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.

(Ecorazzi)   Wolverine listed as threatened species due to climate change, Magneto   (ecorazzi.com) divider line 40
    More: Sad, threatened species, Defenders of Wildlife, climate change, Center for Biological Diversity, IPCC reports, Wildlife Services, contiguous United States, personal carbon trading  
•       •       •

684 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Feb 2013 at 10:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-04 09:51:38 AM  
And there's also the Russians...

s9.postimage.org
 
2013-02-04 10:22:38 AM  
i52.tinypic.com

Does climate change enhance the Earth's magnetic fields?
 
2013-02-04 10:25:21 AM  
Get Ororo right on that.
 
2013-02-04 10:26:32 AM  
The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade
James Hansen, et al. January 2013
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012 . p df
 
2013-02-04 10:28:51 AM  
Break out the pool toys for warmer climates!
 
2013-02-04 10:29:40 AM  
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/contrib/c4040.jpg

Okay so pic didnt work, here is direct link
 
2013-02-04 10:30:55 AM  

SVenus: The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade
James Hansen, et al. January 2013
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012 . p df


That also appears to have been the case between 1968 to 1978, 1979 to 1986, and 1988 to 1995.
 
2013-02-04 10:39:13 AM  

maverickzy: SVenus: The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade
James Hansen, et al. January 2013
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012 . p df

That also appears to have been the case between 1968 to 1978, 1979 to 1986, and 1988 to 1995.


Yes, without impacting the overall trend. Any pseudo-random or chaotic variation around a core trend will see short-term stalls or very temporary reversals in the pattern, along with sudden bursts of extraordinary growth or decline in the direction of the trend. A perfect example accessible on a shorter time scale is the stock market. The gross trend since January of 2009 has been overwhelmingly positive, but you see days of sharp declines or periods of stagnation in the data over the last four years.
 
2013-02-04 10:41:40 AM  

captainktainer: maverickzy: SVenus: The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade
James Hansen, et al. January 2013
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012 . p df

That also appears to have been the case between 1968 to 1978, 1979 to 1986, and 1988 to 1995.

Yes, without impacting the overall trend. Any pseudo-random or chaotic variation around a core trend will see short-term stalls or very temporary reversals in the pattern, along with sudden bursts of extraordinary growth or decline in the direction of the trend. A perfect example accessible on a shorter time scale is the stock market. The gross trend since January of 2009 has been overwhelmingly positive, but you see days of sharp declines or periods of stagnation in the data over the last four years.


Stochastic processes are so hot!
 
2013-02-04 10:41:53 AM  
Note that although this article is somewhat short on information the population of wolverines is currently stable. It's estimated impact of 'climate change' that one group believes would lead to a reduction in population.
 
2013-02-04 10:43:01 AM  
Wolverines are awesome.

I want to start a wolverine farm. Raise THOUSANDS of them.
Step Three: Profit.
 
2013-02-04 10:44:01 AM  

doczoidberg: Wolverines are awesome.

I want to start a wolverine farm. Raise THOUSANDS of them.
Step Three: Profit.


Oh great, you way to make the real things played out and over-rated too?!
 
2013-02-04 10:45:04 AM  

maverickzy: Stochastic processes are so hot!


Awww yeah, baby, talk probabilistically to me.
 
2013-02-04 10:47:10 AM  

captainktainer: maverickzy: Stochastic processes are so hot!

Awww yeah, baby, talk probabilistically to me.


I would, but the pseudo-random sexy talk would only convey the general trend of emotion and not give you any sense of the actual sexy words being expressed.
 
2013-02-04 11:08:34 AM  

captainktainer: Yes, without impacting the overall trend. Any pseudo-random or chaotic variation around a core trend will see short-term stalls or very temporary reversals in the pattern, along with sudden bursts of extraordinary growth or decline in the direction of the trend.


But unfortunately for the dumb Wolverine, they have no access to the short-term data or the long-term data, and therefore must extinctify themselves due to climate change even during periods when it isn't happening.

It's called the Wolverine-Modulus-Extinctifier coefficient, and has been used to calibrate the IPCC models for over a decade. If any of you would bother to read the relevant articles, then you would have seen in the IPCC's 3rd report, section 19, paragraph 118, entitled "Why Wolverines will go extinct due to climate change even when it isn't changing".
 
2013-02-04 11:10:10 AM  

doczoidberg: Wolverines are awesome.

I want to start a wolverine farm. Raise THOUSANDS of them.
Step Three: Profit.


Where in the world would you get enough fingertips to feed them all?
 
2013-02-04 11:12:16 AM  

SevenizGud: captainktainer: Yes, without impacting the overall trend. Any pseudo-random or chaotic variation around a core trend will see short-term stalls or very temporary reversals in the pattern, along with sudden bursts of extraordinary growth or decline in the direction of the trend.

But unfortunately for the dumb Wolverine, they have no access to the short-term data or the long-term data, and therefore must extinctify themselves due to climate change even during periods when it isn't happening.

It's called the Wolverine-Modulus-Extinctifier coefficient, and has been used to calibrate the IPCC models for over a decade. If any of you would bother to read the relevant articles, then you would have seen in the IPCC's 3rd report, section 19, paragraph 118, entitled "Why Wolverines will go extinct due to climate change even when it isn't changing".


Pretty sure it was paragraph 119.  Just saying.
 
2013-02-04 11:13:26 AM  
Welcome to die extinction!
 
2013-02-04 11:59:26 AM  
freshcup.files.wordpress.com

/wanted for questioning
 
2013-02-04 12:10:17 PM  

SVenus: The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade
James Hansen, et al. January 2013
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012 . p df


www.skepticalscience.com

Additionally, even if you cherry-pick only the past five years for some reason, they're among the hottest years ever recorded.  If the hypothesis is that unusually warm temperatures threaten wolverine habitat, why would it overwhelm you to think that five consecutive years of unusually warm temperatures would threaten wolverine habitat?
 
2013-02-04 12:20:35 PM  
www.fightersgeneration.com

Approves.
 
2013-02-04 12:39:18 PM  

SevenizGud: captainktainer: Yes, without impacting the overall trend. Any pseudo-random or chaotic variation around a core trend will see short-term stalls or very temporary reversals in the pattern, along with sudden bursts of extraordinary growth or decline in the direction of the trend.

But unfortunately for the dumb Wolverine, they have no access to the short-term data or the long-term data, and therefore must extinctify themselves due to climate change even during periods when it isn't happening.

It's called the Wolverine-Modulus-Extinctifier coefficient, and has been used to calibrate the IPCC models for over a decade. If any of you would bother to read the relevant articles, then you would have seen in the IPCC's 3rd report, section 19, paragraph 118, entitled "Why Wolverines will go extinct due to climate change even when it isn't changing".


But... the climate change has already occurred, for them. Wolverines have a generational cycle of about five years; even if the population could adapt in a single population (which isn't terribly likely) you would still see mass die-offs from the large population of wolverines that are maladapted to the new climate.

That's part of what's so terrifying about anthropogenic climate change - we've only had CO2 releases and temperature increases this rapid a few times in our current atmospheric regime (i.e. after the formation of Panama cut off equatorial circulation between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans), and many keystone species simply can't adapt to warming this fast.
 
2013-02-04 12:40:05 PM  
A single generation. Argh.
 
2013-02-04 12:46:47 PM  
Thought those things were endangered a long time ago.  They were hard to spot in Lewis and Clark's time.
 
2013-02-04 01:15:04 PM  

SVenus: The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade
James Hansen, et al. January 2013
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012 . p df


Look at the first graph in your link. Look at the significant drop between 1940 and 1950.

Now look at the overall trend.

Think how stupid you'd feel if you spent the 1940's ranting about how the warming stopped ... like you are doing now.

A decade is irrelevant to the trend. Talk trends of 30+ years or be considered just another ignorant political pawns like SevenizGud.
 
2013-02-04 02:27:29 PM  

Rhames: Break out the pool toys for warmer climates!


What do you get when you cross breed sex toys with pool toys?
 
2013-02-04 02:38:37 PM  
You forgot weight machines, subby.

cdn.buzznet.com
 
2013-02-04 03:01:47 PM  

chimp_ninja: Additionally, even if you cherry-pick only the past five years for some reason, they're among the hottest years ever recorded.  If the hypothesis is that unusually warm temperatures threaten wolverine habitat, why would it overwhelm you to think that five consecutive years of unusually warm temperatures would threaten wolverine habitat?


My entire post was quoting a noted climate scientist.  Seeing as this is his (with others) comment, I would imagine you would have questions for HIM.

When you do ask him your questions concerning these pauses in temperature, be sure to add a question from me, namely:
Which Global Climate Model best predicts the beginning and ending of these pauses in temperature?
 
2013-02-04 03:53:16 PM  

SVenus: chimp_ninja: Additionally, even if you cherry-pick only the past five years for some reason, they're among the hottest years ever recorded.  If the hypothesis is that unusually warm temperatures threaten wolverine habitat, why would it overwhelm you to think that five consecutive years of unusually warm temperatures would threaten wolverine habitat?

My entire post was quoting a noted climate scientist.  Seeing as this is his (with others) comment, I would imagine you would have questions for HIM.

When you do ask him your questions concerning these pauses in temperature, be sure to add a question from me, namely:
Which Global Climate Model best predicts the beginning and ending of these pauses in temperature?


Claiming that 10 years of data is significant has been proven, over and over, to be the act of a moron or a political shill.

Nobody disagrees that the last 10 years have been flat ... stop trying to imply that people are arguing this. It is dishonest.

The point is that a 10 year flat spot, or rapid decline as in the 1940's, is irrelevant to the overall trend. It is a denier talking point put forward by people who are too stupid to understand statistics.
 
2013-02-04 03:59:55 PM  

SVenus: My entire post was quoting a noted climate scientist. Seeing as this is his (with others) comment, I would imagine you would have questions for HIM.


Because, you dishonest shill, Hansen's statement can be literally true (the past 5 years have been "flat" (*)), and yet irrelevant to the wolverine habitat, because it's "flat" at a historically high temperature, and the temperature will increase over the next several decades.

(*): Not in a statistically significant way, of course.  But this has been previously pointed out to you, and you're just parroting your talking point despite it.  Heck, it's been pointed out to you in this very thread:

captainktainer: Any pseudo-random or chaotic variation around a core trend will see short-term stalls or very temporary reversals in the pattern, along with sudden bursts of extraordinary growth or decline in the direction of the trend. A perfect example accessible on a shorter time scale is the stock market. The gross trend since January of 2009 has been overwhelmingly positive, but you see days of sharp declines or periods of stagnation in the data over the last four years.


So you're either completely ignorant of statistics, or you're willing to lie to make a political point that fits your preconceptions.  Please pick.
 
2013-02-04 04:10:55 PM  
I hate this shiat, I really do.  The wolverine is endangered because of habitat loss, population fragmentation, hunting, and deprivation of its prey species.  Manmade global warming is probably the sixth biggest threat facing it right now.  More wind farms are not going to save the wolverine, they're actually going to take away its habitat, both directly and indirectly (by taking environmental capital away from wilderness preservation and distributing it to the GW industry).

Blaming every conceivable environmental problem on global warming just means idiots can dismiss the whole environmental movement every time a blizzard rolls through.
 
2013-02-04 04:22:29 PM  

FLMountainMan: Blaming every conceivable environmental problem on global warming just means idiots can dismiss the whole environmental movement every time a blizzard rolls through.


Global Warming is a fairly hot topic (pun intended). So if it is found to have an impact on something then it will make the news cycle. There is nothing that can be done about that. It is a variation on the "if it bleeds it leads" motto in news reporting.

If you read the story, it is about the Wolverine being reclassified as "Threatened" ... there is no mention of any evil "green" solutions. GW is only mentioned as one of the contributing factors.
 
2013-02-04 04:39:08 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-04 06:03:03 PM  

captainktainer: But... the climate change has already occurred, for them. Wolverines have a generational cycle of about five years; even if the population could adapt in a single population (which isn't terribly likely) you would still see mass die-offs from the large population of wolverines that are maladapted to the new climate.


Uhm, temperature's been flat for over a decade now, remember? So we have gone through at least 2 (by your 5-year cycles) generations. Where's the die-off that should have already happened if, as you say, the climate change already occurred?

Oh, I remember now - this whole harem-scarem about the climate change boogey man is a complete charade.
 
2013-02-04 08:33:06 PM  

FLMountainMan: The wolverine is endangered because of habitat loss, population fragmentation, hunting, and deprivation of its prey species.


But yet still listed as 'Least Concern' by the IUCN.  Wolverines have been as abundant in Idaho as they were in the 70s.  Overall, it is becoming pretty clear tht they have a very small, but steady population in these parts.
 
2013-02-04 10:56:32 PM  
Oh, for fark's sake. We've had a few bad years, and we're still recovering from the dark days of RichRod. But I wouldn't go so far as to say "endagered" or "threatened". Them Buckeyes got another thing comin' next year!!!
www.thesportsbank.net
Oh, wait... not the Sports tab? My bad...
 
2013-02-05 01:52:16 AM  
Just let me keep my fingertips, man! Let me keep my fingertips!!
 
2013-02-05 04:35:18 AM  
unrealitymag.com
 
2013-02-05 07:13:57 AM  
lh3.ggpht.com

\now repeat after me. "I will feed....your fingertips...to the wolverines"
 
2013-02-05 09:02:39 AM  
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw the words Hugh Jackman at the bottom of the article, because the writer specifically set the text to bold for that reason.

Does every vaguely scientific article have to be linked back to pop culture? Are they terrified that if they don't make a reference to Beyonce or One Direction or Downton Abbey that I'll be unable to concentrate?

/pet peeve.
//rant...never really got going, but off anyway.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report