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.

(Big 1059)   CNN host asks Bill Nye (Science Guy) if asteroid heading towards Earth was caused by global warming   (big1059.com) divider line 171
    More: Dumbass, CNN, Earth, Deb Feyerick, weather satellites, CNN anchor, asteroids  
•       •       •

6838 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Feb 2013 at 1:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-12 01:49:42 PM

StoPPeRmobile: FloydA: jjorsett: HotWingConspiracy: It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.

Psst, read the memo. It's called "climate change" now, because today's climate is perfect and it must endure unchanged forever, as it always has.

Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?

Do you know why so many people that insult climate-skeptics don't know the technical details of climate study?


Do you know why so many people are skeptical of thinking that climate insults are studying the change of stupid because of technical climate?

anyways whatever FloydA said, I totally agree with THIS THIS ^^
 
2013-02-12 02:03:45 PM

StoPPeRmobile: FloydA: jjorsett: HotWingConspiracy: It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.

Psst, read the memo. It's called "climate change" now, because today's climate is perfect and it must endure unchanged forever, as it always has.

Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?

Do you know why so many people that insult climate-skeptics don't know the technical details of climate study?


Actually, the vast majority of people on both sides of MOST issues are taking their positions mostly on faith and trust in their sources.  Even Lindzen, the guy responsible for triggering all this skepticism, the voice that objected to the original IPCC report and brought the issue to the fore would get hounded for being an idiot by "skeptics" based on his current positions:  1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) CO2 causes warming, 3) We are responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, 4) the planet is warming.  These are Lindzen's positions.  Where he departs is that he says the planet's negative feedback will fix it.

But "skeptics" are stuck in the original uncertainty: "CO2 has fark-all to do with planetary temperature."  "There has been NO warming."  "It's the sun."  "It's natural cycles."  "It ain't us."  These are, in fact, frustratingly contradictory.  "Skeptics" in media go from "There's no warming" to "It's not us" BACK to "There's no warming" all the time.
 
2013-02-12 02:18:41 PM

vygramul: "There's no warming"


www.woodfortrees.org
 
2013-02-12 02:23:33 PM

DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Case in point.
 
2013-02-12 02:28:35 PM

vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.


Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?
 
2013-02-12 02:53:43 PM

DesertDemonWY: vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.

Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?



I'll deny that, especially since the graph you yourself present contradicts what you've claimed - most of the (cherry-picked) periods shown span much less than that.

However, I don't think you'll find many people who will deny that one is able to cherry-pick a relatively short period of time and show a flat or negative trend. What matters is what kind of inferences you can make from from such a limited scale. If you wish to simply state that over that particular period of time there was no warming, that's fine - trying to make inferences over more than that period of time, however, has the potential to be misleading. Or, if you need this idea portrayed visually:

www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-02-12 03:04:04 PM
Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

There is a greenhouse effect

There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

Nothing above is controversial among serious climate scientists.
 
2013-02-12 03:23:00 PM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.

Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?


I'll deny that, especially since the graph you yourself present contradicts what you've claimed - most of the (cherry-picked) periods shown span much less than that.

However, I don't think you'll find many people who will deny that one is able to cherry-pick a relatively short period of time and show a flat or negative trend. What matters is what kind of inferences you can make from from such a limited scale. If you wish to simply state that over that particular period of time there was no warming, that's fine - trying to make inferences over more than that period of time, however, has the potential to be misleading. Or, if you need this idea portrayed visually:

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]


You know how I know SkS can't even keep it's own bullshiat straight?
 
2013-02-12 03:31:34 PM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.

Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?


I'll deny that, especially since the graph you yourself present contradicts what you've claimed - most of the (cherry-picked) periods shown span much less than that.

However, I don't think you'll find many people who will deny that one is able to cherry-pick a relatively short period of time and show a flat or negative trend. What matters is what kind of inferences you can make from from such a limited scale. If you wish to simply state that over that particular period of time there was no warming, that's fine - trying to make inferences over more than that period of time, however, has the potential to be misleading. Or, if you need this idea portrayed visually:

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

You know how I know SkS can't even keep it's own bullshiat straight?



There's different versions of that graphic. The one you linked to uses BEST data. The one I posted uses HadCRUT4.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with what I posted. The claim you made is still false, and the inferences you wish to make from it is most likely misleading. You're still more than welcome to address that if you wish (or if you can).
 
2013-02-12 04:41:24 PM

vygramul:

Actually, the vast majority of people on both sides of MOST issues are taking their positions mostly on faith and trust in their sources. Even Lindzen, the guy responsible for triggering all this skepticism, the voice that objected to the original IPCC report and brought the issue to the fore would get hounded for being an idiot by "skeptics" based on his current positions: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) CO2 causes warming, 3) We are responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, 4) the planet is warming. These are Lindzen's positions. Where he departs is that he says the planet's negative feedback will fix it.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, knows what he is talking about.  He's also exactly right, as I see it.  He has also adjusted his expectations as new studies come in.

I note a couple of points:  First, when discussing the physics of the atmosphere, perhaps it is best to listen to an atmospheric physicist, if you insist upon an authority figure.  Climatologists often are folks who study past climate and its effects, and would only coincidentally know the physics of the atmosphere.   And, second, as new information comes in, it is appropriate, and utterly scientific, to adjust one's ideas and beliefs to accommodate the newly discovered facts.
 
2013-02-12 04:54:16 PM

vygramul:

Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

There is a greenhouse effect

There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

Nothing above is controversial among serious climate scientists.

True.  None of that is controversial, as I see it.  You DID leave out a couple of other facts of some importance, however....


BEFORE the industrial revolution, the climate was warming at, and still IS warming at, approximately 0.76 K/ century.


Using your numbers, the last century and a half has seen a slight SLOWDOWN in ongoing warming.


The immense positive feedback for carbon dioxide's warming required by the AGW hypothesis is not there.  Feedback appears to be large, but is negative.   That means that the 1.1 K of warming per doubling of carbon dioxide is a fixed upper limit, and the resultant warming, including negative feedback, should be less than 0.5 K per doubling.


That means that the "panic and surrender power to us now to save the planet" part of AGW is pointless and counterproductive.

 
2013-02-12 11:38:06 PM
Right out of the gate the green text thread shiatter is wrong.  Going back 8k years before the industrial revolution, the world was cooling. Since the rest of his post just above this one relies on his fallacious premise, it can be ignored and we can all point and laugh.

www.globalwarmingart.com

Image from here, includes citations to primary literature:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Varia ti ons_Rev_png

Only bothering to respond to his latest round of idiocy because I have a bit of insomnia, and this one was easy.  Also in case anyone thought he had something resembling a valid point for once.
 
2013-02-13 08:06:24 AM

Zafler:

Right out of the gate the green text thread shiatter is wrong.  Going back 8k years before the industrial revolution, the world was cooling. Since the rest of his post just above this one relies on his fallacious premise, it can be ignored and we can all point and laugh.

Nice ignorance....  But, you're a good sport, right?  You won't mind that the laughter is at YOU, will you?  Here's what I said: "BEFORE the industrial revolution, the climate was warming at, and still IS warming at, approximately 0.76 K/ century."  And it this is precisely correct.  The warming started at the end of the little ice age, around A.D. 1700.  The idea that I was talking about the last 8,000 appeared only in your head, with some of the other voices.  What I am saying is that the current slow warming trend started around 1700, before the industrial revolution, and continues to today.

But, since you brought up the last 8000 years, let's discuss that time frame...  If you draw a trend line over the last 8000 years, we are COOLING...  the last 350 years of warming is just a blip on that scale, and a correction for the intense cooling of the little ice age.  We are in a brief interglacial period, the temperature of which peaked early on, and has been falling off since then.  Before long, geologically speaking, we'll be back in a major glaciation, colloquially an "ice age," and there isn't a lot we can do about it.  IF ONLY carbon dioxide level changes were as significant to the global temperature as warmers cry about, perhaps we could avoid starting the next ice age for a while.  As it is, unless we can get huge space mirrors in place to direct more sunlight our way, we're pretty well doomed to another ice age.  And THAT, unlike even ten degrees of warming, will well and truly suck. (And it looks like YOU are the one shiatting on the thread, cupcake.)

 
2013-02-13 08:23:59 AM
Ok, last 2k tears.  Please not that at no point of any of the reconstructions does temperature exceed our current level of warmth, and was, in fact, still  cooling prior to the start of the industrial revolution.  But hey, he wouldn't be the green text thread shiatter if he didn't lie.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Image courtesy of NOAA
 
2013-02-13 11:00:00 AM

cman: Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else


I fully expect this level of stupidity from every talking head on every major news program.  Not sure why you would give creedence to anyone who's entire skill set consists of "being attractive" and "can read off a teleprompter".

Perhaps you are confusing Fox's propensity to lie with all modern newscaster's general lack of intelligence.
 
2013-02-13 11:11:33 AM

give me doughnuts: Ishkur: Felgraf: Well, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff flying around out there, which is why things *do* hit other things.

Yeah, but the solar system has really quieted down over the past billion years and all the heavy bombardment stuff has long gone. It's like... have you ever spilled dry rice all over the carpet, and you vacuum it all up immediately but there are always a few stragglers that you missed, and you'll find them months later?

That's what the solar system is like.


I read that as "dry ice" and was very confused.


Glad I wasn't the only one...
 
2013-02-13 06:14:12 PM

Hueg_Redd: ilikeracecars: GOP take notes, this is actually the best way to undermine climate change, steer into the curve.

I think they are taking notes - the site linked to by the article is Glenn Beck's "The Blaze". Now I feel dirty for having given them a view.


I just gave them 10 more in your honor.
 
2013-02-14 07:36:23 AM

Zafler:

Ok, last 2k tears.  Please not that at no point of any of the reconstructions does temperature exceed our current level of warmth, and was, in fact, still  cooling prior to the start of the industrial revolution.  But hey, he wouldn't be the green text thread shiatter if he didn't lie.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 615x283]

Image courtesy of NOAA

That looks suspiciously like the Michael Mann graph -- you know, the one he got caught cheating on....   It must be heavily weighted on tree ring width, which is an astonishingly bad proxy for temperature.  In fact, tree rings are also proxies for rainfall and increasing carbon dioxide.  In other words, tree rings can't distinguish between temperature, rainfall, and rising carbon dioxide.  Screw that -- we don't need them as temperature proxies at all.  Here's what the raw data from 14 studies, taken directly from the primary research, and involving NO tree rings, looks like when averaged.  No chance for "value added" re-arrangement of the data...

junksciencearchive.com

 
2013-02-14 12:42:16 PM

GeneralJim: That looks suspiciously like the Michael Mann graph -- you know, the one he got caught cheating on that turned out to be right after all....   It must be heavily weighted on tree ring width, which is an astonishingly bad proxy for temperature.  In fact, tree rings are also proxies for rainfall and increasing carbon dioxide.  In other words, tree rings can't distinguish between temperature, rainfall, and rising carbon dioxide.  Screw that -- we don't need them as temperature proxies at all.  Here's what the raw data from 14 studies, taken directly from the primary research, and involving NO tree rings, looks like when averaged.  No chance for "value added" re-arrangement of the data...

 
2013-02-14 12:53:00 PM

GeneralJim: Zafler:

Ok, last 2k tears.  Please not that at no point of any of the reconstructions does temperature exceed our current level of warmth, and was, in fact, still  cooling prior to the start of the industrial revolution.  But hey, he wouldn't be the green text thread shiatter if he didn't lie.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 615x283]

Image courtesy of NOAA

That looks suspiciously like the Michael Mann graph -


If you actually look at the graph, a variety of reconstructions are plotted. Instead of relying (apparently exclusively) on your suspicions, actually examine the evidence.


GeneralJim: - you know, the one he got caught cheating on....


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com, and given your previous record on this point, most likely false.


GeneralJim: It must be heavily weighted on tree ring width, which is an astonishingly bad proxy for temperature.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com, again, keeping in mind that suspicions really aren't good enough, and also keeping in mind that multiple reconstructions are portrayed.


GeneralJim: In fact, tree rings are also proxies for rainfall and increasing carbon dioxide.  In other words, tree rings can't distinguish between temperature, rainfall, and rising carbon dioxide.  Screw that -- we don't need them as temperature proxies at all.  Here's what the raw data from 14 studies, taken directly from the primary research, and involving NO tree rings


An unnecessary lie on your part, and one that I've corrected from you at least a few times. From Loehle 2007 itself:

The series used were: [...] China composite (Yang et al., 2002) which does use tree ring width for two out of the eight series that are averaged to get the composite


GeneralJim: looks like when averaged.


...using data that Loehle himself had to later correct and without the instrumental record.


GeneralJim: No chance for "value added" re-arrangement of the data...


...and with no chance of meaningful inferences for the period after 1935. Here is what it actually looks like when you use the corrected data set and include the instrumental record to cover the time after 1935 (when Loehle's data ends).

i48.tinypic.com
Although not labelled in the graph, the light pink line there is the 95% CI for Loehle 2008.
 
2013-02-14 01:00:46 PM
Damnhippyfreak: i48.tinypic.com

Forgot to mention the important part: MBH 1999 in Zafler's graph is Mann 1999 in the graph above. Now that they're actually plotted on a common baseline, we can actually make comparisons instead of just "suspicions". Since you don't explicitly make any, GeneralJim, at least this will allow you to do so.
 
Displayed 21 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report