. I again urge you to take a look if you've got some time.
 
2012-12-20 12:04:30 PM

snocone: It is a farking board game you moron. I suspect a large component of humor.


No, it's a tool to show the layman how one can level out carbon dioxide levels. The underlying calculations are included. I'm assuming you don't have the necessary subscriptions to various technical journals, so I'm linking a summary article.

So, wind. Why couldn't we add 700 GW of wind globally?
 
2012-12-20 12:08:39 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: It is a farking board game you moron. I suspect a large component of humor.

 
No, it's a tool to show the layman how one can level out carbon dioxide levels. The underlying calculations are included. I'm assuming you don't have the necessary subscriptions to various technical journals, so I'm linking a summary article.
 
So, wind. Why couldn't we add 700 GW of wind globally?
 
 
Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen.
 
No Federal Government Math, no Police Math.
 
Genocide or get used to it.
 
2012-12-20 12:11:53 PM

make me some tea: chimp_ninja: Zasteva: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming. You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Actually when I was in college studying this stuff in the early 90s this was a topic of conversation, that is, the idea that "Global Climate Change" was a better name for the phenomenon because while the "Global Warming" was the net effect, that would confuse many people who would just expect that everything would get warmer, whereas actually we would see dramatic changes in weather patterns (aka climate). Gore didn't become a target for the anti-science crowd until 2006 when his movie was released.

It's also worth noting that the scientific community has been using "climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" (a subset of the former) as the preferred nomenclature in journals for decades. Here's a link to a Science article from 1979 by Carl Sagan illustrating this.

There was never any moment where some unspecified "they" changed the terminology on everyone for whatever reason.

I think pop culture favored "global warming" because it sounds more dramatic than climate change.


when presented with evidence that the data was being manipulated the "believers" seem to dismiss any negative. why is that?

Link

there was a time when the earth was completely uninhabitable. there was a time when the earth had this thing called the Ice Age. there was a time when scientists thought that the earth was flat. there was a time when scientists thought there was no water in the universe. there still is a time when scientists thing we are alone in this universe. those "scientists" change their mind more than Romney.
 
2012-12-20 12:14:15 PM
snocone:

chimp_ninja: snocone: It is a farking board game you moron. I suspect a large component of humor.

No, it's a tool to show the layman how one can level out carbon dioxide levels. The underlying calculations are included. I'm assuming you don't have the necessary subscriptions to various technical journals, so I'm linking a summary article.

So, wind. Why couldn't we add 700 GW of wind globally?


Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen.

No Federal Government Math, no Police Math.

Genocide or get used to it.


Your fondness for genocide is noted, but you may have missed how a lot of governments, utilities, and individual companies like Walmart have been supplanting their power needs with wind and solar.

Not replacing, not yet. but taking care of business with renewables.
 
2012-12-20 12:14:33 PM

snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.


The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."
 
2012-12-20 12:16:41 PM

trey101: when presented with evidence that the data was being manipulated the "believers" seem to dismiss any negative. why is that?


Because at least seven different cases have been tried, and precisely zero people have been shown to have committed scientific misconduct. The NSF Inspector General's report is particularly damning.

Next question?
 
2012-12-20 12:18:37 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.

The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."


According to you and your "concensus" buttbuddies, we are already past the "tipping point".
So an expensive bandaid?
Like I said, it, and you by your sycophancy, are all about THE MONEY.
 
Nuttin but THE MONEY
 
2012-12-20 12:20:42 PM
Not sure if she's Russian but this scene is why I went through puberty so I'll post it.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-20 12:20:48 PM

snocone: The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.


Look how stupid you are

This is what Global Warming Denialists actually believe
 
2012-12-20 12:22:09 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.

The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."


I first read what little is there a few years ago.
Time has not improved their assumptions at all.
 
So, all we get from you today is the usual strawcritters?
 
2012-12-20 12:23:29 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


Watch your language!
Oh dear!
 
THE WORLD CLIMATE APPEARS TO BE WARMING.
 
Whar your made up denial???
 
2012-12-20 12:27:29 PM
I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.
 
2012-12-20 12:28:40 PM

trey101: make me some tea: chimp_ninja: Zasteva: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming. You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Actually when I was in college studying this stuff in the early 90s this was a topic of conversation, that is, the idea that "Global Climate Change" was a better name for the phenomenon because while the "Global Warming" was the net effect, that would confuse many people who would just expect that everything would get warmer, whereas actually we would see dramatic changes in weather patterns (aka climate). Gore didn't become a target for the anti-science crowd until 2006 when his movie was released.

It's also worth noting that the scientific community has been using "climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" (a subset of the former) as the preferred nomenclature in journals for decades. Here's a link to a Science article from 1979 by Carl Sagan illustrating this.

There was never any moment where some unspecified "they" changed the terminology on everyone for whatever reason.

I think pop culture favored "global warming" because it sounds more dramatic than climate change.

when presented with evidence that the data was being manipulated the "believers" seem to dismiss any negative. why is that?

Link

there was a time when the earth was completely uninhabitable. there was a time when the earth had this thing called the Ice Age. there was a time when scientists thought that the earth was flat. there was a time when scientists thought there was no water in the universe. there still is a time when scientists thing we are alone in this universe. those "scientists" change their mind more than Romney.


Oh, that link is rich with dog whistle words: "Al Gore", "ivory tower", "cooking the data". LOL
 
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?
 
2012-12-20 12:31:03 PM

Amos Quito: Troll troll troll your boat
Modmins make it green
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Make the Farkers scream


lol. I came for the butthurt caused by subby's headline.

Leaving satisfied and amused.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:33 PM

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.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:43 PM

snocone: THE WORLD CLIMATE APPEARS TO BE WARMING.

Whar your made up denial???


"APPEARS TO BE"
Weasel words from an AGW denialist.

I'm guessing stage 2 denial "Yeah, the globe may be warming but there's no proof that humans are responsible, the earth cools and warms all on its own." Though your pessimism about CO2 may indicate stage 3 denial "Yeah humans may be responsible but there's NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT"

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
 
2012-12-20 12:34:03 PM

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

And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.


Questionable grip on the age of the earth aside, the fact that climate has changed due to natural as well as anthropogenic causes does not mean that anthropogenically-driven changes won't have detrimental effects. We can't affect all change, but we do have control over what we ourselves cause.
 
2012-12-20 12:37:25 PM

snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.

The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."

I first read what little is there a few years ago.
Time has not improved their assumptions at all.

So, all we get from you today is the usual strawcritters?



I suggest that you may not have read very much, or that deeply into it or the only viable solution you can think of is genocide. I can only suggest it so many times, but do take a look at those Princeton Stabilization Wedges that have been linked to you repeatedly. This one subset of potential solutions alone strongly argues against what you're saying.
 
2012-12-20 12:41:55 PM
Ah, here is the usual suspects en mase.
 
Having fun changing what I say?
Having fun saying your chit for me?
 
Same ole, same ole
 
2012-12-20 12:43:17 PM

snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.


Holy fark, you're unbelievably stupid.  Please visit more threads I'm in.  This is hilarious.
 
2012-12-20 12:43:23 PM
I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.
 
Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.
 
2012-12-20 12:44:58 PM

Spaced Cowboy: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.

Holy fark, you're unbelievably stupid.  Please visit more threads I'm in.  This is hilarious.


And you would be incredibly incorrect, but you are used to that.
I got papers!
 
2012-12-20 12:46:09 PM
My concensus of behavior scientists and psychologists have certified and documented my IQ.
Go fish.
 
2012-12-20 12:49:24 PM

snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.


If your supporting evidence is a number that is not only wrong, but is off by two orders of magnitude, it's time to re-evaluate how much you think you know know about this subject, and how bad the information that you're using to reach your conclusions is.

So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning


These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy
 
2012-12-20 12:53:20 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

If your supporting evidence is a number that is not only wrong, but is off by two orders of magnitude, it's time to re-evaluate how much you think you know know about this subject, and how bad the information that you're using to reach your conclusions is.

So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning


These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy

 
The issue is climate change.
Could we focus??
 
NO
 
2012-12-20 12:56:24 PM

Drasancas: Tommy Moo: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

The base prediction is a warming planet, which is demonstrably happening. That doesn't mean that every point on the surface of the planet is going to be hotter than it was before at all points at all times.

It'd be like predicting that the ocean level is rising, overall, and then some guy points at some small harbor that's experiencing low tide at that exact moment, and saying "Nah uh! the ocean levels are DROPPING"

It's the difference between a point sample and a long term averaged trend-line.


Fair enough. So call it Global Warming then. Don't shy away from the model. It makes them look like the guy who puts $50 on black and $50 on red and pumps his fist as he wins $90 at the roulette wheel.
 
2012-12-20 12:57:49 PM

maxheck: Tommy Moo:

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

Ok... So in your understanding, the various models haven't predicted anything?

Actually, do you know ANYTHING about the models at all, or are you just spouting at random?

Seriously... What (in your mind) do the models predict?


The models predict that the earth should be warming. So quit being a pantywaist with this "climate change" BS and go back to calling it global warming like you're taking a stand.
 
2012-12-20 01:00:56 PM
Just saw the best commercial evar made.
Allyie Bank, asks the Financial Expert, "can you tell us what the rate will be in two years?"
"No"
 
Go right ahead spewing your predictions for the future.
You are joining the Greatest Fail Club of all time.
 
2012-12-20 01:03:39 PM
This headline works every time it is tried. It reminds me of a Christianity message board but with Jesus replaced by climate change.
 
2012-12-20 01:04:07 PM

snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.


You did? Let me scroll back up and look. I'l admit when you came out with that whopper about "The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide" I was stunned for a moment Gimme a sec...

Ah, no. No you didn't ask for a reduction in human CO2 production - you claimed that it is impossible, and and then tossed out a challenge for anyone to provide you with a reduction effort which wasn't just a wealth redistribution scheme.

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 01:05:00 PM

snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.

Holy fark, you're unbelievably stupid.  Please visit more threads I'm in.  This is hilarious.

And you would be incredibly incorrect, but you are used to that.
I got papers!


Sense, motherfarker, do you make any?
 
/that roar you hear is everyone laughing at you
 
2012-12-20 01:06:00 PM

snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.



Yowch. Alright, since you seem to be somewhat hesitant to take a look at the link repeatedly provided to you, let's highlight one potential part of the solution (that chimp_ninja has pointed out to you already):

i45.tinypic.com
The idea behind the use of wind power is that it does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, therefore displacing energy production through, say, coal should result in "human CO2 production".

Come on now - the fact that you're searching for an example of "reduction in human CO2 production" when strategies for doing exactly this are ubiquitous highly suggests you haven't read much into this subject.
 
2012-12-20 01:06:38 PM

Damnhippyfreak: should result in a reduction of "human CO2 production".


That makes more sense.
 
2012-12-20 01:06:44 PM
21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY
 
2012-12-20 01:08:54 PM

snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY


Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.
 
2012-12-20 01:11:16 PM

Damnhippyfreak: snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.


Yowch. Alright, since you seem to be somewhat hesitant to take a look at the link repeatedly provided to you, let's highlight one potential part of the solution (that chimp_ninja has pointed out to you already):

[i45.tinypic.com image 640x640]
The idea behind the use of wind power is that it does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, therefore displacing energy production through, say, coal should result in "human CO2 production".

Come on now - the fact that you're searching for an example of "reduction in human CO2 production" when strategies for doing exactly this are ubiquitous highly suggests you haven't read much into this subject.


So, there is no way to REDUCE human CO2 production, like I said.
Mitigation of the future is your favorite strawman for this, I see.
 
The link you pukes are so proud of is a THEORY for future production of energy, that MAY produce less CO2, MAYBE.
'Course the big picture of overall CO2 production of the high tech windmills is kinda overlooked.
 
2012-12-20 01:11:33 PM

snocone: So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning

These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy

The issue is climate change.
Could we focus??


The general topic is climate change. The specific subtopic we are discussing is whether or not you are well versed enough in even the most rudimentary grade school scientific basics that anyone should take your opinion seriously on the larger issue of climate change. Given that you think that the planet is between 6K and 60M years old, I'm going to go with "definitely not"
 
2012-12-20 01:12:01 PM

Spaced Cowboy: snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY

 
Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.
 
 
You the fun one. just looky.
 
2012-12-20 01:13:12 PM
Tommy Moo:

maxheck: Tommy Moo:

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

Ok... So in your understanding, the various models haven't predicted anything?

Actually, do you know ANYTHING about the models at all, or are you just spouting at random?

Seriously... What (in your mind) do the models predict?

The models predict that the earth should be warming. So quit being a pantywaist with this "climate change" BS and go back to calling it global warming like you're taking a stand.


Well happy day! Someone *did* take a stand.

You do know the nomenclature has been twiddled a bit, mostly through ignorance and the inability of Fox Newsbabes being able to pronounce "anthropogenic" right? And you're aware of what I pointed out in this very thread about Frank Luntz's contribution?

Somehow I still suspect you don't know a damn thing about what the models say. You're just bloviating.
 
2012-12-20 01:13:17 PM

snocone: Just saw the best commercial evar made.
Allyie Bank, asks the Financial Expert, "can you tell us what the rate will be in two years?"
"No"

Go right ahead spewing your predictions for the future.
You are joining the Greatest Fail Club of all time.



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.

I can appreciate that you're probably somewhat mistrustful of predictions made by experts. I suggest to you that some predictions are better than others - especially when some are based on scientific inquiry. How can you tell? By learning about this stuff. You're sitting in front of an incredibly powerful information tool - use it!
 
2012-12-20 01:13:19 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning

These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy

The issue is climate change.
Could we focus??

The general topic is climate change. The specific subtopic we are discussing is whether or not you are well versed enough in even the most rudimentary grade school scientific basics that anyone should take your opinion seriously on the larger issue of climate change. Given that you think that the planet is between 6K and 60M years old, I'm going to go with "definitely not"


So now you switbh to openly attacking me.
This is my suprised face.
 
You poor schlubs.
 
2012-12-20 01:14:36 PM

snocone: 1) Point out future disaster


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.
 
Hey, if you can point out a disaster in the making, AND you have a reliable way of preventing the disaster, you deserve all the profit you can get your grubby hands on.
 
2012-12-20 01:14:51 PM
BTW, "6K to 60M" is just too obscure a snark for you.
 
2012-12-20 01:15:34 PM

snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY
 
Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.
 
 
You the fun one. just looky.


Oh I'm looking.  This is my lunch break entertainment.  You're getting batted around this discussion like a ball of yarn in the hands of a cat and it's hilarious.  Glad I brought some popcorn.
 
2012-12-20 01:19:12 PM

Spaced Cowboy: snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY
 
Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.
 
 
You the fun one. just looky.

Oh I'm looking.  This is my lunch break entertainment.  You're getting batted around this discussion like a ball of yarn in the hands of a cat and it's hilarious.  Glad I brought some popcorn.


Batted?
WTF?
I got axactly what I wanted.
Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks.
The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.
 
2012-12-20 01:21:10 PM

snocone: Damnhippyfreak: snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.


Yowch. Alright, since you seem to be somewhat hesitant to take a look at the link repeatedly provided to you, let's highlight one potential part of the solution (that chimp_ninja has pointed out to you already):

[i45.tinypic.com image 640x640]
The idea behind the use of wind power is that it does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, therefore displacing energy production through, say, coal should result in "human CO2 production".

Come on now - the fact that you're searching for an example of "reduction in human CO2 production" when strategies for doing exactly this are ubiquitous highly suggests you haven't read much into this subject.

So, there is no way to REDUCE human CO2 production, like I said.
Mitigation of the future is your favorite strawman for this, I see.

The link you pukes are so proud of is a THEORY for future production of energy, that MAY produce less CO2, MAYBE.
'Course the big picture of overall CO2 production of the high tech windmills is kinda overlooked.



Simple incredulity isn't that strong of an argument as you may think. I mistakenly forgot to type that displacing fossil-fuel based energy production by use of wind (and other renewable energy for that matter) would result in a reduction in CO2 emissions. This is a fairly straight-forward idea.
 
2012-12-20 01:28:19 PM
I heart these threads and have had one or two greened myself. They ALWAYS work.
 
2012-12-20 01:29:28 PM

Damnhippyfreak: snocone: Damnhippyfreak: snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

 
Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.

 
 
Yowch. Alright, since you seem to be somewhat hesitant to take a look at the link repeatedly provided to you, let's highlight one potential part of the solution (that chimp_ninja has pointed out to you already):
 
[i45.tinypic.com image 640x640]
The idea behind the use of wind power is that it does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, therefore displacing energy production through, say, coal should result in "human CO2 production".

 
Come on now - the fact that you're searching for an example of "reduction in human CO2 production" when strategies for doing exactly this are ubiquitous highly suggests you haven't read much into this subject.
 
So, there is no way to REDUCE human CO2 production, like I said.
Mitigation of the future is your favorite strawman for this, I see.

 
The link you pukes are so proud of is a THEORY for future production of energy, that MAY produce less CO2, MAYBE.
'Course the big picture of overall CO2 production of the high tech windmills is kinda overlooked.

 
 
Simple incredulity isn't that strong of an argument as you may think. I mistakenly forgot to type that displacing fossil-fuel based energy production by use of wind (and other renewable energy for that matter) would result in a reduction in CO2 emissions. This is a fairly straight-forward idea.
 
 
If you replaced it, yes. But you still face manufacture, transportation, distribution CO2 production, all of it.
Not the plan. Plan addresses FUTURE production. My friend, this means more CO2 somewhere in planet.
There will be no reduction in energy demand unless you reduce the number of users. No reduction in demand puts you in the box.
There is simply no way to catch the curve.
 
Time to make lemonade and quit yer biaching and feeding the politicians.
Once again, we are the problem. Shifting the focus to PROFIT is no answer.
 
2012-12-20 01:29:59 PM
FlashHarry:
everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!

Yeah, what an idiot, Submittard! Get with the program.... When it's locally COLD, that means nothing, as in Russia this winter, per TFA. But when it's locally HOT, as in the U.S.A. last summer, that proves Global Anthropogenic Climate Apocalypse that will Kill us All Unless We Send Our Money to the U.N.TM
 
2012-12-20 01:30:17 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: I heart these threads and have had one or two greened myself. They ALWAYS work.


Yea, old reliable.
 
2012-12-20 01:30:44 PM

snocone: BTW, "6K to 60M" is just too obscure a snark for you.


Yeah, you were just funnin' us. Well, I love a good humorous reference. So what exactly is that bit o snark referring to? Let poor old me in on the joke. Also, I notice that despite numerous replies to numerous posts, you have studiously avoided the one that would clear up a lot of misconceptions here. Here, I'll repeat it for you.

So since you feel so put out and misunderstood, perhaps you can clear much of the misunderstanding 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 01:32:00 PM

snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan

1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY


Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.


You the fun one. just looky.

Oh I'm looking.  This is my lunch break entertainment.  You're getting batted around this discussion like a ball of yarn in the hands of a cat and it's hilarious.  Glad I brought some popcorn.

Batted?
WTF?
I got axactly what I wanted.
Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks.
The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.



The reason why personal attacks are less than productive is that it tends to bury the actual evidence for or against something in aspersions as to character and motivation. This is exactly what you yourself have done in the bit that Spaced Cowboy originally responded to (in bold above) and elsewhere:

snocone: It is a farking board game you moron.



I highly suggest you start to follow your own advice.
 
2012-12-20 01:35:19 PM

Damnhippyfreak: snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan

 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY

 
Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.
 
 
You the fun one. just looky.
 
Oh I'm looking.  This is my lunch break entertainment.  You're getting batted around this discussion like a ball of yarn in the hands of a cat and it's hilarious.  Glad I brought some popcorn.
 
Batted?
WTF?
I got axactly what I wanted.
Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks.
The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

 
 
The reason why personal attacks are less than productive is that it tends to bury the actual evidence for or against something in aspersions as to character and motivation. This is exactly what you yourself have done in the bit that Spaced Cowboy originally responded to (in bold above) and elsewhere:
 
snocone: It is a farking board game you moron.
 
 
I highly suggest you start to follow your own advice.
 
 
Exceptions are permitted for the ninja alts
 
2012-12-20 01:48:39 PM

snocone: Damnhippyfreak: snocone: Damnhippyfreak: snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.


Yowch. Alright, since you seem to be somewhat hesitant to take a look at the link repeatedly provided to you, let's highlight one potential part of the solution (that chimp_ninja has pointed out to you already):

[i45.tinypic.com image 640x640]
The idea behind the use of wind power is that it does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, therefore displacing energy production through, say, coal should result in "human CO2 production".

Come on now - the fact that you're searching for an example of "reduction in human CO2 production" when strategies for doing exactly this are ubiquitous highly suggests you haven't read much into this subject.

So, there is no way to REDUCE human CO2 production, like I said.
Mitigation of the future is your favorite strawman for this, I see.

The link you pukes are so proud of is a THEORY for future production of energy, that MAY produce less CO2, MAYBE.
'Course the big picture of overall CO2 production of the high tech windmills is kinda overlooked.


Simple incredulity isn't that strong of an argument as you may think. I mistakenly forgot to type that displacing fossil-fuel based energy production by use of wind (and other renewable energy for that matter) would result in a reduction in CO2 emissions. This is a fairly straight-forward idea.


If you replaced it, yes. But you still face manufacture, transportation, distribution CO2 production, all of it.
Not the plan. Plan addresses FUTURE production. My friend, this means more CO2 somewhere in planet.
There will be no reduction in energy demand unless you reduce the number of users. No reduction in demand puts you in the box.
There is simply no way to catch the curve.

Time to make lemonade and quit yer biaching and feeding the politicians.
Once again, we are the problem. Shifting the focus to PROFIT ...



This doesn't make much sense in the way you've phrased it here. Of course we're talking about replacing current fossil-fuel based energy production. The way we can do so is to make plans for replacing future production as well as current capacity.

Maybe you're stuck in the idea that any one particular solution will be insufficient. I hate to keep harping on this particular approach, but one of the things that the Princeton Stabilization Wedges highlights is that it will take multiple policy changes in order to really achieve large reductions in CO2 emissions. There isn't one magic bullet that will solve this for us - the lack of one shouldn't be used as some of straw-man in order not to implement a broad CO2 emission reduction strategy.

That aside, your point about the lack of reduction in demand should be addressed as well. It's not intuitive, but what you may help is to note is that if said demand is fulfilled by less fossil-fuel dependent sources, then that does represent a reduction in CO2 emissions.

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.
 
2012-12-20 01:50:00 PM
That's a windchill factor of 50 below. Air temperature is 20 below. That's damn cold this early in the season, but hey, it's Siberia.

This is early in the season? News Flash: at these latitudes, winter starts in October. In Fairbanks last year, November had an AVERAGE temperature of -33. That was a little cold for being that early. -20 in the middle of December is pretty nice actually. I wish it was -20 here today :(

there was a time when the earth was completely uninhabitable. there was a time when the earth had this thing called the Ice Age. there was a time when scientists thought that the earth was flat. there was a time when scientists thought there was no water in the universe. there still is a time when scientists thing we are alone in this universe. those "scientists" change their mind more than Romney when presented with a convincing amount of evidence that is contrary to current belief..

Scientists changing their beliefs based on available evidence is the basis of science.

I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.


Climate changes by itself, but very slowly. Change that would have normally would have taken more than 1000 years has occurred in the past 20. We are driving that. The planet has a high thermal inertia. It takes a lot to get the temperature to rise, and once it is rising, will take a lot to stop. Thus even if we were able to magically stop emitting CO2 today, the temperature would continue to rise for at least another 50 years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce where we can. You complain that the wind project being linked will not reduce the CO2 emissions from current day, however it will reduce the CO2 emissions from what they would be if we instead made the additional energy with coal. Yes, the big answer would be a massive die off of the human race, or going back to living in caves. That is not going to happen. Thus it is important that we find out what the climate changes will be so we can plan for them. Cities may have to be moved, changes in agriculture will have to be made, changes in foreign policy, etc... All these will cost money. How do you propose to fund the necessary changes if not by charging the people who are most responsible to begin with?

The models predict that the earth should be warming. So quit being a pantywaist with this "climate change" BS and go back to calling it global warming like you're taking a stand.

Words have specific meanings. When I say chair I am not talking about a horse and visa versa. When I say climate change I am not talking about global warming and visa versa. Global warming is the positive change of the yearly global average temperature from one year to another. Climate change is the change in the climate (not only average temperatures for a given time of year at a given location, but how much rain/wind, and what insects plants and animals thrive there) at a given location. The big part of the problem is that people in politics don't learn the vocabulary before they start throwing terms around.
 
2012-12-20 01:55:24 PM

maxheck: Tommy Moo:

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

Ok... So in your understanding, the various models haven't predicted anything?

Actually, do you know ANYTHING about the models at all, or are you just spouting at random?

Seriously... What (in your mind) do the models predict?


Eh, read the opinion piece and take a gander at the temperature graph leaked from the latest draft IPCC AR that shows the models overestimated the amount of warming.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/18/chilling-climate-change - news/
 
2012-12-20 01:55:30 PM
Wind power has a higher carbon footprint than nuclear power, by the way people. But you knew that. When all the carbon cost of construction and materials, maintenance and lifetime power generation, even wind power sucks compared to old nukey.
 
2012-12-20 02:00:44 PM

snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.


Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.


Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.
 
2012-12-20 02:04:12 PM

Thunderpipes: Wind power has a higher carbon footprint than nuclear power, by the way people. But you knew that. When all the carbon cost of construction and materials, maintenance and lifetime power generation, even wind power sucks compared to old nukey.


So if all our power was wind-generated, the production processes to make/forge/whatever the new turbine blades would still be carbon based and dirty? The maintenance on those would be carbon-powered?
 
[mind-full-of-fark.jpg]
 
2012-12-20 02:04:30 PM

NotARocketScientist:  The big part of the problem is that people in politics don't learn the vocabulary before they start throwing terms around.

 
You are so charitable. IMHO the politicians are paid to use the words they use for a purpose.
Just like the memes here that misquote, substutute, mislead, redundant derp attack, pretend misstate, all the crap.
 
I do feel for the current politicians. They are asked to keep a straight face when the most contemptable or clearly stupid things come out of their mouths.
I do think we need better leaders in office, instead of deadpan poker players shilling for the .5%.
This is no game.
 
2012-12-20 02:05:43 PM

Thunderpipes: Wind power has a higher carbon footprint than nuclear power, by the way people. But you knew that. When all the carbon cost of construction and materials, maintenance and lifetime power generation, even wind power sucks compared to old nukey.


One of the other proposed stabilization wedges is to add 700 GW of nuclear capacity (if displacing coal; 1400 GW if displacing natural gas).

Nuclear is considerably more expensive to construct, although a lot of published figures bury that by ignoring that the USG foots most of the bill for the companies that operate them. That said, it is not intermittent like wind is and can be part of the base load. This kind of thing is part of why the 'Wedges' model implies a mix of solutions.
 
2012-12-20 02:06:11 PM
Gee, I thought it was a crystal ball, not a working model.
Both are imaginary.
 
2012-12-20 02:08:46 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.


You call someone that does the same thing over and over again, 'One Trick Pony", eh?
We have seen your flip and twist. Anything new?
 
2012-12-20 02:09:36 PM

snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.

You call someone that does the same thing over and over again, 'One Trick Pony", eh?
We have seen your flip and twist. Anything new?


I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Is English your first language?
 
2012-12-20 02:10:16 PM

Dr Dreidel: Thunderpipes: Wind power has a higher carbon footprint than nuclear power, by the way people. But you knew that. When all the carbon cost of construction and materials, maintenance and lifetime power generation, even wind power sucks compared to old nukey.

So if all our power was wind-generated, the production processes to make/forge/whatever the new turbine blades would still be carbon based and dirty? The maintenance on those would be carbon-powered?
 
[mind-full-of-fark.jpg]


If wishes were horses, then,,
Wishing nor money makes this go away.
 
2012-12-20 02:14:49 PM

snocone: Gee, I thought it was a crystal ball, not a working model.
Both are imaginary.


Sure, but probably not in the way you intend ;)
 
2012-12-20 02:15:29 PM
The solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe (QM) threw out over 200 years of accepted science. At the time scientists thought the ultraviolet catastrophy could be solved within the confines of what we now call classical mechanics.

I don't know how global warming will fall out but i wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to it. The mechanism that causes co2 to warm the earth requires a positive feedback in the form of more water vapor. However there is 0 evidence there is any more water vapor in the air, even though scientists have been looking for it. So your models are probably farked up.

Whatever the climate models look like in 30 years ain't gonna look a thing like how they look now.
 
2012-12-20 02:18:54 PM

snocone: Dr Dreidel: Thunderpipes: Wind power has a higher carbon footprint than nuclear power, by the way people. But you knew that. When all the carbon cost of construction and materials, maintenance and lifetime power generation, even wind power sucks compared to old nukey.

So if all our power was wind-generated, the production processes to make/forge/whatever the new turbine blades would still be carbon based and dirty? The maintenance on those would be carbon-powered?

[mind-full-of-fark.jpg]

If wishes were horses, then,,
Wishing nor money makes this go away.

 
If the goal is "move away from dirty power-generation sources and into cleaner renewables like solar and wind", why is it irrational to assume we will one day have all of (or even "the majority of") our power come from these clean sources? Especially considering that more and more of our power comes from these clean sources all the time, less, statistically, of the things we build to further lessen the  power we get from "dirty" sources are "carbon-powered".
 
He's asking if we know that the way these clean-burning power-generation sources are built requires dirty power to build. Which is a dumb question, not unlike "How did we build cars when there were no cars?" or "How did the first tongs get forged/built?"

And since you didn't answer when I asked last time, I'll say it again (you were busy dealing with some other comments):
1) Point out future disaster

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.
 
Hey, if you can point out a disaster in the making, AND you have a reliable way of preventing the disaster, you deserve all the profit you can get your grubby hands on.
 
2012-12-20 02:21:16 PM

occamswrist: However there is 0 evidence there is any more water vapor in the air, even though scientists have been looking for it.


NASA: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
"AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

"This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity," Dessler said. "Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century."


Lots more like it, but the AIRS measurements are compelling because of how direct they are.  I'm not sure how you could have missed all the primary studies on this topic, and come to a conclusion so opposite to them.
 
2012-12-20 02:25:31 PM

Dr Dreidel: snocone: Dr Dreidel: Thunderpipes: Wind power has a higher carbon footprint than nuclear power, by the way people. But you knew that. When all the carbon cost of construction and materials, maintenance and lifetime power generation, even wind power sucks compared to old nukey.

So if all our power was wind-generated, the production processes to make/forge/whatever the new turbine blades would still be carbon based and dirty? The maintenance on those would be carbon-powered?

[mind-full-of-fark.jpg]

If wishes were horses, then,,
Wishing nor money makes this go away.
 
If the goal is "move away from dirty power-generation sources and into cleaner renewables like solar and wind", why is it irrational to assume we will one day have all of (or even "the majority of") our power come from these clean sources? Especially considering that more and more of our power comes from these clean sources all the time, less, statistically, of the things we build to further lessen the  power we get from "dirty" sources are "carbon-powered".
 
He's asking if we know that the way these clean-burning power-generation sources are built requires dirty power to build. Which is a dumb question, not unlike "How did we build cars when there were no cars?" or "How did the first tongs get forged/built?"

And since you didn't answer when I asked last time, I'll say it again (you were busy dealing with some other comments):
1) Point out future disaster

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.
 
Hey, if you can point out a disaster in the making, AND you have a reliable way of preventing the disaster, you deserve all the profit you can get your grubby hands on.


Maybe if you had some science instead of bullchit concensus, it would be easier.
But, you do validate and confirm my observation that the PROFIT is your chief concern, objective and heart's desire.
 
2012-12-20 02:30:02 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.

You call someone that does the same thing over and over again, 'One Trick Pony", eh?
We have seen your flip and twist. Anything new?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Is English your first language?


Careful now, he has a "concensus" IQ.  You don't want to fark with the English skills of a man with a certified 75 IQ.
 
2012-12-20 02:31:07 PM

Spaced Cowboy: chimp_ninja: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.

You call someone that does the same thing over and over again, 'One Trick Pony", eh?
We have seen your flip and twist. Anything new?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Is English your first language?

Careful now, he has a "concensus" IQ.  You don't want to fark with the English skills of a man with a certified 75 IQ.


Is that it?
I am so dissapoint.
Try harder, improve your case.
 
2012-12-20 02:33:40 PM

snocone: Spaced Cowboy: chimp_ninja: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.

You call someone that does the same thing over and over again, 'One Trick Pony", eh?
We have seen your flip and twist. Anything new?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Is English your first language?

Careful now, he has a "concensus" IQ.  You don't want to fark with the English skills of a man with a certified 75 IQ.

Is that it?
I am so dissapoint.
Try harder, improve your case.


Typing a
few words per line
makes you sound smart.
 
My case is
to just let you
keep typing this way like a moran.
 
You don't need to put
in the effort when facing
a ball of yarn.
 
2012-12-20 02:38:53 PM

snocone: Is that it?
I am so dissapoint.
Try harder, improve your case.


It's 5-7-5, moran. Can you do anything correctly?
 
2012-12-20 02:40:09 PM

chimp_ninja: occamswrist: However there is 0 evidence there is any more water vapor in the air, even though scientists have been looking for it.

NASA: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
"AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

"This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity," Dessler said. "Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century."

Lots more like it, but the AIRS measurements are compelling because of how direct they are.  I'm not sure how you could have missed all the primary studies on this topic, and come to a conclusion so opposite to them.


That's a great article.

However, it showed areas of the planet with higher levels of water vapor experienced larger temperature increases. Makes sense. Got it.

What it didn't do was show that the total amount of water vapor in the earth's atmosphere has risen, which is what the climate models predicated.

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!
 
2012-12-20 02:41:50 PM

Spaced Cowboy: snocone: Spaced Cowboy: chimp_ninja: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.

You call someone that does the same thing over and over again, 'One Trick Pony", eh?
We have seen your flip and twist. Anything new?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Is English your first language?

Careful now, he has a "concensus" IQ.  You don't want to fark with the English skills of a man with a certified 75 IQ.

Is that it?
I am so dissapoint.
Try harder, improve your case.

Typing a
few words per line
makes you sound smart.
 
My case is
to just let you
keep typing this way like a moran.
 
You don't need to put
in the effort when facing
a ball of yarn.


How was that put? Here lies a representitive of the AGW Believers? Not worth looking up.
March on, the Franklin Gambit is so happy.
 
2012-12-20 02:48:38 PM

snocone: Maybe if you had some science instead of bullchit concensus, it would be easier.
But, you do validate and confirm my observation that the PROFIT is your chief concern, objective and heart's desire.


The "bullchit consensus" is based on science. Given that something absurd like 99+% of scientists accept the scientific consensus, it's incumbent on you to find the scientific holes. The data's all there, buddy - hack away. I admit I'm no scientician, but the sciencey people I do trust - my dad, for one; writers at SciAm, for others - say the data holds up. Given also that a good takedown of the science behind climate science would make you rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams, I suspect the academy halls are filled with people poking at the data.
 
As my grandfather liked to say, gezunterhait.
 
MY chief concern is not profit - as a Democratic Socialist...blah blah. I am a citizen of reality, though, and I know that nothing gets done without a profit motive. If there was no money in averting a disaster, no one would try and prevent it (cf. world hunger/thirst/lack of antibiotics and other pretty common medications, some of which you can get OTC in most states).
 
2012-12-20 02:49:15 PM
Uh Oh.
You learned something.
I thionk I just crossed from troll to contributor.
/sorry 'bout that
And sorry for typos. Doing this on a pip on my Galaxy and it is hard to type while in PvP BG.
 
2012-12-20 02:50:21 PM

Dr Dreidel: snocone: Maybe if you had some science instead of bullchit concensus, it would be easier.
But, you do validate and confirm my observation that the PROFIT is your chief concern, objective and heart's desire.

The "bullchit consensus" is based on science. Given that something absurd like 99+% of scientists accept the scientific consensus, it's incumbent on you to find the scientific holes. The data's all there, buddy - hack away. I admit I'm no scientician, but the sciencey people I do trust - my dad, for one; writers at SciAm, for others - say the data holds up. Given also that a good takedown of the science behind climate science would make you rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams, I suspect the academy halls are filled with people poking at the data.
 
As my grandfather liked to say, gezunterhait.
 
MY chief concern is not profit - as a Democratic Socialist...blah blah. I am a citizen of reality, though, and I know that nothing gets done without a profit motive. If there was no money in averting a disaster, no one would try and prevent it (cf. world hunger/thirst/lack of antibiotics and other pretty common medications, some of which you can get OTC in most states).


No No No
Concensus is just Derivitive Banking for Dummies Attempting To Change The World.
 
2012-12-20 02:50:57 PM

snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: Spaced Cowboy: chimp_ninja: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

Ladies and gentleman, the modern denier community.

snocone: I got axactly what I wanted. Idiots that can not persue a topic without turning juvenile and resorting to personal attacks. The ultimate stupid since you are in no position to judge.

Principal caught sayof-like typing detected.

You call someone that does the same thing over and over again, 'One Trick Pony", eh?
We have seen your flip and twist. Anything new?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Is English your first language?

Careful now, he has a "concensus" IQ.  You don't want to fark with the English skills of a man with a certified 75 IQ.

Is that it?
I am so dissapoint.
Try harder, improve your case.

Typing a
few words per line
makes you sound smart.
 
My case is
to just let you
keep typing this way like a moran.
 
You don't need to put
in the effort when facing
a ball of yarn.

How was that put? Here lies a representitive of the AGW Believers? Not worth looking up.
March on, the Franklin Gambit is so happy.


I have no stated position on this topic.  The only thing I believe in is amusing myself at the expense of mentally deficient Farkers and really bad trolls.  You seem to be both, so it was a natural pairing of my amusement and your expense.
 
Wearing that 'nylabone' sign around your neck really helps forward the idea that you're little more than a chew toy for the bored.
 
2012-12-20 02:55:02 PM
I love these threads. All of you guys armed with your liberal arts degrees, law degrees and IT degrees that patronize the others with statements such as "correlation is not causation" or even better; "its climate not weather...whargarble"

I should've ditched my science and engineering degrees and just studied here on Fark.

/I'm firing up my wood burning stove when I get home. F you all.
 
2012-12-20 03:00:35 PM
My dad was right.
Paradigms make you blind.
 
The entire idea behind scientific method is observation leading to the understanding of actual cause/effect.
You lack observation. Some reasonable time of observation must pass to make serious predictions on a Climatary Time Scale.
Until then, real science is busy poking holes in your theory.
The media, and politicians using your money(and mine) while your maybe unwitting accomplace, is not science, but they are concensus.
 
So Real World puts TIME in as a major enemy to PROFIT.
Quite a problem. You want the PROFIT now, but it will take centuries of observation to prove/disprove your "model".
 
2012-12-20 03:03:45 PM

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

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.
 
2012-12-20 03:05:16 PM

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
 
2012-12-20 03:06:48 PM

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.
 
2012-12-20 03:11:44 PM
The real thing that stopped Napoleon and Hitler.
 
2012-12-20 03:20:44 PM
 
2012-12-20 03:29:08 PM

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?
 
2012-12-20 03:29:20 PM
chimp_ninja:
Tommy Moo: If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something.

Here's an article by a Nobel laureate predicting that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming of the surface. The author also calculates the rough impact of such an increase, which is within the range later put forward by the IPCC.

Of course, the author didn't think that burning fossil fuels would lead to this, because when Svante Arrhenius wrote the article in 1896 we weren't burning them quite so aggressively.

So, you're only a little over a century behind on the science. Yay, you.

[i2.photobucket.com image 479x600]

Too bad Arrhenious was wrong... if he were right, that would make, I suppose, SOME sort of point in your favor. And, his numbers agree with IPCC estimates? You mean the ones that have consistently proven to be way too high? In other words, the IPCC has been stuck using century-old ideas all this time? Sounds about right.
 
2012-12-20 03:31:32 PM

Lord Farkwad: Amos Quito: Troll troll troll your boat
Modmins make it green
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Make the Farkers scream

"You want to go home and see WHAT?! All right sing! Sing again! Troll, troll, troll your boat. What's the matter with you? Your mothers are going to die if you don't start singing! I'm going to kill all your mothers! Troll, troll, troll your boat! Modmins make it green, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Make the Farkers scream!"

[s2.postimage.org image 640x213]


 listen people i dont know how you expect to ever stop the AGW if you cant sing any better than that... theres about 300,000 of you fuc|ers out there.. i want you to start singing..
 
2012-12-20 03:36:35 PM

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.
 
2012-12-20 03:36:49 PM
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.

aintnogod.com
 
2012-12-20 03:40:41 PM
People, your fellow humans are suffering right now. Not sometime if the oceans rise or the polar bears move south.
They starve in the next three weeks.
They die of thirst in the next three days.
They die of exposure in the next few hours.
They bleed to death in the next minute.
 
Please send you care and MONEY there. NOW!
Not to some AGW PROFIT Grab, no matter how it is disguised.
 
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.
 
2012-12-21 09:47:50 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
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.

See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.
 
2012-12-21 09:50:37 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
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.

You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.
 
2012-12-21 09:55:37 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
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".

Again, there are no problems with carbon dioxide emissions at any level humans could generate. Worry about REAL problems, like ocean pollution, overfishing, and nuclear accidents. Dousing your drawers over carbon dioxide is pointless, and distracts from the REAL problems.

And, the "genocide is the only way" comment is not mine. I would not have said that. Huge wars, mass starvation, and epidemic also work. Humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion. I'd LOVE to be pleasantly surprised, however.
 
2012-12-21 10:01:44 PM
HighZoolander:
/you missed some really epic climate threads recently - I was starting to worry...(the derp just wasn't the same without you)

I looked some of them up -- and found a plethora of derp; you're a trooper!

I've been involved in a true BIATCH of a move. I now have locational stability for at least a year. Woot!
 
2012-12-21 10:21:41 PM

GeneralJim: 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 image 506x286]


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.



It depends on the phenomenon you're interested, as always. If we were interested in ENSO, then 15 years would have been more appropriate. If we're interested in, say orbital forcing and glaciation cycles, then 12,000 years (as you posted) would be more appropriate. If we're interested in anthropogenic climate change, 150 years is more appropriate.

As I've stated repeatedly, scale is tied to the phenomenon you're interested in. It's not a difficult concept, but you really aren't grasping it. Maybe I can explain it differently. What part of this idea do you not understand or disagree with?
 
2012-12-21 10:23:49 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.
See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.



Mind reading leading to a leading or rhetorical question is still mind reading. Again, I suggest you follow your own advice.
 
2012-12-21 10:25:31 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.
You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.



I'm not sure what that has to with population growth, or your overestimation of the problem of the same. Regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think.
 
2012-12-21 10:34:29 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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".
Again, there are no problems with carbon dioxide emissions at any level humans could generate. Worry about REAL problems, like ocean pollution, overfishing, and nuclear accidents. Dousing your drawers over carbon dioxide is pointless, and distracts from the REAL problems.

And, the "genocide is the only way" comment is not mine. I would not have said that. Huge wars, mass starvation, and epidemic also work. Humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion. I'd LOVE to be pleasantly surprised, however.



Again, this really doesn't contradict my argument. Whether you acknowledge the science surrounding anthropogenic climate change or not, it really isn't affected by your overstated idea that "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production".

As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.
 
2012-12-22 06:00:39 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
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.

Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?
 
2012-12-22 06:37:24 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
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.

The alleged "problem" with carbon dioxide has been falsified multiple times. The Vostok ice cores show that for four hundred thousand years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have FOLLOWED global temperature changes. That means that temperature is NOT controlled in any significant degree by carbon dioxide levels. The fact that you either do not understand this, or are pretending to not understand it, does NOT mean that the falsification does not hold up.

The failure of CGMs to predict within their error bars means that the hypothesis which they automate is falsified. The fact that they all predict with several TIMES more error than their error bars indicates a fundamental flaw, not a minor error. This falsification is clear and demonstrable, and therefore it "holds up."

Miskolczi's mathematical proof of the falsification of the major AGW hypothesis also holds up, and further, when his corrections are applied to the CGMs, they manage to predict temperature within their error bars. This is clear evidence that Miskolczi is correct. As further evidence, the overall prediction of the process of carbon dioxide increase by Miskolczi has been the precise pattern followed by global temperature. His prediction was that rising carbon dioxide would, for a time, act as the IPCC projected -- until the decrease of water vapor in the upper troposphere kicked in, and balanced out the increase in the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. At that time, Miskolczi predicted, temperature increase would flatten out and stop. And, in violation of EVERY SINGLE IPCC-SPONSORED MODEL, global temperature has done precisely as Miskolczi predicted. This is further evidence that Miskolczi's falsification of the AGW hypothesis "holds up" -- at least it holds up MUCH better than the Chicken Little predictions of the IPCC.

Your denial, and the denials of others, of these scientific observations do not alter the fact that the planet is falsifying, on many levels, the hypothesis behind the AGW panic. Keeping 2010 radiosonde data showing the drying of the upper troposphere secret until 2013, as is being done, does nothing to prove AGW correct. In the same way, claiming that the fact that absolute numbers on historical radiosonde humidity data are not reliable invalidates their determination of a drying trend does nothing to prove that upper troposphere humidity was constant or rising. It is true that we do NOT know if UT humidity fell from 29% to 24%, or from 32% to 27%, but we DO know that it fell.

Ironically, the "team" supporting AGW, after pretending that anyone not buying their Kool-Aid was denying science is now in the awkward position of denying peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study showing that AGW is falsified. And, again, before you put false words in my mouth, it is NOT that adding carbon dioxide to the air will not warm the planet, it is that doubling the carbon dioxide will raise the temperature, but somewhere between 0.24 K and 1.10 K -- an amount small enough to require no "actions" to be taken. Additionally, it would be wonderful if we could break out of this ice age with a temperature increase like that "promised" by the IPCC -- that just MIGHT be enough to prevent the upcoming major glaciation.

So, the denial of science and the personal attacks against authors of studies falsifying AGW, and anyone unwilling to refuse to mention those, do NOT mean that the many falsifications of AGW "don't hold up," They simply mean that your arguments can no longer hold up in the scientific arena, and you must take them FULLY to the political or religious arenas, where they still have some traction among those who do not understand the science. Sucks to be you.
 
2012-12-22 07:11:21 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
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?

Your logic in this is tortured to the point of insanity. Carbon dioxide levels, since they FOLLOW temperature, are not the controller of that temperature. That is rather straightforward. You state that is can only be true if there is only one way to increase planetary temperature. This does not follow.

Allow me to restate. Let's say I claim that the amount of tan I have determines the amount of sunshine reaching the surface in Hawai'i. Your response at least SHOULD be to counter with evidence that my tan level actually has a correlation with Hawia'ian sunshine, but it is that I get more tanned AFTER the sunshine increases, so my tan level CANNOT be what is controlling Hawai'ian sunshine. In response, I claim that what you say could ONLY be true if there is only one factor in Hawai'ian sunshine. After that claim, you would probably believe that I was mentally impaired -- and with good reason. In the same way, I believe you are mentally impaired to come up with the idea that since ONE factor (carbon dioxide) cannot be a major factor, there can be only ONE factor when it comes to planetary temperature.

Orbital geometry appears to be the difference between the major glaciations and the interglacial periods when within an ice age. However, the (geologic) ice ages themselves appear to be caused by increased cosmic ray flux when we are in a galactic arm. The difference between full ice age and non-ice age temperatures is about 10 K, while the orbital geometry only seems to generate a 6 to 7 K swing. We are currently in an ice age due to being in an arm of the galaxy, and within a brief interglacial period

Additionally, solar activity changes cause temperature changes in two ways. First, the insolation directly heats Earth, and if it goes up, so does planetary temperature. Second, when solar activity goes up, so does the magnetic output of the Sun. When the magnetic output of the Sun goes up, Earth is more protected from cosmic rays, and that has the effect of warming the planet as well.

The fact that carbon dioxide level changes have little to no effect on planetary temperature does nothing to decrease the effects of ANY of the above factors in planetary temperature. The fact that you claim that it DOES is a cause for some concern.
 
2012-12-22 07:44:39 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
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 ;)

Just another failure in a long series of failed predictions. So much for your "feeling."

So, we have long, repeated periods where carbon dioxide levels amazingly precisely follow temperature. And we also have a claim made that, during the melting of a major glaciation, carbon dioxide levels appear to lead temperature. While I certainly did NOT get that impression from the data in the study, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are correct in their interpretation of the data.

A fact to point out -- warming is caused by TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT, not just carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide, today, accounts for a bit less than 5% of the GHE.

So, assuming their study is correct, which do YOU think more likely:

That some part of the end-of-major-glaciation event, about which we are currently unaware, gave rise to an anomalous reading,

-- OR --

The laws of physics are different during an end-of-major-glaciation event than they are during interglacial periods?
 
2012-12-22 08:59:35 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
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.

This is the idiocy with which I must contend. An irrelevant argument remains irrelevant, irrespective of both how long ago the first time it was made is AND the number of repetitions.

As I pointed out above, yes, there ARE problems with the historical radiosonde humidity readings. What it amounts to is that it is well-nigh impossible to calibrate the old data collection series with an ABSOLUTE number.

The problem is similar to a thermometer in which the glass tube has shifted some unknown amount in the housing that is marked off with temperatures. With the tube shifted, while the indicator shows, say, 20o Celsius, you cannot tell if that number is correct. However, this damaged thermometer CAN tell you, with precision, if the temperature is rising or dropping. The radiosonde humidity measurement is like that -- we cannot tell precisely what the humidity was, but we CAN tell, with precision, that it was dropping. The accuracy problems with humidity readings in the radiosondes were corrected, and a new set of data was completed in 2010, and it was decided to withhold the data until 2013. I find that interesting, and more than a little disturbing, in the same way that I find the CERN directive to their scientists to avoid discussing what implications their CLOUD experiment has for climate science.
 
2012-12-22 12:18:11 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?


http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint -o n-Climate-Change.html

I know you disagree with them, but I'm surprised you're this abysmally ignorant of the scientific claims. Oh no wait, I'm not surprised by that at all, it's just how you roll.
 
2012-12-22 01:23:02 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?



You're proving my point quite elegantly here. The short answer is understanding of underlying mechanisms and processes.

Think about it like this. Just using simple correlation is very problematic in this context in that there are multiple confounded processes at work - if you see a change in one variable, you can't be sure without further information as to which process or combination of processes (out of many operating simultaneously) is causing it. Therefore one needs to understand the contribution (and interactions) of each individual process. You can think of it as attempting to account for different sources of 'noise' in order to be able to better isolate a 'signal' of interest. Put succinctly, you cannot apply a simple bivariate form of correlation to a multivariate system. Let me know if you wish me to explain this further.

Anytime you read terms such as 'fingerprinting', 'forcings', 'climate sensitivity' and others besides is an attempt to quantify and integrate understanding of these underlying processes. The approach you're apparently incredulous about has been under your nose this whole time.

I don't wish to be too harsh on this point, but fact that you're not quite aware of some of the very basics of the science that you're attempting to talk about suggests your thinking about this subject isn't fully based on said science.
 
2012-12-22 01:42:06 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
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.

The alleged "problem" with carbon dioxide has been falsified multiple times. The Vostok ice cores show that for four hundred thousand years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have FOLLOWED global temperature changes. That means that temperature is NOT controlled in any significant degree by carbon dioxide levels. The fact that you either do not understand this, or are pretending to not understand it, does NOT mean that the falsification does not hold up.


Again, all you can say is that at this one location (contrary to your claim about global temperature), atmospheric carbon dioxide levels initially followed global temperature changes. This is what I mean by your allegations not holding up - you tend to misrepresent evidence. I've addressed this particular point in another post so I'll discuss it more once it comes up.


GeneralJim: The failure of CGMs to predict within their error bars means that the hypothesis which they automate is falsified. The fact that they all predict with several TIMES more error than their error bars indicates a fundamental flaw, not a minor error. This falsification is clear and demonstrable, and therefore it "holds up."


You'll have to back this up in some way. I can't even say your allegations don't hold up in this case as you really haven't presented evidence for it here. However, I was reading an article on this a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate176 3 .html

Apparently at least one prediction got it down fairly well (which disproves your allegation about "they all predict"):

i46.tinypic.com


GeneralJim: Miskolczi's mathematical proof of the falsification of the major AGW hypothesis also holds up, and further, when his corrections are applied to the CGMs, they manage to predict temperature within their error bars. This is clear evidence that Miskolczi is correct. As further evidence, the overall prediction of the process of carbon dioxide increase by Miskolczi has been the precise pattern followed by global temperature. His prediction was that rising carbon dioxide would, for a time, act as the IPCC projected -- until the decrease of water vapor in the upper troposphere kicked in, and balanced out the increase in the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. At that time, Miskolczi predicted, temperature increase would flatten out and stop. And, in violation of EVERY SINGLE IPCC-SPONSORED MODEL, global temperature has done precisely as Miskolczi predicted. This is further evidence that Miskolczi's falsification of the AGW hypothesis "holds up" -- at least it holds up MUCH better than the Chicken Little predictions of the IPCC.


You're basing your entire argument on one rather discredited paper. Again, your claims don't hold up. We can hash this particular point more if you wish.


GeneralJim: Your denial, and the denials of others, of these scientific observations do not alter the fact that the planet is falsifying, on many levels, the hypothesis behind the AGW panic. Keeping 2010 radiosonde data showing the drying of the upper troposphere secret until 2013, as is being done, does nothing to prove AGW correct. In the same way, claiming that the fact that absolute numbers on historical radiosonde humidity data are not reliable invalidates their determination of a drying trend does nothing to prove that upper troposphere humidity was constant or rising. It is true that we do NOT know if UT humidity fell from 29% to 24%, or from 32% to 27%, but we DO know that it fell.


You're making this determination on unreliable data, while ignoring other analyses. You've been hit over the head with papers such as Dessler & Davis 2010 (which looks at many records in addition to the NCEP reanalysis) many times. Yet again your claims don't hold up.


GeneralJim: Ironically, the "team" supporting AGW, after pretending that anyone not buying their Kool-Aid was denying science is now in the awkward position of denying peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study showing that AGW is falsified. And, again, before you put false words in my mouth, it is NOT that adding carbon dioxide to the air will not warm the planet, it is that doubling the carbon dioxide will raise the temperature, but somewhere between 0.24 K and 1.10 K -- an amount small enough to require no "actions" to be taken. Additionally, it would be wonderful if we could break out of this ice age with a temperature increase like that "promised" by the IPCC -- that just MIGHT be enough to prevent the upcoming major glaciation.

So, the denial of science and the personal attacks against authors of studies falsifying AGW, and anyone unwilling to refuse to mention those, do NOT mean that the many falsifications of AGW "don't hold up," They simply mean that your arguments can no longer hold up in the scientific arena, and you must take them FULLY to the political or religious arenas, where they still have some traction among those who do not understand the science. Sucks to be you.



What you're talking about is a very selective reading of the extant literature combined with (as as you've proven here), misrepresenting or overstating results and intentional ignorance of the problems or limitations with said literature. From an article we had a thread on last week:

www.slate.com

I contend it is you who "is now in the awkward position of denying peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study".
 
2012-12-22 02:33:34 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
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?

Your logic in this is tortured to the point of insanity. Carbon dioxide levels, since they FOLLOW temperature, are not the controller of that temperature. That is rather straightforward. You state that is can only be true if there is only one way to increase planetary temperature. This does not follow.


Let's restate what you've said here so that it's clearer. You're stating that since carbon dioxide levels followed temperature at one point therefore carbon dioxide cannot affect temperature. Is that correct? I ask because this really isn't true, and hopefully the next section will address this.


GeneralJim: Allow me to restate. Let's say I claim that the amount of tan I have determines the amount of sunshine reaching the surface in Hawai'i. Your response at least SHOULD be to counter with evidence that my tan level actually has a correlation with Hawia'ian sunshine, but it is that I get more tanned AFTER the sunshine increases, so my tan level CANNOT be what is controlling Hawai'ian sunshine. In response, I claim that what you say could ONLY be true if there is only one factor in Hawai'ian sunshine. After that claim, you would probably believe that I was mentally impaired -- and with good reason. In the same way, I believe you are mentally impaired to come up with the idea that since ONE factor (carbon dioxide) cannot be a major factor, there can be only ONE factor when it comes to planetary temperature.


I see the problem in your reasoning here. First, you're making the assumption that an observation that finds A causing B somehow excludes the possibility of B also causing A. This is why the the tongue-in-cheek idea that 'chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them' that I occasionally hit you over the head with is apt. That A causes B does not exclude the possibility of B also causing A.

The second problem is that you're attempting to generalize from a singular observation when more observations would also show the reverse. I posted this earlier, but let me repost it here for reference:

i50.tinypic.com
Note that sometimes temperature follows CO2, sometimes the other way around.

Again, the argument you're putting forward is very much like the tongue-in-cheek idea that 'chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them'.


GeneralJim: Orbital geometry appears to be the difference between the major glaciations and the interglacial periods when within an ice age. However, the (geologic) ice ages themselves appear to be caused by increased cosmic ray flux when we are in a galactic arm. The difference between full ice age and non-ice age temperatures is about 10 K, while the orbital geometry only seems to generate a 6 to 7 K swing. We are currently in an ice age due to being in an arm of the galaxy, and within a brief interglacial period

Additionally, solar activity changes cause temperature changes in two ways. First, the insolation directly heats Earth, and if it goes up, so does planetary temperature. Second, when solar activity goes up, so does the magnetic output of the Sun. When the magnetic output of the Sun goes up, Earth is more protected from cosmic rays, and that has the effect of warming the planet as well.

The fact that carbon dioxide level changes have little to no effect on planetary temperature does nothing to decrease the effects of ANY of the above factors in planetary temperature. The fact that you claim that it DOES is a cause for some concern.



Interesting, even if I don't agree. In addition, you've got the bit in bold quite wrong. In fact, I'm trying to make the case that the pattern described in the Vostok ice cores, initially due to some sort of orbital forcing, is not mutually exclusive with the relationship between increased carbon dioxide and temperature. It is is you who seems to be inadvertently trying to make the case that one is somehow mutually exclusive with the other.
 
2012-12-22 05:56:46 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
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 ;)

Just another failure in a long series of failed predictions. So much for your "feeling."


I'm happy to be wrong on this one. You do tend to ignore scientific information. Let's hope you continue to surprise.


GeneralJim: So, we have long, repeated periods where carbon dioxide levels amazingly precisely follow temperature. And we also have a claim made that, during the melting of a major glaciation, carbon dioxide levels appear to lead temperature. While I certainly did NOT get that impression from the data in the study, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are correct in their interpretation of the data.


To be clear, what they found was both carbon dioxide levels leading and following temperature, depending on the location, and that the Antarctic, back then as it is now, shouldn't be taken as representative of the whole world.


GeneralJim: A fact to point out -- warming is caused by TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT, not just carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide, today, accounts for a bit less than 5% of the GHE.

So, assuming their study is correct, which do YOU think more likely:

That some part of the end-of-major-glaciation event, about which we are currently unaware, gave rise to an anomalous reading,

-- OR --

The laws of physics are different during an end-of-major-glaciation event than they are during interglacial periods?



I don't think it's either of those choices, and they don't really make much sense. Perhaps you could explain them out further.

Maybe what would help would be to note that readings from one specific geographical location (like Antarctica and the Vostok ice core record) can be misleading in that it may not be representative of the whole world. So for your first choice, something that seems anomalous may simply be non-representative due to its limited geographical scope. As for your second choice, what may help is to note that different processes are not mutually exclusive. You can have orbital forcing changing temperature, and CO2 changing temperature as well - it doesn't have to be just one or the other and no change in the laws of physics required.

With that out of the way, what the findings of that study are consistent with is orbital forcing driving a change in temperature, said temperature change perturbing the AMOC, setting up what the authors term a 'seesaw response' which results in release of CO2 from the Southern Ocean, which then goes on to drive much of the warming. The authors dedicate a whole section to this issue under "The trigger for deglacial warming". I suggest reading it more carefully.
 
2012-12-22 05:58:39 PM

Damnhippyfreak: The authors dedicate a whole section to this issue under "The trigger for deglacial warming". I suggest reading it more carefully.


I'm making the assumption that you managed to get a hold of the paper, GeneralJim. If you can't, there is always a standing offer for me to retrieve scientific literature for you and post it somewhere - just let me know. Anything to get you to actually read more scientific literature.
 
2012-12-22 06:07:04 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
It depends on the phenomenon you're interested, as always. If we were interested in ENSO, then 15 years would have been more appropriate. If we're interested in, say orbital forcing and glaciation cycles, then 12,000 years (as you posted) would be more appropriate. If we're interested in anthropogenic climate change, 150 years is more appropriate.

Perhaps if we could just clear up this particular flaw in your thinking, the whole issue would become clearer to you.

First, an "orbital forcing and glaciation cycle," as you put it, is somewhere around 110,000 years, so looking at it over a period of 12,000 years would only cover a tad more than 10% of the cycle, and be a rather irrelevant observation. To observe ANY cycle, you need to look at SEVERAL cycles of it, for, among other reasons, to see if the amplitude of the cycle stays constant. The ultimate bonehead in this field, James Hansen, has been at the forefront of fail on BOTH sides of decadal oscillation -- in the 70s, the early adaptation of his Mars/Venus atmospheric model for the Earth, ignoring cycles with amplitudes far in excess of the cumulative warming that WAS taking place, claimed that, since temperatures had been dropping since the 1940s, they would continue to drop, and only a couple of degrees separated where we were then from a major glaciation. (That last part is true.) Thus, Hansen's colleague predicted an imminent ice age, based on Hansen's faulty model. Then, when the normal decadal cycle turned upwards for its 30-year run-up, Hansen's models claimed that THAT trend would continue to the point of destruction. Hansen was not personally invested in the "OMG ICE AGE" panic attack, so it was easy for him to flip, and be the harbinger of doom for global warming. Now, he is WAY too personally invested, both in reputation and financially, in warming catastrophe to EVER back down from that falsified position. Apparently, on Fark, you are in the same position as the pathetic Hansen.

Both warming and imminent ice age fear-mongering positions are incorrect, and for the same reason -- they both look at only one side of a ~60 year cycle that is MUCH larger in amplitude than any longer-term trends. The more or less constant trend since the end of the little ice age has been a warming of about 0.76 K per century. Indications are that that warming is over, and we will return to our NORMAL cooling trend of the last 8,000 years. Note that this warming "blip" has been in place for 300 years. There are also 400, and 1,600 year cycles, all of which have larger amplitude than the long-term change in planetary temperature. Thus, they will "swamp" readings if not accounted for. And THAT is an error you seem positively eager to commit. And, over all, is it not important that the last twenty MILLION years have been spent in the coldest over-all period on Earth since the advent of diverse life? Surely the fact that we are in a temperature trough of about 10 K has SOME bearing on temperature events -- although it would take at LEAST several tens of millions of years of data to see THAT particular pattern.

So, NO, looking at the last 150 years is NOT all one needs to evaluate human input into climate. Your continued insistence upon exactly THIS bit of cherry-picking, after repeated explanations such as this, shows you to be either as thick as a brick - no Jethro Tull intended - or being deliberately dishonest, as it points out a multi-century warming trend, currently in process, which has NOTHING to do with humans, but which is being attributed to humanity for fear-mongering purposes. So, which is it?
 
2012-12-22 07:00:20 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.
This is the idiocy with which I must contend. An irrelevant argument remains irrelevant, irrespective of both how long ago the first time it was made is AND the number of repetitions.

As I pointed out above, yes, there ARE problems with the historical radiosonde humidity readings. What it amounts to is that it is well-nigh impossible to calibrate the old data collection series with an ABSOLUTE number.

The problem is similar to a thermometer in which the glass tube has shifted some unknown amount in the housing that is marked off with temperatures. With the tube shifted, while the indicator shows, say, 20o Celsius, you cannot tell if that number is correct. However, this damaged thermometer CAN tell you, with precision, if the temperature is rising or dropping. The radiosonde humidity measurement is like that -- we cannot tell precisely what the humidity was, but we CAN tell, with precision, that it was dropping. The accuracy problems with humidity readings in the radiosondes were corrected, and a new set of data was completed in 2010, and it was decided to withhold the data until 2013. I find that interesting, and more than a little disturbing, in the same way that I find the CERN directive to their scientists to avoid discussing what implications their CLOUD experiment has for climate science.



Nope, you can't make the assumption in bold. Unfortunately, part of the problem is changes over time due to changes in radiosonde equipment and procedures. From one of the links in the post I linked to :

Earlier U.S. models did not report relative humidities below 20% at all [Wade, 1994], and older models of all kinds were not reliable below −40°C, which includes most of the upper troposphere. These problems, the lack of strong physical constraints on humidity (other than those described in section 2), and the rapid variation of the moisture field at spatial scales that are short compared to the distance between stations make homogenization a real challenge.

If you wish, we can always dig up the underlying citations.

Of course, there's still the fact that every other reanalysis (besides also incorporating satellite data) shows an increase in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity. I linked to Dessler & Davis 2010 in a previous post - I'll do so again here. From that paper:

i50.tinypic.com
Figure 1. Plots of the trends in specific humidity in the different reanalyses, over the time periods discussed in the text (1979 onward, except for the ECMWF-interim, which begins in 1989). The plots are divided into three geographical regions: tropics (20°S-20°N), NH (20°N-50°N), and SH (20°S-50°S). Trends are divided by the average specific humidity over the entire time period, so they are expressed in percent per year. The 95% confidence interval for trends in the ERA-interim reanalysis are shown for illustration purposes.
 
2012-12-22 07:25:44 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
It depends on the phenomenon you're interested, as always. If we were interested in ENSO, then 15 years would have been more appropriate. If we're interested in, say orbital forcing and glaciation cycles, then 12,000 years (as you posted) would be more appropriate. If we're interested in anthropogenic climate change, 150 years is more appropriate.

Perhaps if we could just clear up this particular flaw in your thinking, the whole issue would become clearer to you.

First, an "orbital forcing and glaciation cycle," as you put it, is somewhere around 110,000 years, so looking at it over a period of 12,000 years would only cover a tad more than 10% of the cycle, and be a rather irrelevant observation. To observe ANY cycle, you need to look at SEVERAL cycles of it, for, among other reasons, to see if the amplitude of the cycle stays constant.


You would be right if were interested in a whole cycle, instead of say, just the emergence from the last glacial maximum. You seem to be agreeing with me here - the scale you choose to look at should consider the phenomenon one is interested in.


GeneralJim: The ultimate bonehead in this field, James Hansen, has been at the forefront of fail on BOTH sides of decadal oscillation -- in the 70s, the early adaptation of his Mars/Venus atmospheric model for the Earth, ignoring cycles with amplitudes far in excess of the cumulative warming that WAS taking place, claimed that, since temperatures had been dropping since the 1940s, they would continue to drop, and only a couple of degrees separated where we were then from a major glaciation. (That last part is true.) Thus, Hansen's colleague predicted an imminent ice age, based on Hansen's faulty model. Then, when the normal decadal cycle turned upwards for its 30-year run-up, Hansen's models claimed that THAT trend would continue to the point of destruction. Hansen was not personally invested in the "OMG ICE AGE" panic attack, so it was easy for him to flip, and be the harbinger of doom for global warming. Now, he is WAY too personally invested, both in reputation and financially, in warming catastrophe to EVER back down from that falsified position. Apparently, on Fark, you are in the same position as the pathetic Hansen.


While interesting (and unfounded), this tangent of yours about James Hansen has very little to do with the issue of scale. Focus, buddy ;)


GeneralJim: Both warming and imminent ice age fear-mongering positions are incorrect, and for the same reason -- they both look at only one side of a ~60 year cycle that is MUCH larger in amplitude than any longer-term trends. The more or less constant trend since the end of the little ice age has been a warming of about 0.76 K per century. Indications are that that warming is over, and we will return to our NORMAL cooling trend of the last 8,000 years. Note that this warming "blip" has been in place for 300 years. There are also 400, and 1,600 year cycles, all of which have larger amplitude than the long-term change in planetary temperature. Thus, they will "swamp" readings if not accounted for. And THAT is an error you seem positively eager to commit. And, over all, is it not important that the last twenty MILLION years have been spent in the coldest over-all period on Earth since the advent of diverse life? Surely the fact that we are in a temperature trough of about 10 K has SOME bearing on temperature events -- although it would take at LEAST several tens of millions of years of data to see THAT particular pattern.


This is where my previous discussion about simple correlation not being the basis for the attribution of anthropogenic climate changes comes back in. This counfounding of different processes is exactly why understanding of the underlying processes and mechanisms is important. The fact is that orbital forcing has been largely understood and accounted for.


GeneralJim: So, NO, looking at the last 150 years is NOT all one needs to evaluate human input into climate. Your continued insistence upon exactly THIS bit of cherry-picking, after repeated explanations such as this, shows you to be either as thick as a brick - no Jethro Tull intended - or being deliberately dishonest, as it points out a multi-century warming trend, currently in process, which has NOTHING to do with humans, but which is being attributed to humanity for fear-mongering purposes. So, which is it?


Maybe you misunderstood me. I don't think the last 150 years is all one needs to evaluate human input into climate - they are of course informative, and for the reasons you specify. What I have an issue with is when you attempt to use anything but that scale, or attempt to make inferences solely from other scales, as you attempted to do in the post I was responding to. That according to you there has been a cooling trend over the last 8,000 years (a much longer scale than the one we're interested in) says nothing about the existence or importance of anthropogenic climate change.
 
2012-12-22 08:31:07 PM

Damnhippyfreak: That according to you there has been a cooling trend over the last 8,000 years (a much longer scale than the one we're interested in) says nothing about the existence or importance of anthropogenic climate change.


This is probably too harsh. How about 'very little' instead.
 
2012-12-23 04:08:16 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.

See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.


Mind reading leading to a leading or rhetorical question is still mind reading. Again, I suggest you follow your own advice.

Your inability to comprehend simple English is NOT my problem. Snocone claims the climate changes with or without people, and Mr. Reset calls that a mental failing, part of a denial mechanism. WITHIN WHAT HE WROTE, if thinking the climate changes by itself is a mental disorder, he is either claiming the climate does NOT change without human input, or is claiming to have a mental disability. I simply wish to know WHICH of these he is claiming.

Actual mind-reading attempts go something like this "Oh, no, that's not it. What you REALLY want is for..." or "You think the climate hasn't changed, ever" or similar statements of certitude. Leave it to a bonehead to claim that asking a question is mind-reading. You keep thinkin', Butch, that's what you do best.
 
2012-12-23 04:16:12 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.

You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.

I'm not sure what that has to with population growth, or your overestimation of the problem of the same. Regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think.

Now you're having trouble remembering what you wrote? Wow. The worst of it is that you quote yourself, and then don't know what you said. Are you just making this shiat up out of whole cloth as you go along?

You discuss "per capita carbon footprints" as if they meant diddly. I point out that they don't, and you say "who said anything about carbon?" Slick.

Anyway, you're 180o off, as usual. Here, argue with the experts...

Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
 
2012-12-23 04:29:23 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Again, this really doesn't contradict my argument. Whether you acknowledge the science surrounding anthropogenic climate change or not, it really isn't affected by your overstated idea that "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production".

Oh, please. You have GOT to be jerking my chain -- surely you understand fractions.

Do the math... if you can:

Science figures out a way to produce electricity, and power vehicles, with only HALF the emissions as today. Population doubles. What is the net effect on emissions?


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-12-23 04:33:18 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.

Yeah, but the low end of the spectrum is still breeding like rabbits. I guess when the world turns into "Idiocracy," you just might be their king. So you've got that going for you.

/ ... and just because the wars haven't started YET doesn't mean that they won't. Wait until America can't feed a good part of the planet... and the riots start, interrupting the transportation of what food there is.
 
2012-12-23 05:21:48 AM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint -o n-Climate-Change.html

I know you disagree with them, but I'm surprised you're this abysmally ignorant of the scientific claims. Oh no wait, I'm not surprised by that at all, it's just how you roll.

You're a fine one to talk of abysmal ignorance. Posting links to that perps' blog, skepticalscience. They don't seem to realize -- or won't admit -- that warming has stopped. It will REALLY toast them when it starts to cool, as it is already doing... But, since you're really not worth a lot of effort, read this:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
(It even links to the peer-reviewed paper itself!)
 
2012-12-23 12:29:19 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.

See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.

Mind reading leading to a leading or rhetorical question is still mind reading. Again, I suggest you follow your own advice.

Your inability to comprehend simple English is NOT my problem. Snocone claims the climate changes with or without people, and Mr. Reset calls that a mental failing, part of a denial mechanism. WITHIN WHAT HE WROTE, if thinking the climate changes by itself is a mental disorder, he is either claiming the climate does NOT change without human input, or is claiming to have a mental disability. I simply wish to know WHICH of these he is claiming.

Actual mind-reading attempts go something like this "Oh, no, that's not it. What you REALLY want is for..." or "You think the climate hasn't changed, ever" or similar statements of certitude. Leave it to a bonehead to claim that asking a question is mind-reading. You keep thinkin', Butch, that's what you do best.



There's the mind reading right there again in bold. Maybe what would help would be to note that disagreeing with someone does not mean the person is arguing for the exact absurd opposite. Again, heed your own advice.
 
2012-12-23 12:39:11 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.

You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.

I'm not sure what that has to with population growth, or your overestimation of the problem of the same. Regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think.
Now you're having trouble remembering what you wrote? Wow. The worst of it is that you quote yourself, and then don't know what you said. Are you just making this shiat up out of whole cloth as you go along?

You discuss "per capita carbon footprints" as if they meant diddly. I point out that they don't, and you say "who said anything about carbon?" Slick.

Anyway, you're 180o off, as usual. Here, argue with the experts...

Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say



You're mind reading (again) or misrepresenting what I said. The idea that I put forth is that "regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think". Even if you deny the importance of anthropogenic climate change, there are still environmental problems associated with population growth - however, said problems are somewhat overstated in that population growth is continuing to slow down, and, as I said, projected to level off this century. Your somewhat dubious views on anthropogenic climate change don't really change that.

That aside, while I do respect the results of a survey, I have to disagree about the importance of population growth. Perhaps in the short-term, and especially in the developing world.
 
2012-12-23 12:42:04 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Again, this really doesn't contradict my argument. Whether you acknowledge the science surrounding anthropogenic climate change or not, it really isn't affected by your overstated idea that "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production".
Oh, please. You have GOT to be jerking my chain -- surely you understand fractions.

Do the math... if you can:

Science figures out a way to produce electricity, and power vehicles, with only HALF the emissions as today. Population doubles. What is the net effect on emissions?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 450x367]



Your argument is based upon the idea that the bit in bold is going to happen. This isn't necessarily true as, again, population growth is slowing down and is projected to level off this century.
 
2012-12-23 12:44:51 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.
Yeah, but the low end of the spectrum is still breeding like rabbits. I guess when the world turns into "Idiocracy," you just might be their king. So you've got that going for you.

/ ... and just because the wars haven't started YET doesn't mean that they won't. Wait until America can't feed a good part of the planet... and the riots start, interrupting the transportation of what food there is.



Regardless of your prognostication, population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is already close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention. It has happened already - no crystal ball gazing required. You should be pleasantly surprised ;)
 
2012-12-23 12:52:17 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: 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.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint -o n-Climate-Change.html

I know you disagree with them, but I'm surprised you're this abysmally ignorant of the scientific claims. Oh no wait, I'm not surprised by that at all, it's just how you roll.
You're a fine one to talk of abysmal ignorance. Posting links to that perps' blog, skepticalscience. They don't seem to realize -- or won't admit -- that warming has stopped. It will REALLY toast them when it starts to cool, as it is already doing... But, since you're really not worth a lot of effort, read this:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
(It even links to the peer-reviewed paper itself!)



Ahem.

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate


Of course, there's the more important issue that you're ignoring the information that HighZoolander presented. As stated, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change is based on more than just simple correlation, contrary to what you claim. Your attempt to change the subject does not magically change that fact.
 
2012-12-23 05:55:16 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.
Yeah, but the low end of the spectrum is still breeding like rabbits. I guess when the world turns into "Idiocracy," you just might be their king. So you've got that going for you.

/ ... and just because the wars haven't started YET doesn't mean that they won't. Wait until America can't feed a good part of the planet... and the riots start, interrupting the transportation of what food there is.


Regardless of your prognostication, population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is already close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention. It has happened already - no crystal ball gazing required. You should be pleasantly surprised ;)



You forgot to mention the other UN  Population Growth Scenarios.
I am sure accidentally, eh?
UN predictions range from 6B to 60B. There are 3 "predictions", high, low, middle. WOW! What "science"!
From their lips; "U.N. Population Division suggests that population growth rates will decline over the coming several decades, with a possible stabilization around the year 2050. But achieving this will take an enormous amount of hard work, creativity and financing - it is by no means a fiat accompli. "
"financing"
The best case scenario you favor requires a lot of changes, the UN would like to use your money. As usual.
Does this ring any bells?
I see a pattern, a common trait of inteligence.
You don't.
 
2012-12-23 07:06:25 PM

snocone: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.
Yeah, but the low end of the spectrum is still breeding like rabbits. I guess when the world turns into "Idiocracy," you just might be their king. So you've got that going for you.

/ ... and just because the wars haven't started YET doesn't mean that they won't. Wait until America can't feed a good part of the planet... and the riots start, interrupting the transportation of what food there is.


Regardless of your prognostication, population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is already close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention. It has happened already - no crystal ball gazing required. You should be pleasantly surprised ;)


You forgot to mention the other UN  Population Growth Scenarios.
I am sure accidentally, eh?
UN predictions range from 6B to 60B. There are 3 "predictions", high, low, middle. WOW! What "science"!


If you're unused to looking at reports of that kind, what is common is presenting of different scenarios, each representing different sets of assumptions or eventualities. Often, what is presented is a worst-case scenario, a best-case scenario, and what is most likely. Yes, this has a scientific basis, despite your incredulity. Unfortunately, you're most likely mistaken about the range of predictions:

i49.tinypic.com


snocone: From their lips; "U.N. Population Division suggests that population growth rates will decline over the coming several decades, with a possible stabilization around the year 2050. But achieving this will take an enormous amount of hard work, creativity and financing - it is by no means a fiat accompli. "


This quote is not "from their lips", contrary to your claim, but from an NGO. A big hint that the quote didn't come from something like a UN report: the term is fait accompli, not fiat accompli.


snocone: "financing"
The best case scenario you favor requires a lot of changes, the UN would like to use your money. As usual.
Does this ring any bells?
I see a pattern, a common trait of inteligence.
You don't.


Seeing patterns is one thing, but whether such perception is based on accurate information is something else. In this post alone you have made a false claim and failed to correctly state the author of a a quote. This suggests the information you're basing your perception of a pattern on, and more importantly the way you gather information, is fundamentally flawed.

I mean, the Timecube guy also sees patterns - it doesn't mean he's right, or intelligent.
 
Displayed 286 of 286 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report