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 24
    More: Interesting, Russia, Novosibirsk, global warming  
•       •       •

5003 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-20 10:52:28 AM  
6 votes:
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 11:39:39 AM  
3 votes:
i45.tinypic.com
2012-12-20 11:48:20 AM  
2 votes:
Last one and i'm giving up here. 
 
i50.tinypic.com
2012-12-20 11:04:21 AM  
2 votes:
i1275.photobucket.com>
2012-12-22 01:42:06 PM  
1 votes:

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".
2012-12-20 02:21:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:15:29 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:20:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:02:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:55:09 AM  
1 votes:
russianwomenblog.hotrussianbrides.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-12-20 11:41:26 AM  
1 votes:
i48.tinypic.com
2012-12-20 11:39:30 AM  
1 votes:
i1239.photobucket.com
2012-12-20 11:19:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:17:03 AM  
1 votes:
I love these global warming threads.
www.troll.me
2012-12-20 11:16:52 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:16:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:06:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:55:55 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:54:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:49:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:43:34 AM  
1 votes:
As a Canadian,( Northern Canadian) I say that's getting a little cool.
2012-12-20 10:40:01 AM  
1 votes:
I don'y blame subby for the troltastic title. I blame the mod for greenlighting it.

/back to Reddit
//wheeeeeeee
2012-12-20 09:49:55 AM  
1 votes:
everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!
2012-12-20 09:28:22 AM  
1 votes:
Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.
 
You are the worst.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report