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.

(LA Times)   NOAA: 2012 was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 United States. But global warming is totally not happening 'cuz there's snow in your backyard right now   (latimes.com) divider line 297
    More: Interesting, global warming, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, average surface temperature, United States, State of the Climate, Public Works Committee, National Climatic Data Center, Upper Midwest  
•       •       •

2638 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 11:04:58 AM  

Zasteva: EVERYBODY PANIC: If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.

Given your skepticism, I expect that you will be behind the curve in trying to sell your property and immigrate to Canada. You will find the market for property in Florida is greatly reduced, since too many people are selling to move north, so you won't get much for your property. And you'll be disappointed to discover that the Canadian government has tightened immigration restrictions because of the influx of climate refugees. And if you do find a way to get in, you'll discover that Canadian bikini babes don't really want much to do with Americans whose stubborn refusal to moderate their behavior caused so many problems for everyone and made them the most unpopular set of immigrants ever.


You're saying that those of us who like hot weather will be able to buy cheap land in the south? Excuse me, I have to go burn a pile of tires.
 
2013-01-09 11:06:02 AM  

HotWingAgenda: Psycat: I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.

You get that weather and climate are two completely different things, right?


weather : climate :: single vote : an entire election
 
2013-01-09 11:06:52 AM  

Zasteva: DrPainMD: Zasteva: "And it's not being, I think, over-dramatic to say that considering the proportion of the world's population that lives close to sea level, the implications of this sort of accelerated sea level rise are enormous."

Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.


He's also obviously not in any sort of job that requires precise calculations to be successful at his job, like, say, construction. There, if you're off by "a few feet", you likely not only don't get another job, you get to pay restitution to the victims of your previous job.
 
2013-01-09 11:09:01 AM  

Zasteva: DrPainMD: Zasteva: "And it's not being, I think, over-dramatic to say that considering the proportion of the world's population that lives close to sea level, the implications of this sort of accelerated sea level rise are enormous."

Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.


When they start mixing science with speculation, stop listening to them. That is, if you can tell the difference. When the speculation is completely one-sided, you should be able to tell that it's BS.
 
2013-01-09 11:09:53 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Your headline reeks of ignorance, subby. And it pains me to explain this to you, because I'm sure you won't understand, but I'm a glutton for punishment so I guess I'll try anyway.

See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

Please. I implore you. Study what you're talking about before you post your next headline. There's enough misunderstanding a ...


What's really sad is that I know people who actually argue this way, and mean it...

Geez, it's only lunchtime, and already I'm depressed enough for the brandy...
 
2013-01-09 11:10:15 AM  
Global warming means more heat energy in the atmosphere. This means more violent weather. This means more hyperbolic descriptions of storm severity by meaty urologists the planet over.

But, what if they're correct? What can we possibly do? The only logical way to decrease our effect on the planet is to limit our numbers. The Democrats are not going to stand for this in a million years. Reproduction is a right, dammit! If you're going to tell people they can't reproduce, a logical component of this is deciding who can't reproduce. Immediately, this is going to erupt into a war between the haves and the have-nots.

Stalemate.
 
2013-01-09 11:21:56 AM  
In other news it was so hot in Australia yesterday that they broke an all time record (59 celcius).
 
2013-01-09 11:22:18 AM  

Pocket Ninja: See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.


LOL - That was as logical as the Chewbacca defense. You know why it's called moving the goalposts? Because the goalposts farking move! Despite your irrational clinging belief in the Mayans the world did not end in 2012. There will be new data in 2013, and 2014, and so on.

If 2013 turns out to be the hottest year on record then 2013 will be the hottest year on record. This does not magically undo the fact that 2012 was the hottest year on record EVAR .... as of 2012. Nobody is going to pretend they never said 2012 is hottest. It's hottest! Now I'm going to blow your little mind...

(Hear this in morpheous' voice..)
. What if I told you, Neo, that 1921 was the hottest year on record in 1921?

The hottest year on record does not stand all by itself. We are setting the hottest year on record very regularly now while the coolest year on record continues to be very occasional.

Hottest 5 years on record:
2012
1998
1934
1999
1921

Coolest 5 years on record:
1903
1924
1895
1912
1917

Please tell me you have the intellect to notice something about the 10 years listed above. Do any of them seem to be more recent than the others?  http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/us/2012/ann/YTD_allyears _Dec2012.png
 
2013-01-09 11:23:07 AM  

occamswrist:
Where was the press release about alaskas temperature? Alaska makes up a significant portion of the us, donchaknow.


NOAA releases a report, named State of the Climate - National Overview, every year (and every month). As a government department, NOAA issues a press release to accompany each report. See here for Summary Information (which is presumably what the media are working from). You'll note that a report for Alaska is included.
 
2013-01-09 11:24:02 AM  

GoGoGadgetLiver: Pocket Ninja: See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

LOL - That was as logical as the Chewbacca defense. You know why it's called moving the goalposts? Because the goalposts farking move! Despite your irrational clinging belief in the Mayans the world did not end in 2012. There will be new data in 2013, and 2014, and so on.

If 2013 turns o ...


Fish on...
 
2013-01-09 11:27:00 AM  

prjindigo: ZERO of the models accept that that bright thing that makes daylight can vary its heat output.


CHeck out the link I provided up thread. You actually don't know the models that are actually being used, because this is factually incorrect.
 
2013-01-09 11:36:36 AM  

SnarfVader: Fish on...


Aye. :)

When it comes to deniers you never know if they are that stupid or if you're about to get a hook in the mouth.
 
2013-01-09 11:41:26 AM  

GoGoGadgetLiver: Pocket Ninja: See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

LOL - That was as logical as the Chewbacca defense. You know why it's called moving the goalposts? Because the goalposts farking move! Despite your irrational clinging belief in the Mayans the world did not end in 2012. There will be new data in 2013, and 2014, and so on.

If 2013 turns o ...


Wow, I didn't think he'd actually get a bite...

Y'see, this is kinda his schtick. He pretends to be a derphead, and almost always makes an intentional mistake like that to show that he's being funny. Unfortunately, he often falls victim to Poe's Law and someone thinks he's being serious and either rips him as you did, or completely agrees with him. He does break character on occasion, but that's rare, and not usually in the politics tab.
 
2013-01-09 11:41:36 AM  
Quantumbunny
The only date that isn't totally sketchy to me... is using the 2 billion year.

The point is to minimize disruption to human life and industry and the environment. Changes that take thousands of years to occur can be adapted to. Changes that take decades can't.


EVERYBODY PANIC
Here is what eats at me in all of this. ONE: I don't see a global increase in temps to be a bad thing. It will be different, but not just bad. I do not FEAR a warmer planet.

Temperature is arbitrary. Rapid sea level rise, increased frequency of destructive storms in some places and droughts in others, and explosions in invasive species, weeds, and diseases (since they breed faster and therefore adapt faster) are not.

Mankind will probably destroy a lot of good stuff

this part, this right here
this is what it would be nice to avoid

but temps will not accelerate and turn th globe into a cinder

strawman

GW people believe that all 'solutions' are government solutions, requiring massive coercive interventions which will disrupt everybody's lives and cost trillions and then more trillions.

strawman
also, most responses will actually save money over the long run due to lower energy costs. Better-insulated buildings, better fuel efficiency, longer-lasting everything... what a bunch of hippies though am I right

If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it

that's not the issue


prjindigo
1934 ... fifty states.

wat

ZERO of the models accept that that bright thing that makes daylight can vary its heat output.

from upthread

"The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C."


HotIgneous Intruder
Ultimately, nature finds equlibrium

so let's fark with it by spewing unlimited amounts of toxic shiat into the air and coming up with some existential bullshiat to be able to say everything's fine even though millions of people will probably die
 
2013-01-09 11:44:52 AM  

Farking Canuck: occamswrist: Where was the press release about alaskas temperature? Alaska makes up a significant portion of the us, donchaknow.

You're right ... it is all a conspiracy!!!!

Where's the green-thread shiatter?? He can explain how this news agency is a puppet of the UN and is just paving the way for their world take-over.

You remember the UN ... this is the agency that is eternally mocked on Fark because they are so ineffective. Apparently, according to the conspiracy nuts, this ineffective organization is about to gain control of the world!!! [insert evil laugh]


Calm down there chief.

Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.
 
2013-01-09 11:45:37 AM  

thurstonxhowell: HotIgneous Intruder: "Doing something" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who would profit handsomely from the action required.

/Coming soon from a government near you.

What a useless, vapid statement to make. I could make virtually the same statement about virtually any action or lack thereof.

"Doing nothing" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who profit handsomely from not taking the action required.

"shiatting" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from spiriting that waste away from me.

"Eating" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from growing and getting that food to me.

"Not eating or shiatting" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from treating me for anorexia.

"Using a condom" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from manufacturing condoms.

"Not using a condom" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from making baby products.

"Not having sex" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from WoW subscriptions.

"Using a computer" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from mining rare Earth minerals in the Congo.

"Not using a computer" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely by harvesting trees for paper.


All right. There are no rights violations or force involved in any of the things you listed. If there will be no force or rights violations involved in "doing something" about global warming, then do all the something you want.

/unless you use a condom for rape or shiat on people's shoes at the bus stop
 
2013-01-09 11:51:10 AM  

DrPainMD: TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better bankrupt the world for nothing?"

FTFTC*

* - fixed that for the cartoonist.


I am pretty sure the major banks and the 1%ers won't let that happen to them.
/Your cartoon needs to have a 1%er with the big banks' logos around him, off to the side of the stage, saying 'We'll still be here'
 
2013-01-09 11:51:15 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Global warming means more heat energy in the atmosphere. This means more violent weather.


Violent weather is caused by temperature differences. I'm told that the poles warm faster than the equator, thus lowering the temperature differences between latitudes. There are some pretty violent dust storms on cold-ass Mars.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:31 AM  

occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.


A subset of stories and research results known colloquially as "reality".
 
2013-01-09 11:52:42 AM  

occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.


Or maybe it isn't a conspiracy and this news agency just found a story they wanted to run.

I know that this is a wild idea that doesn't fit at all in your tinfoil hat world. That Occam and his razor ... crazy I tell ya!!!
 
2013-01-09 11:52:55 AM  

sid244: DrPainMD: TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better bankrupt the world for nothing?"

FTFTC*

* - fixed that for the cartoonist.

I am pretty sure the major banks and the 1%ers won't let that happen to them.
/Your cartoon needs to have a 1%er with the big banks' logos around him, off to the side of the stage, saying 'We'll still be here'


Investment banks were the ones who were looking to rake in billions from CO2 exchanges and cap and trade.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:15 AM  

RanDomino: Temperature is arbitrary.


Not particularly. The flora that so much of the food chain depends upon is acclimated to certain climates, certain temperatures, and a certain cycle of seasons. Start mucking about with these combinations, and you are risking disaster.

I don't deny climate change. I just deny the seriousness of the preachers, because when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, they are actually unwilling to make the necessary changes because the changes will be unpopular, and certainly will cost them political power. And that's what it's all about, for them.
 
2013-01-09 11:55:38 AM  

Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.


Jesus runs my thermostat, heathen!
 
2013-01-09 11:57:52 AM  

jigger: Violent weather is caused by temperature differences. I'm told that the poles warm faster than the equator, thus lowering the temperature differences between latitudes. There are some pretty violent dust storms on cold-ass Mars.


Yes, and no. Wind is certainly generated and exacerbated by difference in temperatures. But the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere (both latent and sensible,) directly relates to the amount of water vapor the air can contain. This translates to precipitation, and wind.

Thermodynamics.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:59 PM  

HAMMERTOE: I don't deny climate change. I just deny the seriousness of the preachers, because when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, they are actually unwilling to make the necessary changes because the changes will be unpopular, and certainly will cost them political power. And that's what it's all about, for them.


This is just gibberish. AGW is no different than previous issues raised by scientists like acid rain or the ozone holes. Back then scientists raised the issue and governments pushed things in the right direction.

This time around the businesses that will lose profit have muddied the waters with anti-science propaganda and are using their lobby power to put political pressure on politicians. All in an effort to delay actions.

Delays that will cost us in hardships and way more money in the long run.
 
2013-01-09 12:11:58 PM  

Farking Canuck: This time around the businesses that will lose profit have muddied the waters with anti-science propaganda and are using their lobby power to put political pressure on politicians. All in an effort to delay actions.

Delays that will cost us in hardships and way more money in the long run.


I don't think you git it, all the way. It's about more than just businesses. Certainly, they are involved, and exerting their influence to avoid costly change. But it's also about individuals. It's about clear-cutting of forests to make way for ever-expanding populations. It's about pollution (air and water, especially.) It's about emerging countries, and their efforts to expand their economies and arise out of poverty.

It's more about population than you realize, or are willing to admit.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:41 PM  
Thanks for the explanation, realityologist.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:48 PM  
I'm glad that FoxNews.com's front page has a story that covers this in great deta... wait, it doesn't mention it?

/ To be fair, MSNBC's doesn't either.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:33 PM  
HAMMERTOE
The only logical way to decrease our effect on the planet is to limit our numbers.

no.


friday13
Wow, I didn't think he'd actually get a bite...

Three at least, and after the first one was openly mocked for it.
This is why reading the whole thread is important, people.
 
2013-01-09 12:22:57 PM  

Farking Canuck: occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.

Or maybe it isn't a conspiracy and this news agency just found a story they wanted to run.

I know that this is a wild idea that doesn't fit at all in your tinfoil hat world. That Occam and his razor ... crazy I tell ya!!!


Met office just reported temperature rise due to global warming through 2017 will be ~20% below earlier estimates.

Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

But I'm sure *now* they're accurate...
 
2013-01-09 12:24:57 PM  

occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.


What? I thought reporters were Democrats in the bag for poor people.. now they're climatologists, too?? Some sort of mutant Democratoligists?! No wonder you don't trust the news.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:58 PM  

Farking Canuck: This time around the businesses that will lose profit have muddied the waters with anti-science propaganda and are using their lobby power to put political pressure on politicians. All in an effort to delay actions.


Exactly which businesses are going to "lose profits"? All businesses pass the costs of doing business off to the consumer in their prices. This also holds true for increases in the costs of doing business. So, it still falls down to the individual, and the backlash that's going to result from implementing these changes. we're hearing plenty about it right now in relation to the implementation of Obamneycare.
 
2013-01-09 12:28:59 PM  
It's not what's measured that counts
It's not how it's measured that counts
It's not even who says what's measured that counts

It's that you listen to "experts" with a vested monied interest in the results that counts. They would never fudge numbers. No. That will never happend. Except for the hockey stick. And everything else ....

/more Grants, please
 
2013-01-09 12:32:00 PM  

DrPainMD:

DrPainMD: Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Zasteva: Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.

DrPainMD: When they start mixing science with speculation, stop listening to them. That is, if you can tell the difference. When the speculation is completely one-sided, you should be able to tell that it's BS.


So according to your criteria I should stop listening to you?
 
2013-01-09 12:32:07 PM  

GoGoGadgetLiver: Please tell me you have the intellect to notice


that you got trolled.
 
2013-01-09 12:35:18 PM  

HAMMERTOE: jigger: Violent weather is caused by temperature differences. I'm told that the poles warm faster than the equator, thus lowering the temperature differences between latitudes. There are some pretty violent dust storms on cold-ass Mars.

Yes, and no. Wind is certainly generated and exacerbated by difference in temperatures. But the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere (both latent and sensible,) directly relates to the amount of water vapor the air can contain. This translates to precipitation, and wind.

Thermodynamics.


If you've got two air masses both with 100% humidity, but they are very similar in temperature, you'll have mild weather. Maybe it'll rain, but I wouldn't call that violent weather. You get cyclones when there is an initial temperature difference between water and air. What gets the storm rotating are the converging winds created by temperature differences. You get tornadoes when a cold dry air mass comes in from higher latitudes and slams into a warm wet air mass. If the two air masses were more similar in temperature, the weather would not be as violent.
 
2013-01-09 12:37:55 PM  
HAMMERTOE
Not particularly. The flora that so much of the food chain depends upon is acclimated to certain climates, certain temperatures, and a certain cycle of seasons. Start mucking about with these combinations, and you are risking disaster.

Maybe I should have said "if all else is equal, temperature is arbitrary"- the effects of temperature changes, not so much.

I just deny the seriousness of the preachers, because when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, they are actually unwilling to make the necessary changes because the changes will be unpopular, and certainly will cost them political power. And that's what it's all about, for them.

I think you may be confusing the preachers with entrenched Democrats.

It's about clear-cutting of forests to make way for ever-expanding populations.

that's not what causes clear-cutting

It's about emerging countries, and their efforts to expand their economies and arise out of poverty.

except that the US alone is 25% of the problem
 
2013-01-09 12:39:11 PM  

cranked: occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.

What? I thought reporters were Democrats in the bag for poor people.. now they're climatologists, too?? Some sort of mutant Democratoligists?! No wonder you don't trust the news.


I misspoke. Climatoligists issue press releases and reporters and editors select what to report. Way to be a deuch.
 
2013-01-09 12:41:36 PM  

Farking Canuck: AGW is no different than previous issues raised by scientists like acid rain or the ozone holes.


Acid rain involves a very straightforward cause and effect with directly measurable effects that are relatively harmlessly mitigated. The ozone hole had a tenuous and speculative mechanism of cause and effect, but the mitigation was seen as so harmless that, well, "it couldn't hurt." Global warming is not like either of those.
 
2013-01-09 12:43:39 PM  
If you want to laugh at people who use one example as proof global warming does not exist, do not use 1 example as proof it does. No, not even the hottest year on record is enough evidence in itself to prove it. There IS ample evidence that proves it...point to that.
 
2013-01-09 12:45:11 PM  

occamswrist: Way to be a deuch.


Sorry, but when your username stinks so bad you have to roll a new one you might want to slow down on stinking that up, too... bad troll whiff in a matter of days.
 
2013-01-09 12:46:36 PM  

jigger: If you've got two air masses both with 100% humidity, but they are very similar in temperature, you'll have mild weather. Maybe it'll rain, but I wouldn't call that violent weather.


Ah, but that's the crux of the biscuit. As an air mass experiences condensation, evaporation, or precipitation, it also experiences a change in heat energy. Suddenly, you have two air masses with different humidity levels and heat energy levels. Therein lies the potential for violent weather again. This is what drives climate in the first place. Add more energy into the system and you've actually added the potential for the difference in energy and humidity levels to be greater, resulting in even more violence in the weather.

I don't particularly buy into the veracity of their "cure" but I understand the physics of the problem fairly well.
 
2013-01-09 12:48:16 PM  
So now the 48 states are the globe?
 
2013-01-09 12:56:12 PM  
NOAA should reveal the studies in july, that would shut up most Fark Indenpendants ClimatologistsTM.
 
2013-01-09 01:01:54 PM  
wait until they get a look at the thread on the geek tab.
 
2013-01-09 01:13:14 PM  

occamswrist:
Met office just reported temperature rise due to global warming through 2017 will be ~20% below earlier estimates.


What the Met Office reported was an update to their decadal prediction modelling. This is a highly experimental area, working at the temporal intersection of long-range weather prediction and climate. While global warming (i.e. the climatic effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations) is included in the model, at the timescales in question it is not a dominant factor. Internal variability of the climate system can be equally as important.

Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

The First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990 projected ~1-4ºC change from 1990 to 2100, based on a range of scenarios and adopting a "best estimate" for climate sensitivity, and ~2.7-5ºC for their Business-as-usual scenario with varying sensitivities.

The SAR (1995) projected 1.25-2.5ºC change from 1990 to 2100, based on a range of scenarios and adopting a "best estimate" for climate sensitivity, and ~1.4-3.5ºC for their medium scenario with varying sensitivities.

The TAR (2001) projected 1.4 to 5.8°C change from 1990 to 2100 based on a range of scenarios using an ensemble of models with varying sensitivities.

AR4 (2007) projected 1.1 to 6.4ºC change from 1990 to 2100 based on a range of scenarios using an ensemble of models with varying sensitivities.
 
2013-01-09 01:29:46 PM  

occamswrist: Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

But I'm sure *now* they're accurate...


This is the stupidity that is at the core of the anti-science movement: If the models are not 100% perfect then completely ignore them! They have nothing to offer!!!

People who understand science understand that models will never be correct but they are extremely useful.

Idiots buy into the anti-science propaganda of "they admit that they can't be 100% sure so your gut feeling is as good as their evidence"!!!
 
2013-01-09 01:30:59 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: It's not what's measured that counts
It's not how it's measured that counts
It's not even who says what's measured that counts

It's that you listen to "experts" with a vested monied interest in the results that counts. They would never fudge numbers. No. That will never happend. Except for the hockey stick. And everything else ....

/more Grants, please


Except that grant money is paid BEFORE you do the study. No one is ever hired to do the same study again, so fudging the numbers after you've already gotten your grant money on a study that you'll never get paid again to do, nets you what exactly?

I keep seeing idiots with the "grant money" argument and not a single one of them has ever been able to explain to me how the scam works. You could be the first. Care to give it a try?
 
2013-01-09 01:31:50 PM  
Last winter here in Vegas was so mild that I was fearful of what the summer was going to bring. I don't think it broke 110 (go ahead and check the records for me, idgaf). That's pretty mild for a Vegas summer. I mean, i grew up in Austin and hotter than hell humid summers were normal but dry heat? that'll cook you.
/jus sayin' and this is no yardstick to measure GW
 
2013-01-09 01:37:03 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Add more energy into the system and you've actually added the potential for the difference in energy and humidity levels to be greater, resulting in even more violence in the weather.


No. On Earth it tends to lessen the differences in temperature between day and night, high latitude and low latitude.
 
Displayed 50 of 297 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