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  
•       •       •

2635 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 01:37:17 PM

arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

[i.imwx.com image 600x405]

The rest of the country looks far too cold.


It's cold in the winter time?
 
2013-01-09 01:37:36 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...


...first, Isaac Asimov would like to have a word.

Second, actually they're getting higher estimates. But because you get your "climate science" news from the Daily Fail or Newsbusters instead of, y'know, actually reading the IPCC data (because you can't trust them or something), it's easy to see why you came to the exact opposite conclusion.
 
2013-01-09 01:37:58 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: 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?


I don't buy the grant money argument, but I think the least stupid form of it goes somewhat like this: They have to keep putting out studies that support GW because, if they stop, they won't get any more grant money.

No, they won't have the grant for the offending study taken away, but the next grant just won't come because they will have broken with the GW true believers.

Of course, given how much money is in denying global warming, it doesn't make any damned sense. If a climate scientist is going to get rich, he'll do it on Exxon money.
 
2013-01-09 01:38:52 PM
The fact that the climate has always changed does not preclude the following:

1) humans can change Earth's climate
2) humans can change Earth's climate in deleterious ways to the human species
3) humans can change Earth's climate more quickly than natural cycles
 
2013-01-09 01:38:55 PM
The way I look at this is:
Either you believe ~98% of world climate scientists and world governments, who study after study agree with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is largely driven by human activities; or,
You believe the tiny amount of skeptics, which may seem like a lot of people here in the States, but that's only because noisy right-wing American media like Fox News has a hate-boner for Al Gore and his old climate change awareness project.

I would rather trust scientists and world consensus over our extremely noisy right-wing population.
 
2013-01-09 01:41:35 PM
nzetc.victoria.ac.nz

/But developing unlimited clean energy is so hard...
 
2013-01-09 02:15:03 PM

arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

[i.imwx.com image 600x405]

The rest of the country looks far too cold.


As a former Fargonite from the land of Northdakistan, I can say without a doubt 25 degrees on January 9th is balmy.
 
2013-01-09 02:43:02 PM
Check out Australia's mega-heatwave and firestorm. That's global warming.
 
2013-01-09 02:44:26 PM

sid244: /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'


Along the same general lines:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-09 02:51:46 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo:
Why did you choose 16 years exactly?
Is it because it's a perfect square?
I also like perfect squares. I think I'm going to look at the last 25 years of data.
My god...


Yes, the perfect square of four, which makes it four simultaneous perfect cubic years squared-squared, like the sides of a cube, which is how you know it to be truth-- while passing simultaneously through the four-cornered cube that all educated persons know is the basis of all time. It is STUPID to consider a length of time other than a perfect multiple of the four-cornered year, and science does not explain this 'global warming' trend over a period of sixty-four (which would be the perfect cube, cubed) years, so therefore even an idiot who has been mis-educated by the EVIL LIARS calling themselves teachers would know that it is FALSE.

/timecube
//makes about as much sense as the rest of this
///don't try to look up Timecube, apparently it now has an autoredirect to AdultFriendfinder. Somebody seems to think it's not a MINDfark you're looking for
 
2013-01-09 02:58:13 PM

friday13: 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.


I suppose I could squirm but might as well take my medicine. He trolled and I bit hard. :) I hope I got a decent rip in.
 
2013-01-09 03:10:51 PM

Quantumbunny: MyRandomName: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

Why did you choose 73 to start? That was a local minimum cool period.

I have a very hard time accepting 199X as a start date... I have a hard time with 73, 1880... No one has ever really explained to me (or provided a link) to why they chose the exact dates and why they are the most valid. Because they do seem so finely chosen, I assume every single one of those dates on both sides is cherry picking dates for the exaggerated effect.

The only date that isn't totally sketchy to me... is using the 2 billion year. However that one is very hard to judge since it's mostly extrapolation, and seeing non climate scale is impossible. They were quite specific in elementary school climate wasn't a year... or a decade... it was a very long time.

Anything prior to when we started keeping accurate temperature records, and any data using points where data haven't been kept in the exact same spot since the chosen dates seem highly suspect to me. Of course due to cities retaining heat, all the sensors within cities that got bigger and bigger are also suspect... so... maybe we're warming slightly, maybe we're not... but raising a degree or two on average over the world... doesn't really seems very problematic.


If you're tying to figure out the impact of human activity then you need to choose a time scale where that effect can be seen. We also don't need billions of years of prior data because the drivers of Earth's climate operate on those very long time scales (ex. plate tectonics) don't have an effect on short (decade long) time scales. If we want to know the average temperature in 10, 25, 50 or 100 years we don't need to consider those long term drivers because they work too slowly. We only need to concern ourselves with climate forcings that operate on those shorter timescales.

Warmth from cities has negligible impact and is already taken into account: Link

The impact from " a degree or two" increase in global average temperature isn't too bad. In fact, it's long been the goal to keep warming under +2C. However, we're nearing the point of no return (many scientists think we've already past it) for limiting the temperature increase to +2C. The impacts of warming beyond that level will be largely negative and quite costly. Link
 
2013-01-09 03:11:09 PM

dougfm: Pocket Ninja: There's enough misunderstanding and stupidity on here as it is, and it would behoof you to not be a part of it.

And it would behoove you to not share your ignorance in such detail.


2.bp.blogspot.com

I've got less than a handful of favorites, but you're one of them.
 
2013-01-09 03:48:26 PM

jigger: 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.


You must remember a different debate on CFCs than I do. I remember scientists clearly identifying the cause, and a whole bunch of people arguing that this was going to be a ridiculous waste of money that was going to drive companies out of business due to the cost of modifying equipment to use ozone safer substances, and all sorts of other FUD.
 
2013-01-09 03:54:15 PM
This is the first year ever that I've had to mow the grass as late as November.

I had to mow it in December this year as well, and will probably do it again this weekend.

Also, I have never seen motorcycles out on the road in January in Michigan. I saw 3 today.

I've only lived in Michigan for 37 years though, so I can totally understand if I'm not looking at enough history for my opinion to matter.
 
2013-01-09 04:05:29 PM

Evil Mackerel: arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

[i.imwx.com image 600x405]

The rest of the country looks far too cold.

It's cold in the winter time?


Really? It's hot in Africa?
 
2013-01-09 04:06:45 PM

Bullseyed: Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.


[Citation needed]
\o/
|
/ \
 
2013-01-09 04:44:13 PM

Zasteva: You must remember a different debate on CFCs than I do. I remember scientists clearly identifying the cause, and a whole bunch of people arguing that this was going to be a ridiculous waste of money that was going to drive companies out of business due to the cost of modifying equipment to use ozone safer substances, and all sorts of other FUD.


There was certainly resistance but there wasn't the major anti-science movement there is now. Back then there were no bloggers who could be put on equal footing as chemists on the subject of chemistry.

Now the words of every right wing blogger are apparently of equivalent value as peer-reviewed scientific literature.
 
2013-01-09 05:14:14 PM

Farking Canuck: Zasteva: You must remember a different debate on CFCs than I do. I remember scientists clearly identifying the cause, and a whole bunch of people arguing that this was going to be a ridiculous waste of money that was going to drive companies out of business due to the cost of modifying equipment to use ozone safer substances, and all sorts of other FUD.

There was certainly resistance but there wasn't the major anti-science movement there is now. Back then there were no bloggers who could be put on equal footing as chemists on the subject of chemistry.

Now the words of every right wing blogger are apparently of equivalent value as peer-reviewed scientific literature.


That's true. The arguments were essentially the same, even if the volume and pitch of the howling was not quite as bad. And of course some conservatives still believed in conserving the environment at that point too.
 
2013-01-09 05:29:27 PM

Bullseyed: Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.


i17.photobucket.com

The difference between weather and climate is the period of time over which it is measured, not the area.
 
2013-01-09 06:17:37 PM
Smidge204:
DesertDemonWY:
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
No Warming For 16 years

Hello SevenizGud. Could you please explain what the significance of 16 years is, and why that particular time span has been chosen instead of, say, 10 years or 20 years? In other words, can you explain to us the criteria for choosing the time window to evaluate the data with?

Thanks in advance;
=Smidge=

Well, he can speak for himself, but if you are so insistent upon getting that answer, how about a question of your own? Why is it that all the warmer alarmists show temperature charts which start in the 1850 to 1880 range?

I mean, climate has known cycles of (approximately) 60, 200, 400, and 800 years - but the 1600 year cycle (800 up, 800 down) is VERY large, compared to the amounts of "warming" we've seen. Shouldn't an OBJECTIVE look at climate show something other than the tiny snippet we see posted all the time?

After all, what the climate trend is depends upon the time scale you are looking at:

Very recently, we've stopped warming, and will probably cool for a couple decades.
For the past 30 years (the warming half of the decadal oscillation cycle) we've had warming.
On the big 1600-year cycle, we've been warming for about 400 years, since the end of the little ice age - a bit more than halfway done with warming.
On a larger scale, we came out of the last major glaciation (ice age) about 12,000 years ago, and have been cooling off for 8000 years. Another "ice age" is coming.
Even larger scale: We are in the tail end of an inter-glacial period, probably 1000-1500 years from another 110,000 year "ice age."
And, on the galactic scale, we are in about the middle of an approximately 40 million year "ice age," after which we will get back to normal, and lose the ice caps for a couple hundred million years.

And, as to the geologically very recent times.... Here's a chart:


i46.tinypic.com


See that little box on the right side? That is the ONLY area about which warmers want to talk. The "bigger picture" graph shows some interesting points, among them:

- There is an approximately 1600 year cycle with a peak to peak difference of about 1.2 K. That's much more "warming" than we've seen in the charts.
- Looking at the chart, the sine wave jumps out at the viewer. It swamps all the other, smaller changes.
- According to the sine wave, we SHOULD be warming, and quite rapidly (for a planet) right now. There's about 0.5 K of warming left to go.
- This means that the warming we are seeing is almost certainly natural. And, even if not entirely natural, it's no big deal, comparatively.
- Another specious claim being made: "It has never warmed this fast before." Observe about 1700 -- significantly faster warming.

I have been called "dishonest" for using anything but the "official" time scale to examine planetary temperature. Additionally, when I show multiple time ranges for the temperature, instead of the one fixed range that looks most like support for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, that has been called "cherry-picking." The warmer doth protest too much, methinks.

Also, pointing out, as I do here, that the warming we have been seeing is natural, and expected, and also not as fast as before -- therefore destroying the foundation of the warmer claims that we must "DO SOMETHING NOW!" to avoid disaster -- has been labeled as a "red herring." Pretty amusing, in an annoying way.

So, let me answer my own question: The apparent reason that urgent demand for immediate action all show climate as starting in 1850-1880 is because that if one were to look at a more reasonable range, it is obvious that there is NO DANGER from warming that is caused by mankind. What we are seeing is nature -- but on a longer time scale than humans can think about, at least comfortably.
 
2013-01-09 07:05:16 PM
anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com

This is a kangaroo standing in snow. Therefore, Australia is a cold place.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:22 PM
Well the thread has died down ... time for the green thread-shiat.
 
2013-01-09 07:23:59 PM
texanjeff:
GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

You done got charted

Nah, that's mostly blather. With a network of weather stations which heavily favor the U.S., and most of those weather stations NOT meeting NOAA's own siting requirements, the data are bollocks. Saying "we correct for the fact that some of our stations are next to air conditioners, and in jet wash at an active airport, and that one in a pizza oven..." doesn't cut it. When you are looking for 0.001 K changes in a location with environmental factors exceeding 20 K, calculations are nowhere near sufficient to deal with the variation. No, we have only ONE way to take a direct global temperature, and that's from space. That record starts from 1979. Before that time, one might as well use proxy data, as not only are the stations compromised, but the data in the repository keeps changing over time. So, here's what we KNOW about global temperature since 1979:

www.drroyspencer.com
 
2013-01-09 07:29:07 PM
dbirchall:
arghyematey: I work outside (overnight, to boot) and I've only seen frost twice so far this winter. Have fun shoveling your snow :)

I'm at work right now, and it's 24F and snowing outside.  In Hawaii.  I don't work outside, but I can go outside and run around in it if I feel like it...

Hey, Dan, howzit up dea Mauna Kea? Here's a scary thought... If you're in IT, I was almost your boss, starting this month -- at least if I understand the job description correctly.
 
2013-01-09 08:29:31 PM
CPennypacker:
steamingpile: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

I know of very few who deny warming is occurring, what I am seeing are people who are not sure what is causing it, there is not proof that man is 100% responsible.

Except for 97% of climate scientists, fo shiz.

Try "no." I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a SINGLE scientist ("real" scientist, that is) who believes 100% of warming is man-made.
 
2013-01-09 09:01:56 PM

Farking Canuck: Well the thread has died down ... time for the green thread-shiat.


Damn, good, accurate call.

Now some people are going to think he is your Alt.
 
2013-01-09 09:08:59 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Farking Canuck: Well the thread has died down ... time for the green thread-shiat.

Damn, good, accurate call.

Now some people are going to think he is your Alt.


LOL ... I'd have to have multiple personality disorder.
 
2013-01-09 09:14:10 PM

GeneralJim: dbirchall: arghyematey: I work outside (overnight, to boot) and I've only seen frost twice so far this winter. Have fun shoveling your snow :)

I'm at work right now, and it's 24F and snowing outside.  In Hawaii.  I don't work outside, but I can go outside and run around in it if I feel like it...
Hey, Dan, howzit up dea Mauna Kea? Here's a scary thought... If you're in IT, I was almost your boss, starting this month -- at least if I understand the job description correctly.


So given your track record understanding things, I'm going to go ahead and assume that there is no chance that you were almost his boss.

/also, you're a farking liar
 
2013-01-09 09:30:40 PM
Quantumbunny:
I have a very hard time accepting 199X as a start date... I have a hard time with 73, 1880... No one has ever really explained to me (or provided a link) to why they chose the exact dates and why they are the most valid. Because they do seem so finely chosen, I assume every single one of those dates on both sides is cherry picking dates for the exaggerated effect.

It looks to me like you don't NEED anyone to explain it...
 
2013-01-09 09:33:35 PM
symbolset:
Apparently it's OK to assume the US is the whole world again.

No, no, no... That's ONLY when the U.S. is warmer than other places. When it's cooler, only the GLOBAL temperature counts. Sheesh, get it right.
 
2013-01-09 10:31:01 PM

GeneralJim: No, no, no... That's ONLY when the U.S. is warmer than other places. When it's cooler, only the GLOBAL temperature counts. Sheesh, get it right.


You would think that after chanting for so long "weather is not climate" these fellows would wait for the global figures, and audited figures, before resuming their rant.

Let's wait for the audited global figures before we call this one.
 
2013-01-09 10:54:57 PM

GeneralJim: Smidge204:
DesertDemonWY:
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
No Warming For 16 years

Hello SevenizGud. Could you please explain what the significance of 16 years is, and why that particular time span has been chosen instead of, say, 10 years or 20 years? In other words, can you explain to us the criteria for choosing the time window to evaluate the data with?

Thanks in advance;
=Smidge=

Well, he can speak for himself, but if you are so insistent upon getting that answer, how about a question of your own? Why is it that all the warmer alarmists show temperature charts which start in the 1850 to 1880 range?

I mean, climate has known cycles of (approximately) 60, 200, 400, and 800 years - but the 1600 year cycle (800 up, 800 down) is VERY large, compared to the amounts of "warming" we've seen. Shouldn't an OBJECTIVE look at climate show something other than the tiny snippet we see posted all the time?

After all, what the climate trend is depends upon the time scale you are looking at:

Very recently, we've stopped warming, and will probably cool for a couple decades.
For the past 30 years (the warming half of the decadal oscillation cycle) we've had warming.
On the big 1600-year cycle, we've been warming for about 400 years, since the end of the little ice age - a bit more than halfway done with warming.
On a larger scale, we came out of the last major glaciation (ice age) about 12,000 years ago, and have been cooling off for 8000 years. Another "ice age" is coming.
Even larger scale: We are in the tail end of an inter-glacial period, probably 1000-1500 years from another 110,000 year "ice age."
And, on the galactic scale, we are in about the middle of an approximately 40 million year "ice age," after which we will get back to normal, and lose the ice caps for a couple hundred million years.


This is actually fine so far. What you should be getting out of this is that these different processes are not mutually exclusive. That, say, Milankovitch cycles exist does not somehow mean that anthropogenic climate change doesn't.


GeneralJim: And, as to the geologically very recent times.... Here's a chart:

See that little box on the right side? That is the ONLY area about which warmers want to talk.


This is where you go off the rails a bit. Note that reconstructions dealing with longer periods of time do exist and are talked about:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
For example these, from Mann et al 2008. It's going to be a stretch if you're going to call Michael Mann not a "warmer".


GeneralJim: The "bigger picture" graph shows some interesting points, among them:

- There is an approximately 1600 year cycle with a peak to peak difference of about 1.2 K. That's much more "warming" than we've seen in the charts.
- Looking at the chart, the sine wave jumps out at the viewer. It swamps all the other, smaller changes.
- According to the sine wave, we SHOULD be warming, and quite rapidly (for a planet) right now. There's about 0.5 K of warming left to go.
- This means that the warming we are seeing is almost certainly natural. And, even if not entirely natural, it's no big deal, comparatively.
- Another specious claim being made: "It has never warmed this fast before." Observe about 1700 -- significantly faster warming.


Unfortunately, these inferences are somewhat misguided, for one big reason. The attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation or simplistic analysis of trends in which multiple processes are confounded - like what you're talking about. It's somewhat simplistic to just look at a graph and guess that a pattern you guess is happening will continue - some consideration needs to be given to processes and mechanisms. Just eyeballing what you're guessing is a sine wave isn't all that defensible of a modelling method.


GeneralJim: I have been called "dishonest" for using anything but the "official" time scale to examine planetary temperature. Additionally, when I show multiple time ranges for the temperature, instead of the one fixed range that looks most like support for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, that has been called "cherry-picking." The warmer doth protest too much, methinks.


Unfortunately, this isn't what you're doing here. You're using one time range, and making very broad inferences from it.


GeneralJim: Also, pointing out, as I do here, that the warming we have been seeing is natural, and expected, and also not as fast as before -- therefore destroying the foundation of the warmer claims that we must "DO SOMETHING NOW!" to avoid disaster -- has been labeled as a "red herring." Pretty amusing, in an annoying way.

So, let me answer my own question: The apparent reason that urgent demand for immediate action all show climate as starting in 1850-1880 is because that if one were to look at a more reasonable range, it is obvious that there is NO DANGER from warming that is caused by mankind. What we are seeing is nature -- but on a longer time scale than humans can think about, at least comfortably.


The problem with using just one time scale and making inferences from just that, as you're doing here, is that you're assuming that what you're seeing at this scale is somehow mutually exclusive with processes at other scales. Put it this way - the flawed reasoning you're using here would also argue against the existence of ENSO.
 
2013-01-09 11:23:41 PM

GeneralJim: texanjeff: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

You done got charted
Nah, that's mostly blather. With a network of weather stations which heavily favor the U.S., and most of those weather stations NOT meeting NOAA's own siting requirements, the data are bollocks. Saying "we correct for the fact that some of our stations are next to air conditioners, and in jet wash at an active airport, and that one in a pizza oven..." doesn't cut it. When you are looking for 0.001 K changes in a location with environmental factors exceeding 20 K, calculations are nowhere near sufficient to deal with the variation. No, we have only ONE way to take a direct global temperature, and that's from space. That record starts from 1979. Before that time, one might as well use proxy data, as not only are the stations compromised,


Luckily we can see if these supposedly "compromised" stations have an effect:

tamino.files.wordpress.com
From here. Nope, no huge differences there.

GeneralJim: but the data in the repository keeps changing over time. So, here's what we KNOW about global temperature since 1979:

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x490]

You see where it says "Version 5.5" there in that chart? Believe it or not, data sets do change over time. For example, the data set your chart is referring to now uses these satellites:

v5.5
START TERMINATE
NOAA-15 1998/215 Present
NOAA-16 2001/032 2003/031 (sensor drift problems)
AQUA 2002/221 2009/365 (significant noise)
NOAA-18 2005/152 Present

When it used to be this:

v5.4
START TERMINATE
NOAA-15 1998/215 2007/365
NOAA-16 2001/032 2004/233
AQUA 2002/221 Present
NOAA-18 2005/152 2010/182


The data in this repository also keeps changing over time. You gotta get away from this creationist-like thinking where you fill in the gaps in your knowledge with some sort of conspiracy (instead of God like some creationists do).
 
2013-01-09 11:27:24 PM

Damnhippyfreak: It's somewhat simplistic to just look at a graph and guess that a pattern you guess is happening will continue


But this is what his gut tells him to do.

This is the key message of the anti-science movement: Your gut feeling is just as valid as a scientist's training, experience and evidence!!
 
2013-01-09 11:47:45 PM
Actually, not much snow since it was 50 degrees today. In Michigan. In early January.
 
2013-01-09 11:49:29 PM

thurstonxhowell: squirrelflavoredyogurt: 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?

I don't buy the grant money argument, but I think the least stupid form of it goes somewhat like this: They have to keep putting out studies that support GW because, if they stop, they won't get any more grant money.

No, they won't have the grant for the offending study taken away, but the next grant just won't come because they will have broken with the GW true believers.

Of course, given how much money is in denying global warming, it doesn't make any damned sense. If a climate scientist is going to get rich, he'll do it on Exxon money.


That makes it sound even more crazy. Ninety seven percent of all climatologists are in agreement that global warming is happening. What would you say if I told you there's no such thing as taxes, but that 97% of all accountants made it up so that people will pay some accountant somewhere to do their taxes?
 
2013-01-10 12:30:52 AM

Zasteva: 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?


As the planet warms, sea levels rise. That's not speculation.
 
2013-01-10 01:54:58 AM
CeroX:
one: The problem with the warmer planet are sea levels... the models are saying that by 2050 coastal cities like NYC will be a couple of feet underwater... I'm sure some of the yokels out in BFE, AK would be ok with scenario, it would be as bad for the economy to have to deal with it as much as it would be bad for the people who live and work there.

Well, first off, the models are full of crap. Even if warming continued, they are, like the temperature predictions themselves, skewed insanely to the alarmist side. The seas have been rising since the last major glaciation, (ice age) and MEASUREMENT, rather than model predictions, shows that the rate of sea level rise has not changed a whole lot since the start of the industrial revolution. But, with or without people, the ice caps could disappear before the start of the next ice age, although that is apparently unlikely. If that does happen, expect another 6 meters of sea level rise. Bear in mind that sea levels have ALREADY risen 120 meters since the depths of the last major glaciation. This article links to a PEER-REVIEWED PAPER which finds that humans have not altered the rate of sea level rise.

Secondly, we are on top of the food chain because we are really good at adapting to new conditions. The planet throws us new conditions from time to time, and moving over the WHOLE planet makes sure that we see many. The sea levels are going to rise another six meters, max? Move away from the shore. There are literally hundreds of years to do this. Quit freaking building near the shore, and by the time the "old" shoreline is encroaching, the buildings will be old and in need of replacement in most cases. This is so slow the solution is along the lines of "If you live on the shore, make sure your kids move to 20 foot higher elevations for their new house, when they grow up."

And, finally, HOWEVER this turns out, we are going to have another ice age... If you think a couple feet of extra sea level is bad, try two miles of ice covering North America down to Kentucky. Now, THAT will be inconvenient.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:11 AM

GeneralJim: CeroX:
one: The problem with the warmer planet are sea levels... the models are saying that by 2050 coastal cities like NYC will be a couple of feet underwater... I'm sure some of the yokels out in BFE, AK would be ok with scenario, it would be as bad for the economy to have to deal with it as much as it would be bad for the people who live and work there.

Well, first off, the models are full of crap. Even if warming continued, they are, like the temperature predictions themselves, skewed insanely to the alarmist side. The seas have been rising since the last major glaciation, (ice age) and MEASUREMENT, rather than model predictions, shows that the rate of sea level rise has not changed a whole lot since the start of the industrial revolution. But, with or without people, the ice caps could disappear before the start of the next ice age, although that is apparently unlikely. If that does happen, expect another 6 meters of sea level rise. Bear in mind that sea levels have ALREADY risen 120 meters since the depths of the last major glaciation. This article links to a PEER-REVIEWED PAPER which finds that humans have not altered the rate of sea level rise.


You should actually skim that paper. The bit in bold, while close to correct, isn't the whole picture. From the first paragraph of the discussion:

"Consolidating recent advances in various areas, we show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR, within the uncertainties of the observational estimates, in terms of contributions from thermal expansion, glaciers, the Greenland ice-sheet, groundwater extraction, reservoir impoundment, and a constant residual rate."

The way that they calculate said "contributions from thermal expansion", etc. already includes the anthropogenic contribution. It would be more accurate to say that this paper finds that humans contribute to the current rate of sea level rise, but have not changed the overall rate of sea level rise over the course of the 20th century.


GeneralJim: Secondly, we are on top of the food chain because we are really good at adapting to new conditions. The planet throws us new conditions from time to time, and moving over the WHOLE planet makes sure that we see many. The sea levels are going to rise another six meters, max? Move away from the shore. There are literally hundreds of years to do this. Quit freaking building near the shore, and by the time the "old" shoreline is encroaching, the buildings will be old and in need of replacement in most cases. This is so slow the solution is along the lines of "If you live on the shore, make sure your kids move to 20 foot higher elevations for their new house, when they grow up."



I think you're right here, especially about adaptation, but you have to be careful that you distinguish between outcomes for us as a species and individual or group outcomes, which are something quite different. We may be fine as a species, but that doesn't mean that certain people or groups will not be negatively impacted - sometimes severely so. Barriers, such as geopolitcal boundaries, property rights, differential economic situations, and good old fashioned geographical barriers can severely hinder the movement you're talking about, not to mention interactions with processes such as soil-building.

Put it this way - you can tell your kids to move to 20 foot higher elevations for their new house, but there's the possibility that they don't have the money to move,
there's a good chance that land is already owned by someone, and it would require them to abandon the farmland they're currently relying on.

Adaptability, sure, but such adaptability is borne out of hardship.
 
2013-01-10 03:19:26 AM

Damnhippyfreak: It would be more accurate to say that this paper finds that humans contribute to the current rate of sea level rise, but have not changed the overall rate of sea level rise over the course of the 20th century.


Actually this isn't quite right either, is it. How about 'this paper finds that humans contribute to the current rate of sea level rise, but said contribution, as a part of global climate change, is not reflected in a change in the overall rate of sea level rise over the course of the 20th century'.


Also, I forgot to respond to this last bit:

GeneralJim: And, finally, HOWEVER this turns out, we are going to have another ice age... If you think a couple feet of extra sea level is bad, try two miles of ice covering North America down to Kentucky. Now, THAT will be inconvenient.


If you think two miles of ice covering North America down to Kentucky is bad, wait until the Earth is consumed when the sun goes red giant.

Remember that different problems at different times don't cancel each other out. A drought one year does not balance out a flood the next.
 
2013-01-10 07:31:32 AM

GeneralJim: If you're in IT, I was almost your boss, starting this month


Being my boss is probably no fun, but I'm not in IT anyway, so you lucked out twice.
 
2013-01-10 08:42:49 AM

GeneralJim: This article links to a PEER-REVIEWED PAPER which finds that humans have not altered the rate of sea level rise.


Aside from the fact that you have somewhat misinterpreted this paper (as pointed out by Damnhippyfreak), I find it extremely entertaining when you latch on you a "PEER-REVIEWED PAPER" (emphasis yours).

You spend most of your posts denigrating scientists and the scientific process but, when you find one that you think supports your case, you proudly trot it out emphasizing its scientific credentials.

I'm sure you've gone out of your way to vet these scientists to be sure they are not part of the "great global AGW conspiracy". You wouldn't just assume that they are legit just because you like what they said (or at least what you think they said), would you??
 
2013-01-10 10:12:24 AM

DrPainMD: Zasteva: 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?

As the planet warms, sea levels rise. That's not speculation.


I agree that is not speculation. Your statement that it will only require people to move inland a few feet to a hundred feet is.
 
2013-01-11 07:47:08 AM
Farking Canuck:
You spend most of your posts denigrating scientists and the scientific process but, when you find one that you think supports your case, you proudly trot it out emphasizing its scientific credentials.

That's a lie. I do not denigrate "scientists." And I ESPECIALLY don't denigrate the scientific process. However, I DO denigrate scientists who lie, hide data, and void the scientific process. There are only a handful of those. I can name the ones I denigrate: Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hanson (and his henchman, Gavin Schmidt (sp?). Are you really dumb enough to think that ALL scientists cannot tell a lie? And, if you catch a scientist lying or fabricating data, would YOU denigrate them?
 
2013-01-11 08:10:48 AM

GeneralJim: That's a lie. I do not denigrate "scientists." And I ESPECIALLY don't denigrate the scientific process. However, I DO denigrate scientists who lie, hide data, and void the scientific process. There are only a handful of those. I can name the ones I denigrate: Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hanson (and his henchman, Gavin Schmidt (sp?). Are you really dumb enough to think that ALL scientists cannot tell a lie? And, if you catch a scientist lying or fabricating data, would YOU denigrate them?


You do ignore all other scientists that disagree with your info. Are you a paid shill, by any chance? You're just so dedicated to your ignorance. How does it feel to propagate your lies and mistruths?
 
2013-01-12 07:10:39 AM

Zasteva: DrPainMD: Zasteva: 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?

As the planet warms, sea levels rise. That's not speculation.

I agree that is not speculation. Your statement that it will only require people to move inland a few feet to a hundred feet is.


Land elevation also is known, for just about every square inch of the planet's surface. No speculation there, either.
 
Displayed 47 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 »






Report