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.

(NOAA)   The 2012 State of the Climate summary report is available from the NOAA. Subby would try to snark but is too tired from shoveling climate   (ncdc.noaa.gov) divider line 32
    More: Sad, Philadelphia Housing Authority, National Climatic Data Center, climate  
•       •       •

3287 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-10 12:13:31 PM
3 votes:

great_tigers: The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Our last ice age was 10,000 years ago.

Climates do change and data from 50 years is not going to lead to an accurate finding. The sample size would need to be enormous.

If the timeline of the earth was laid out and every inch equaled 10,000 years, the timeline would be seven miles long. 1 inch since our last ice age is a very small sample since of seven miles.


You're not familiar with ice core sampling are you?
2013-02-10 11:49:05 AM
3 votes:
i1275.photobucket.com
2013-02-10 11:47:13 AM
2 votes:

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

Do go on, I hope for clear spcifics


Why don't you ask some coal miners what they think?


What about otter scrubbers? Environmental policies mean fewer oil spills, which means fewer job opportunities for the guys who scrub oil off of otters. Why don't we ask THEM what they think?

/Granddad was a coal miner. Coal mining is the worst farking job in the universe, AND it's devastating the Southern Appalachians, where I grew up. Anything that decreases coal mining is a good thing.
2013-02-10 11:37:32 AM
2 votes:
Love how they had strike out the alarmist premature text. LOL that's some fine science! You know they only left the the text because WUWT documented their original report and found all the flaws. But go ahead and believe NASA wanted you to know they screwed up and had to rewrite the report.
2013-02-10 11:34:09 AM
2 votes:

here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.


6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".
2013-02-11 03:59:46 PM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: You've made a mistake here, but it's a simple one to make.  If it is NOT repeatable, it is NOT science.


But how do we decide, without icky subjective "consensus," when an experiment is not repeatable?

For example, what if an experiment cannot be replicated buy others, and the experimenter claims that the others are purposely doing it wrong for political reasons?  What if an experiment cannot be replicated, but Internet crackpots invent a conspiracy theory that it was replicated but the data was secretly destroyed and replaced with fake data?  Or, what if that nutbag on conservapedia.com makes an error in his mathematics, but refuses to acknowledge it?

Crackpots, deniers and conspiracy theorists are not known for changing their minds in the face of evidence:  what if they insist that their claims haven't been debunked?  Then it is up to a consensus of scientists to conclude the likely case whether they are willing to admit it or not.

Even without politically motivated crackpots, it can be wickedly difficult to replicate an experiment.  There may be few people with the resources to do so, and there are many ways to perform an experimental protocol incorrectly.  It can take a Ph.D. level of training just to conduct a microbiology experiment, and a Ph.D. amount of time just to get it right.

We like to pretend that science is perfectly objective, that you can simply observe the orbital precession of Mercury and classical physics will just crash like MS Word.  In reality, it takes a lot of observation, and a consensus that it is legitimate, before people will overturn an established theory, and this inevitably involves a lot of human judgment.
2013-02-11 10:55:35 AM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: The rest of this post was rather good -- but the last paragraph really drops the ball. Science is not about "observing the consensus" at all. If ten thousand scientists "believe" something, and ONE scientist tests the hypothesis, and falsifies it, it's false.


In fact, this is false:  the history of science is littered with experimental results from ONE scientist that could not be replicated.  One scientist was able to show that water had homeopathic memory, and then nobody could replicate it---so do we reject all of atomic theory, or do we dismiss the ONE experiment?

For all the confirmation of the theory of relativity, we have some nuts on conservapedia.com who are convinced they "falsified" it with some thought experiment.  Do we reject relativity because ONE person claims to have done so?

The reality is that you need much more than one dude's data to overturn established fact.  You need an observed phenomenon that is undeniable, e.g. observed and confirmed by multiple experimenters, and without an alternate explanation.
2013-02-11 02:16:55 AM
1 votes:

udhq:

Because even with google at your disposal, you can't name a single scientist who has consistantly denied the conclusions of climate science without taking money from the energy industry.

And you can't name a single scientist who has consistently supported the conclusions of official climate science without taking money from government.  The point?

If money corrupts, environmental groups contribute ten times what oil companies do, and government contributes ten times as much as environmental groups.  If the 1% of money in climate research that is contributed by oil companies corrupts, wouldn't the 99% of the money corrupt 99 times as much?

2013-02-10 02:38:00 PM
1 votes:

HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?


Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.
2013-02-10 01:47:34 PM
1 votes:
Are there "natural cycles"?  Yes.
Do we make them worse?  Yes.
Does not addressing that put us in danger?  Yes.


So what is so farking confusing here?
2013-02-10 01:45:52 PM
1 votes:
As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.
2013-02-10 01:41:08 PM
1 votes:

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: udhq: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Cheron: Warming causes melt, melt increases water, increased water increases rain and snow, increased snow doesn't melt in summer causing glaciers, glaciers grow moving from the poles toward the equator in the latest ice age.

So Global Warming causes colder weather. BRILLIANT! Cannot be dis-proven. There's a word for that, but I forget. Something something......

Looks like a lot of people here didn't get the memo, even the people funding the artificial climate controversy have officially surrendered.

"Climate change is a hoax" is no more a legitimate point of view than "the earth is 4 thousand years old."  No one entitled to their own, friendlier version of objective reality.  Anyone who chooses to make climate change a battleground in the culture war is only solidifying their own irrelevance.

LOL! So "the science is in"? LOL!

Climate change is obviously NOT a hoax - and I have NEVER said that it was. You're busily erecting a straw man. What I've always said is that climate change has always existed - and that it is not something that we need to panic over and pass totalitarian legislation over.


You're right, we don't need to pass totalitarian legislation, but we do need to recognize that the atmosphere is by very definition a space that is public in nature, and I don't have any more of a right to dump my waste into it than I have a right to dump my trash in public parks.
2013-02-10 01:22:15 PM
1 votes:
Perhaps it's a function of being older, but not to the point of losing my memory.

The difference between winters 30 years ago and now, if memory serves, is that we used to have a proper snow-thumping like this every year in Ontario, Quebec and the U.S. Northeast. It was a "bad year" if we got it twice, or God forbid, three times. But it wasn't unusual: it was winter.

Now, four or five years pass, seemingly, between proper thumpings. Last year, I think I shovelled twice, and I probably could've used a broom. Lakes Michigan and Huron (essentially the same thyroid-shaped body of water) are now at historic lows, not only because less snow and rain is falling to "recharge" the lakes, not only because your Engineers dug a trench in Lake St. Clair for the benefit of shipping that is allowing too much drainage (Lakes Erie and Ontario are only six inches down from average).

It's also because the lakes are evaporating year round. Ice is failing to form (and in my lifetime, used to completely ice over, shore to shore, on Huron) due to higher winter temps. That means it can evaporate, like a pot with no lid loses volume as vapour. That vapour, carried by winds and carried up, gets turned into snow, which gets dropped south and east, generally, of Lakes Michigan and Huron, which are now down several feet from just 25 years ago.

www.johndee.com

A more perfect and evident feedback loop is hard to imagine. It doesn't matter so much if people are causing it, although there is plenty to suggest we have had a big role to play.

It's happening. We must deal with it, or at least stop the circle-jerk of whining about it.
2013-02-10 01:09:54 PM
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Stone Meadow: Look carefully at the graph. Temperature climbs precede CO2 rise in each case, which occurs as warmer conditions release otherwise trapped gasses into the atmosphere. Then, as earth entered the next glacial period (Ice Age) CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere in ice, the oceans, frozen taiga and permafrost, etc. IOW, factors other than greenhouse gases caused the climate to warm and cool, and drove the level of CO2 in the air...NOT the other way round, as you claim.

Interesting... do you know what those "other factors" that you refer to for driving glacial-interglacial cycles? Do you know how strong they are?

The primary driver of glacial-interglacial cycling are wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles. They cause changes to the amount of insolation (solar radiation hitting the surface), depending on latitude and season. However, the magnitude of those insolation changes alone are insufficient to account for the observed temperature change. However, the insolation changes cause feedbacks in the carbon cycle that change the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which enhances the warming.

So, the "lag" between the initial warming and CO2 concentration is due to the inherent rate of coupling between Milankovitch forcing and the greenhouse gas feedback.

Also "runaway greenhouses" are impossible at present on Earth, because there are feedbacks with the atmosphere, biosphere and rock weathering cycles that serve to limit the space within which the climate system can change.


Thank you for proving my point, which was that your claim that "The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." is utter bullshiat. You can't have it both ways. As you note, greenhouse gasses influence and moderate climate, but they neither control nor drive climate change over geological time scales. And you know it.
2013-02-10 12:59:38 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Wolf_Blitzer: omeganuepsilon: lol

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of <i>Science</i>, one of the two most-respected scientific journals in the world):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Whatever, play equivocation fallacy all you want, you were still wrong originally.  You took two words used very colloquially/informally and said they were not synonyms, when indeed they were.  Specifying a more formal lexicon  after the fact does not change that, and really is nothing but a desperate backpedal.


Here is my post:

You don't know what a scientist means when he calls something "theory", do you? Here's a hint: its not a synonym for "guess".

I specified the scientific context in the very post you so brilliantly destroyed, not "after the fact". Try harder next time.
2013-02-10 12:53:28 PM
1 votes:
Less precipitation (last year's droughts) = evidence of man-caused climate change
More precipitation (Sandy) = evidence of man-caused climate change

I happen to believe that our CO2 output does impact the climate long-term, but the supposition above that is regularly put forth by the media hurts awareness efforts.
2013-02-10 12:43:18 PM
1 votes:
Remember guys - global warming causes cold weather and snow.

/this is what liberals actually believe
2013-02-10 12:37:55 PM
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is up 40% from pre-industrial levels and increasing rapidly, an effect that can be directly traced to fossil fuel burning due to the change in isotopic composition of the CO2. If you are incapable of accepting these facts you are willfully anti-science and anti-reality.


Bwahahahahahahahaha...bullshiat!

Take a look at this ice core CO2 graph from the past half million years...

www.daviesand.com
If greenhouse gasses were driving temperature, the earth would have gone into runaway greenhouse conditions at least four times in the past half million years. Clearly, that didn't happen, so what DID happen?

Look carefully at the graph. Temperature climbs precede CO2 rise in each case, which occurs as warmer conditions release otherwise trapped gasses into the atmosphere. Then, as earth entered the next glacial period (Ice Age) CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere in ice, the oceans, frozen taiga and permafrost, etc. IOW, factors other than greenhouse gases caused the climate to warm and cool, and drove the level of CO2 in the air...NOT the other way round, as you claim.

Greenhouses certainly impact climate, and no doubt are contributing something to current conditions, but your claim is blatantly false.
2013-02-10 12:17:47 PM
1 votes:

here to help: AFKobel: Well done.

;-)


You clever bastard. Then again, when there are people on Fark that will make the exact same argument you did completely seriously, its not all that original of a troll :P
2013-02-10 12:05:37 PM
1 votes:

KCCO: encyclopediaplushuman: [climatesanity.files.wordpress.com image 850x579]
/oblig

I've always disliked that cartoon.  It has always reminded me of the types of things religious groups push.  "Why not follow our commandments, even if we are wrong at least you still lived a moral life."


I've always liked that cartoon.  You've now ruined it for me.
2013-02-10 12:04:04 PM
1 votes:

encyclopediaplushuman: [climatesanity.files.wordpress.com image 850x579]
/oblig


I've always disliked that cartoon.  It has always reminded me of the types of things religious groups push.  "Why not follow our commandments, even if we are wrong at least you still lived a moral life."
2013-02-10 12:03:19 PM
1 votes:

here to help: Lookit... the earth's climate is in constant flux. The temperature rises and cools all the time. It is a natural cycle. If you think our species is capable of having any significant impact on this planet which has survived thousands of years of these peaks and valleys you are an egotist and know nothing about the true nature of science.


Oh man, that was a good one.

I wasn't sure whether he was a troll or not until he crafted this "thousands of years" response.

Well done.
2013-02-10 11:58:36 AM
1 votes:
From Dr. Jeff Masters at Wunderground

The old adage, "it's too cold to snow", has some truth to it, and there is research supporting the idea that the average climate in the U.S. is colder than optimal to support the heaviest snowstorms. For example, Changnon et al. (2006) found that for the contiguous U.S. between 1900 - 2001, 61% - 80% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters with above normal temperatures. The authors also found that 61% - 85% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters that were wetter than average. The authors conclude, "a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000." The authors found that over the U.S. as a whole, there had been a slight but significant increase in heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000. If the climate continues to warm, we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades, until the climate grows so warm that we pass the point where winter temperatures are at the optimum for heavy snow events.
2013-02-10 11:51:54 AM
1 votes:
Well, I didn't think I would have anything to do on this wet rainy Sunday.
Now, I'll just fire up a few bowls of popcorn, and sit back and watch the clash
of the pro & anti man made global warming posters have at it.

DING DING!  Round 1 has begun!
2013-02-10 11:48:59 AM
1 votes:

here to help: Wolf_Blitzer: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".

Well that's all it is, isn't it? Even the scientists pushing this agenda the most still call it a theory. They can't prove it.


gravity is only a theory, too.  pssh those fancy scientists and their book lernin!  my ignorance is just as valid as their knowledge dagnabit!  i'm a precious snowflake and what i believe, no matter how ignorant, should be taken as fact by everybody else!

while i'm at it, i'm going to write those uppity astronomers and tell them they're wrong and the world revolves around ME, not the sun!  *grumble grumble*
2013-02-10 11:47:54 AM
1 votes:

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

Do go on, I hope for clear spcifics


Why don't you ask some coal miners what they think?


About what? The explosion in natural gas (pun intended) usage that is driving "consumers" away from coal powered things?
That policy? The one implemented by Cheney and Congress and enhanced again in 2005? That one that makes unconventional shale gas drilling exempt from EPA oversight essentially establishing natural gas as the preferred fossil fuel for America for the next few decades?

That Obama policy? (He does have a time machine after all)

Or did you mean the EPA policy that restores the 1996 restrictions on mercury emissions from coal fired power plants?
2013-02-10 11:46:50 AM
1 votes:

CruJones: As someone who doesn't typically read things like this, why does it include sentences that were struck through (wrong term I'm sure)?  Shouldn't those have just been left out?  It's like they published the red-lined version.


Because Anthony Watts discovered they were mistaken and they want to avoid Watts making them look dishonest.
2013-02-10 11:41:39 AM
1 votes:

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?


All of them.
2013-02-10 11:39:45 AM
1 votes:

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?


How about we think about all the money Dubya wasted fighting a war over WMDs that did not exist and call it even.
2013-02-10 11:38:36 AM
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".


Well that's all it is, isn't it? Even the scientists pushing this agenda the most still call it a theory. They can't prove it.
2013-02-10 11:38:23 AM
1 votes:
Fark the Grandkids, I'm cold NOW!

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-02-10 11:33:22 AM
1 votes:
climatesanity.files.wordpress.com
/oblig
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report