Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Russia, Novosibirsk, global warming  
•       •       •

5039 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:38 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 285 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report