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.

(Some Climatologist)   In breaking climate news, a leak shows that the IPCC's upcoming report allows that the Sun may well be warming the planet, their models suck, they were wrong about enhanced severe weather, and they double-dipped in the guacamole   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 126
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2885 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Feb 2013 at 11:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-03 10:49:02 AM

DrPainMD: Or, they are scientists who realize that if even 1% disagree, that's HUGE.


Not really, no.
www.people-press.org


There's also a difference in significance of an X% level of disagreement depending whether the sample is from scientists generally (EG: including engineers), or from scientists working in the general field of expertise, or from those who are actively researching the particular question.
 
2013-02-03 01:45:30 PM

GeneralJim: maxheck:
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!

Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it.  However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.



Oh Really?
 
2013-02-03 01:49:04 PM

MarkEC: GeneralJim: maxheck:
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!

Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it.  However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.


Oh Really?



Just use the "Raw HTML" button and know how to type HTML font commands.
 
2013-02-03 06:21:13 PM
MarkEC:

MarkEC: GeneralJim: maxheck:
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!

Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it.  However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.


Oh Really?


Just use the "Raw HTML" button and know how to type HTML font commands.


I tried that before.  When I did, the ASCII representations displayed in the "Preview."  It works now I note that it appears that your bolding did the same.  Go figure.
 
2013-02-03 07:43:28 PM
Climate scientists have long incorporated the slight changes in solar output.  No news here.
 
2013-02-04 12:32:13 AM
paulboylan.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-04 03:20:26 PM

GAT_00: Sun may well be warming the planet

Yeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing.  Relatively insignificant.


The new report says 40% to 70%.
 
2013-02-04 03:23:11 PM

Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.


The "majority of the scientific community" in this case is the IPCC, who now says the sun controls 40%-70%+ of temperature in their new report.
 
2013-02-04 03:25:17 PM

TsukasaK: So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?


They quote the IPCC report version 1, but call the IPCC report version 5 an invalid source. Silly liberals.
 
2013-02-04 03:25:56 PM

Damnhippyfreak: While this "breaking climate news" is more than a month and a half old, I don't recall if we had a proper thread about it.


FARK agenda. Can't talk about facts that don't agree with the narrative.
 
2013-02-04 03:27:44 PM

brantgoose: As a Government employee I swore an oath of allegeance to the Queen and to her Government. I promised to keep Her Secrets and Her Government's Secrets. A report is only public domain when it is published, and the taxpayer, God bless her, does not have a right to read Government secrets until the government releases them. I have not got the right to divulge those secrets until they are declassified, and even though I know that most secret documents are only temporarily secret, I still have no right to publish them.


Sorry, can't hear you over the FREEDOM over on this side of the pond.

YOU BLOODY WANKER.
 
2013-02-04 03:36:02 PM

TsukasaK: The consensus is that climate is changing. Okay; that much is clear.

The big questions remaining then:

* Is this a bad thing
* Can we or should we do anything about it


The consensus has always been that it is changing. Climate is always changing.

It isn't a bad thing, in fact, it may end world hunger by opening up more farmland.

Can we and should we do something about it are two very different questions. We could fire off a ton of nukes or dump tons of different chemicals into the air to do something about it. Those things are "possible" scenarios. Should we try to break a system that has been running fine for millions of years and will continue to millions of years after we are gone? Probably not. Then again, if we don't, it may mean extinction for us like the dinosaurs.
 
2013-02-04 03:41:46 PM

HighZoolander: But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy


You know people don't know what they're talking about when they using nonsense terms like "sustainable energy".
 
2013-02-04 03:43:56 PM

Bullseyed: GAT_00: Sun may well be warming the planet

Yeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing.  Relatively insignificant.

The new report says 40% to 70%.


Bullseyed: Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.

The "majority of the scientific community" in this case is the IPCC, who now says the sun controls 40%-70%+ of temperature in their new report.



I'll have to ask for some sort of citation here, as such is not apparent from reading the actual leaked draft.
 
2013-02-04 03:44:41 PM

IlGreven: But again, if I were to trust anyone, I'd trust the direct source, rather than those who only cite them.  IOW, You don't trust Al Gore or Christopher Monckton directly, you trust the scientist that Gore or Monckton cited.  And you'll find that again and again, it's more likely that a scientist will call out Monckton (and Watts) more often than they'll call out Gore (mainly because Gore has already said his piece.)

/Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled panels on climate change invited Monckton to give a dissertation on a certain paper...instead of the scientist who actually wrote the paper.
//Those guys need to be divested of their power post-haste.


If you have politicians like Al Gore as sources instead of scientists, you probably have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-02-04 03:47:28 PM

HighZoolander: Even if you just factored in the typical waste disposal problem with nuclear, I suspect 200 acres would not be nearly enough. Plus it seems like it would be much easier to decommission a wind farm than a nuclear site, if we later decide we want to use the land for something else.


With rationale like that, it is a wonder that no one believes you! That's the most sound research I've ever seen from a church of global warming member.
 
2013-02-04 03:50:03 PM

Bullseyed: TsukasaK: So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?

They quote the IPCC report version 1, but call the IPCC report version 5 an invalid source. Silly liberals.


What you're saying doesn't make much sense. Maybe what would help would be to note that this leaked draft is the second order draft of AR5. This AR5 stands for the Fifth Assessment Report, and isn't a different version, but instead the 5th report of its kind (the First Assessment Report, or FAR, was released back in 1990). We might as well get the basics right.
 
2013-02-04 03:52:37 PM

Bullseyed: brantgoose: As a Government employee I swore an oath of allegeance to the Queen and to her Government. I promised to keep Her Secrets and Her Government's Secrets. A report is only public domain when it is published, and the taxpayer, God bless her, does not have a right to read Government secrets until the government releases them. I have not got the right to divulge those secrets until they are declassified, and even though I know that most secret documents are only temporarily secret, I still have no right to publish them.

Sorry, can't hear you over the FREEDOM over on this side of the pond.

YOU BLOODY WANKER.



As far as I remember, brantgoose is in Canada, where the titular head of state or Sovereign remains the Queen of England. No pond-crossing required.

/the more you know
 
2013-02-04 03:54:56 PM

Mugato: GeneralJim: Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.

You have the exact opposite position of what science is about.


Given that your reading comprehension is so nonexistent that you can't process basic sarcasm, no rational person should be listening to you regarding a document with words more than four letters long.
 
2013-02-04 03:59:22 PM

Damnhippyfreak: As far as I remember, brantgoose is in Canada, where the titular head of state or Sovereign remains the Queen of England. No pond-crossing required.

/the more you know


I didn't know your boyfriend lived in Canada, my bad.
 
2013-02-04 04:13:14 PM

Bullseyed: TsukasaK: The consensus is that climate is changing. Okay; that much is clear.

The big questions remaining then:

* Is this a bad thing
* Can we or should we do anything about it

The consensus has always been that it is changing. Climate is always changing.

It isn't a bad thing, in fact, it may end world hunger by opening up more farmland.



This isn't quite true. First, and most importantly, we already produce enough food to end world hunger.  The problem has been one of poverty, access, and distribution, problems that would be exacerbated, not ameliorated by climate change as, for example, already drought-prone and semi-arid regions where subsistence-level farming is common would be negatively impacted. Put another way, an increase in mid to high latitudes does not offset or ameliorate losses at low latitudes.

Second, the idea of "opening up more farmland" is a bit misguided for a few reasons. First and foremost, note that temperature isn't the only factor that goes into what makes suitable farmland - suitability of soils is one thing comes to mind, and isn't something that changes all that quickly. Second, you're risking a broken window fallacy in that supposed "opening up more farmland" is by no means is the only potentially negative impact of climate change (and, as noted above, is geographically limited).
 
2013-02-04 04:15:31 PM

Bullseyed: HighZoolander: But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy

You know people don't know what they're talking about when they using nonsense terms like "sustainable energy".



What's your rationale for this? Keep in mind that sometimes terms mean more than a strictly literal reading of the words involved.
 
2013-02-04 04:18:10 PM

Bullseyed: Damnhippyfreak: As far as I remember, brantgoose is in Canada, where the titular head of state or Sovereign remains the Queen of England. No pond-crossing required.

/the more you know

I didn't know your boyfriend lived in Canada, my bad.



Now, now, no sense in getting all indignant about a simple correction. You made a very easy to make and common assumption. Not a big deal unless you make it out to be one.
 
2013-02-04 05:03:43 PM
If this is true, it's great news.  We spent a fortune on solar panels, but if it turns out we don't need them to save the earth... well, I guess we just got cheap electricity for nothing.
 
2013-02-04 11:58:16 PM

Bullseyed: TsukasaK: The consensus is that climate is changing. Okay; that much is clear.

The big questions remaining then:

* Is this a bad thing
* Can we or should we do anything about it

The consensus has always been that it is changing. Climate is always changing.

It isn't a bad thing, in fact, it may end world hunger by opening up more farmland.

Can we and should we do something about it are two very different questions. We could fire off a ton of nukes or dump tons of different chemicals into the air to do something about it. Those things are "possible" scenarios. Should we try to break a system that has been running fine for millions of years and will continue to millions of years after we are gone? Probably not. Then again, if we don't, it may mean extinction for us like the dinosaurs.


So you're opposed then to burning fossil fuels for energy and releasing tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Because that's a relatively recent addition to the system.

I didn't think we'd agree on anything, but there you go.


/and
 
2013-02-04 11:58:51 PM
another thing
 
Displayed 26 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report