Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   Researchers say the earth is getting warmer faster than at any time in the last 11,000 years and that the world was actually rapidly cooling until SOMETHING made the temperatures start to climb in the early 20th century   (ajc.com) divider line 366
    More: Obvious, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, tree rings, ice cores, heat spike  
•       •       •

5487 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 6:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 03:49:34 PM  
Ironically, it was the invention of the home refrigerator.
 
2013-03-08 03:53:59 PM  
Being a pirate became unfashionable in 1907. True. read it on the internet.
 
2013-03-08 03:59:46 PM  
You mean the Little Ice Age?
 
2013-03-08 04:02:14 PM  
Airplanes?
 
2013-03-08 04:44:06 PM  
The end of the Holocene would really fark with their tiny little heads.
 
2013-03-08 04:50:07 PM  
what about leon?
 
2013-03-08 04:51:32 PM  
LALALALALALALALALALAcanthearyouLALALALALALALALALA
 
2013-03-08 04:54:16 PM  
FatGore
 
2013-03-08 04:56:15 PM  

RobertBruce: The end of the Holocene would really fark with their tiny little heads.


That's a really good song, but the ending isn't all that much of a mindfark.
 
2013-03-08 05:00:16 PM  
Was it Teddy Roosevelt?  I'm guessing Teddy Roosevelt.
 
2013-03-08 05:04:26 PM  
See what happens when we let women vote?
 
2013-03-08 05:09:51 PM  

Nabb1: See what happens when we let women vote?


It's Marx and Engel's fault.
 
2013-03-08 05:10:05 PM  
Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race
 
2013-03-08 05:14:10 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.
 
2013-03-08 05:15:45 PM  
trees?
 
2013-03-08 05:21:11 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


We're in the hotter part of space now.
 
2013-03-08 05:21:20 PM  
Was it farting?  I'm going with farting.

images1.wikia.nocookie.net

RUSTY!
 
2013-03-08 05:25:20 PM  
Does it have something to do with the mass forging of Hawaiian birth certificates? I'm gonna say it's that
 
2013-03-08 05:25:54 PM  

Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.


Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.


Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.
 
2013-03-08 05:34:51 PM  
It's in the Bible. Study it out.
 
2013-03-08 05:40:26 PM  
Ha ha drown you lowland bastards, heh heh-wait. I'm one of those lowland bastards.

Crap.
 
2013-03-08 05:40:50 PM  
freeversephotography.com
 
2013-03-08 05:42:21 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.
 
2013-03-08 05:50:21 PM  

sigdiamond2000: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

We're in the hotter part of space now.


We've moved to the space equivalent to Arizona for the winter.
 
2013-03-08 06:04:00 PM  
So, if that rapid cooling had continued, that would have been a bad thing too, right?
 
2013-03-08 06:05:59 PM  

RobertBruce: The end of the Holocene would really fark with their tiny little heads.



I hate Holocene deniers.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year.



Are we there yet?
 
2013-03-08 06:05:59 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

Found the answer y'all can relax now.
 
2013-03-08 06:09:44 PM  
Your mom spread her legs?

/got nothing
 
2013-03-08 06:15:34 PM  

sigdiamond2000: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

We're in the hotter part of space now.


25.media.tumblr.com
And how!
 
2013-03-08 06:15:45 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Your mom spread her legs?

/got nothing


That's enough. Never a wrong occasion for a good your mom joke.
 
2013-03-08 06:32:48 PM  
The immigration of Italians and Eastern Europeans to America?
 
2013-03-08 06:36:08 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


Cosmic Background Radiation is at about 4 Kelvin.  You are retarded.
 
2013-03-08 06:36:34 PM  
Blocks of green printing full of insults in 3.... 2....
 
2013-03-08 06:36:42 PM  
Where are the conspiracy theorists to refute this scientific information with some kooky idea of Al Gore funding these scientists or something along those lines.
 
2013-03-08 06:37:27 PM  
Didn't man invent beer around that time?

I blame fat sweaty men drinking beer and farting.
 
2013-03-08 06:38:46 PM  
We told you not to taunt Happy Fun Ball
but did you listen?
you did not
 
2013-03-08 06:38:57 PM  
Did not read the article, but wouldn't it be amusing if our mere industrialized presence is keeping the world from slipping back into another Little Ice Age?
 
2013-03-08 06:41:33 PM  
Pirates?
 
2013-03-08 06:43:56 PM  
I blame my ex wife
 
2013-03-08 06:43:59 PM  

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.

I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.


No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?
 
2013-03-08 06:44:13 PM  
Also from the hot part of space:
 
2013-03-08 06:44:30 PM  
The decade of 1900 to 1910 was one of the coolest in the past 11,300 years - cooler than 95 percent of the other years, the marine fossil data suggest.

Aaaaaaaay.
 
2013-03-08 06:45:14 PM  

SpikeStrip: what about leon?


He's getting laaaaaaarger.
 
2013-03-08 06:45:27 PM  

whither_apophis: Ironically, it was the invention of the home refrigerator.


There is actually a kernel of truth to this. Older model refrigerators and electric air conditioners both produce significant amounts of greenhouse gases. It's almost like we're sucking all the cold air out of the atmosphere, leaving only the hot air to cause global warming.

Almost, in a kind of "not in any way like that" sort of way. But you see what I'm getting at.
 
2013-03-08 06:46:07 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Didn't man invent beer around that time?

I blame fat sweaty men drinking beer and farting.


upload.wikimedia.org

Um... no.
We still have the  receipt from 2050BC.
 
2013-03-08 06:46:14 PM  
What happened to you Earth? You use to be cool.
 
2013-03-08 06:46:20 PM  
it was probably the lighting of the bong sometime in the 60's
 
2013-03-08 06:46:37 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Airplanes?


Well yes. . . and their chemtrails full of mind control drugs.
 
2013-03-08 06:46:44 PM  
So global warming has saved us from an advancing ice age?

Sweet.

Now we just have to figure out how to slow it down and control it.
 
2013-03-08 06:46:48 PM  
Let's see which debunked theories will be trotted out that internet crazies believe hundreds and hundreds of scientists forgot about? Water vapor in the air? Distance to the sun? Change has happened before so we can't possibly be causing change?

One thing sadly seems true: the inbred drooling Jukes and Kallikaks (and those who get rich off them) have won. It's too late.
 
2013-03-08 06:47:21 PM  
God did it.
And who are we to question God's will?
 
2013-03-08 06:47:56 PM  

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.

I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.


Listen. This guy is trying to find any reason other than the obvious one so it fits with his political ideology. He's got decades of oil company and GOP propaganda brainwashing to deal with.
 
2013-03-08 06:48:04 PM  
It was the evil oil companies, incorporated 11,000 years ago, that began all this climate trouble!
 
2013-03-08 06:48:05 PM  

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.


You are far more polite than I, good sir.
 
2013-03-08 06:48:14 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


For all intents and purposes the cosmic background radiation is entirely uniform in every direction. Seriously, the CMB is  2.72548±0.00057K with the  ±0.00057K accounting for all of the variation you see in those splotchy green and blue maps.
 
2013-03-08 06:48:37 PM  
I guess we'll never know.
 
2013-03-08 06:48:38 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

Cosmic Background Radiation is at about 4 Kelvin.  You are retarded.


NO, a sociopath. Not retarded. Just likes pissing people off.
 
2013-03-08 06:49:22 PM  

Infernalist: Did not read the article, but wouldn't it be amusing if our mere industrialized presence is keeping the world from slipping back into another Little Ice Age?


While an Ice age would be bad. I think flooding the most densely populated and productive areas and the acceleration of desertification of our farming belts is probably worse for us.
 
jvl
2013-03-08 06:50:04 PM  
According to this study, global warming may be keeping us out of an ice age, and the warming happened between 1930 and 1940 even though actual thermometers failed to observe the warming.

A single study. Let's not overthink this.

/ Although.... 1930s had the most hurricanes in a season until the Katrina-season surpassed it...
 
2013-03-08 06:50:05 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

Cosmic Background Radiation is at about 4 Kelvin.  You are retarded.


That's a lotta Kelvins:
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-08 06:50:50 PM  

whither_apophis: Ironically, it was the invention of the home refrigerator.


I blame the lawn dart ban.
 
2013-03-08 06:52:08 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 06:53:02 PM  
www.slowpokecomics.com
 
2013-03-08 06:53:12 PM  
It was warmer 800 years ago than it is now, maybe those Vikings were pumping out too many beer farts.

We have just finished the coldest winter in 50+ years, shouldn't someone call up the weather and tell it not to do that?
 
2013-03-08 06:53:14 PM  

Lith: Infernalist: Did not read the article, but wouldn't it be amusing if our mere industrialized presence is keeping the world from slipping back into another Little Ice Age?

While an Ice age would be bad. I think flooding the most densely populated and productive areas and the acceleration of desertification of our farming belts is probably worse for us.


Oh, I don't know...We, as a species, seem to perform best under high pressure.  I still remember the doom and gloom from the scientists and prognosticators back in the early 70s, talking about how India was looking at wide spread death due to famine because of their booming population.

Instead, we had the development of new crops that fed those masses.  Easily.

I suspect at the end of the day, we'll figure something out to handle the increasing temps.  We just need to be REALLY REALLY SCARED before we'll take it seriously.
 
2013-03-08 06:53:16 PM  

TeamEd: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

For all intents and purposes the cosmic background radiation is entirely uniform in every direction. Seriously, the CMB is  2.72548±0.00057K with the  ±0.00057K accounting for all of the variation you see in those splotchy green and blue maps.



You just got
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-08 06:53:26 PM  
There are forces at work here that humans do not understand.
The Sun is going to swell up and incinerate the Earth, so the clever ones say.
I'm OK with that.

/You're all going to die -- get over it.
 
2013-03-08 06:53:36 PM  
I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.
 
2013-03-08 06:53:39 PM  
It's the O-Zone and the G-Spot.
 
2013-03-08 06:53:41 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-08 06:54:24 PM  
Too bad. I'd rather live in an ice age than this 115 degrees every day during the summer crap we've got going now. Fewer people too. Whee!
Of course if an ice age did hit I'd probably be one of the first to die, but...fark it!
 
2013-03-08 06:55:06 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


Wow. I didn't realize the deniers were already having to reach into interstellar space for rationalizations.
 
2013-03-08 06:55:34 PM  
So obviously, the solution is to

1. Give billions of dollars to the scientists
2. Round up everyone, exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets of course), and force the remaining 10% to shiver in unlit caves and allowed to only eat their own dung & wear clothes made only out of their own hair  (again, excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets, who will have mansions).
 
2013-03-08 06:55:41 PM  
madmikesamerica.com
 
2013-03-08 06:55:54 PM  

sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.


*guarantee.
 
2013-03-08 06:56:45 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 06:57:01 PM  
This research brought to you by the DNC based on truth, fact and absolutely positively no missing variables taken from the data.
 
2013-03-08 06:57:25 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


So the temperature increased on all the planets in the solar system in a likewise fashion?  Did the sun also get hotter when we got to this area of space?  We're in danger of Jupiter, and the other gas giants, boiling off!  Oh noes!
 
2013-03-08 06:57:30 PM  

TV's Vinnie: So obviously, the solution is to

1. Give billions of dollars to the scientists
2. Round up everyone, exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets of course), and force the remaining 10% to shiver in unlit caves and allowed to only eat their own dung & wear clothes made only out of their own hair  (again, excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets, who will have mansions).


You can live in a cave if you want.  I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.

So, are you retarded or just bad at arguing your point?
 
2013-03-08 06:57:49 PM  

serial_crusher: So, if that rapid cooling had continued, that would have been a bad thing too, right?


To some degree yes. But on a dramatically slower scale ... centuries instead of decades.

The earth's Milankovitch cycle is about 100,000 years long with about 90,000 of those years cold and 10,000 years warm. These are very rough numbers as there are three forces overlapping/interfering to make the exact cycle difficult to nail down.

We have been in the warm part of the cycle for more than 10,000 years so we are due to head into the cold part ... i.e. the ice age. Which is what the data in this article is showing.

So it looks like AGW has delayed the cold cycle. In fact, had AGW not happened now, I would suggest that a few thousand years from now man would have intentionally started it to stave off or blunt the coming ice age.

So all that is well and good. Here's the problem: current AGW is too fast and out of control. We are trapping massive amounts of energy into the system and we are doing nothing to mitigate or control it.

All attempts to get any kind handle on the system are met by denier's and their anti-science campaign. The powerful heating of the greenhouse effect is completely swamping the current weak cooling of the Milankovitch cycle and deniers are trying to make us all put our collective heads into the sand.

The math is actually pretty simple ... calculate the volume of air and water on the earth and calculate how much energy it takes to raise it all by 1 degree C. It is a staggering amount ... and there is no way we will not be impacted by this much extra energy: more violent storms, sea level rises due to melting and density change, local climate changes, etc.
 
2013-03-08 06:57:53 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Didn't man invent beer around that time?



A little further back in time than that, bro.

www.distantmirror.discoveryworld.org
 
2013-03-08 06:59:22 PM  

TV's Vinnie: So obviously, the solution is to

1. Give billions of dollars to the scientists
2. Round up everyone, exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets of course), and force the remaining 10% to shiver in unlit caves and allowed to only eat their own dung & wear clothes made only out of their own hair  (again, excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets, who will have mansions).


ksj.mit.edu
 
2013-03-08 06:59:29 PM  

sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.


Well, I guess that setels it.

Also, [citation needed]
 
2013-03-08 06:59:46 PM  

Tillmaster: sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.

*guarantee.


He's kind of a climate change insurance man.
 
2013-03-08 07:00:10 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: It was the evil oil companies, incorporated 11,000 years ago, that began all this climate trouble!


upload.wikimedia.org


don't be stupid.

/too late.
 
2013-03-08 07:00:46 PM  

Infernalist: You can live in a cave if you want. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.


I'm not, and they are.
 
2013-03-08 07:03:01 PM  
Marcott's data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don't show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies.

Hey look, it's Michael Mann's Nature Trick(TM) again! Your data is for 11,000 years. Of those, we can only compare 100 to instrumental temperature readings, and those don't line up. It's OK, though, just staple temperature readings on the end of your proxy results and then claim the warming is unprecedented.

Which is more likely? That this proxy is accurate for 10,900 years, but happens to be inaccurate for the only 100 years we can actually check, or that this proxy is crap for the whole period?
 
2013-03-08 07:03:38 PM  

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.


Why did you feel the need to insult jackasses? You have hurt my mule's feelings. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-08 07:03:47 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Infernalist: You can live in a cave if you want. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.

I'm not, and they are.


okay, so you're just really really bad at arguing your point.

See, when you deliberately misconstrue what the other side is saying or suggesting, people automatically take your opinion and throw it out the window and label you as a 'strawman' user.

Now, you can use that strawman in any way that you like, I mean, it's a free country and you can abuse that bastard all you like, but you can't complain or get sad when people stop and ask you why you're not wearing your droolcup or your helmet.

In short, address the actual 'reality' of what they're suggesting instead of something you made up to make them look worse than they actually are.

Or you can keep on being really really bad at this whole 'debating' thing.  It's up to you.
 
2013-03-08 07:05:10 PM  

serial_crusher: So, if that rapid cooling had continued, that would have been a bad thing too, right?


We'd be having the same discussion, only trolls would be denying that the world is getting cooler, posting graphs showing how things are really much warmer today, and ignorantly declaring that anything will be bad about a colder world.

SSDD.
 
2013-03-08 07:05:14 PM  
s24.postimage.org
 
2013-03-08 07:06:33 PM  

Kazan: HotIgneous Intruder: It was the evil oil companies, incorporated 11,000 years ago, that began all this climate trouble!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x400]


don't be stupid.

/too late.


I don't think that is adjusted for anomalies in the stratosphere, here's the updated version.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 07:06:57 PM  
This thread needs some more derp. Kirk Cameron it is!

cdn.videogum.com
 
2013-03-08 07:07:43 PM  
Wow, the Koch-funded alts are out in force... I guess that's Friday night for ya.
 
2013-03-08 07:07:44 PM  

Infernalist: You can live in a cave if you want. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.

So, are you retarded or just bad at arguing your point?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RoxNpjIAkw

http://www.amerika.org/texts/interview-with-garrett-hardin-from-the- so cial-contract-fall-1997-craig-straub/

"Killing is part of life, you see - one of the things that has to be done. I have always had very strong emotions about this matter, very negative emotions about so many people who claim to love animals. There were people in Kansas who had cats they didn't want. They would drive out from Kansas City and when they got out to the farms, they would let the cats out and drive on, because that way they weren't killing the cat They weren't being cruel. They thought, "It will find a good home." I'm sure that was their attitude. Well, we were on the farm. Those cats wandered onto our farm, so what do you do? Well, the dogs would kill them. They distinguished between the visitor cats and the home cats. When they saw a visitor cat... particularly when our little fox terrier saw a strange cat, boy, he'd kill it if he possibly could. And he usually could." -- Garret Hardin
 
2013-03-08 07:08:31 PM  

iheartscotch: Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.

I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.

No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?


An interstellar clairvoyant?
 
2013-03-08 07:09:13 PM  
news.bbc.co.uk
 
2013-03-08 07:09:14 PM  

serial_crusher: So, if that rapid cooling had continued, that would have been a bad thing too, right?


Yes, but that will likely not be a talking point.
 
2013-03-08 07:10:27 PM  

JRoo: So global warming has saved us from an advancing ice age?

Sweet.

Now we just have to figure out how to slow it down and control it.


This is effectively all true. The problems with is are as follows:

- we know how to control it (manage the greenhouse gas %) but the anti-science movement opposes all actions that will enable us to actually turn it down

- we are already too high

- there is a large lag in the system and we are already going to way overshoot our ideal temperature. It is already too late to stop things from getting bad ... if we act now all we can to is reduce how bad and for how long.

I do small scale reactor controller programming as one of my many jobs and lag is a biatch ... makes control difficult.
 
2013-03-08 07:10:36 PM  

sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.


Oh!  Well, I'm definitely convinced now.  All I need is someone to guarantee that they know more than anyone else on a Fark thread to convince me.
 
2013-03-08 07:11:09 PM  
Hitler and the Holocaust?
 
2013-03-08 07:11:14 PM  

Kazan: you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.


I like you.  You come with facts.
 
2013-03-08 07:11:14 PM  

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.

I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.


THIS. Both times.
 
2013-03-08 07:11:20 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Infernalist: You can live in a cave if you want. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.

I'm not, and they are.


To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time.  On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich).  No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.  And if you act on it, well then you're not even mentally capable of counting to potato.
 
2013-03-08 07:11:21 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


That's only 27 light-years. The Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light-years across and 1,000 light-years thick. So we've traveled through roughly 2 hundredths of a percent (0.0002%) of the galaxy during that time.

We've barely gone anywhere.
 
2013-03-08 07:11:49 PM  
Here's another bit of "wisdom" from Garret Hardin, who thinks that only the rich should be allowed to have a decent standard of living, and all the non-rich will jyst have to get used to living like midieval peasants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8yOamWq3a0

I bet the Koches just LOVE this dickhead.
 
2013-03-08 07:12:48 PM  
Meh. We have too many people anyway. It's time for a good flushing
 
2013-03-08 07:12:52 PM  

Kazan: HotIgneous Intruder: It was the evil oil companies, incorporated 11,000 years ago, that began all this climate trouble!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x400]


don't be stupid.

/too late.


The chart clearly shows my version to be true; it says BP right across the X axis.
 
2013-03-08 07:14:01 PM  

Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.


The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.
 
2013-03-08 07:14:09 PM  
This is something I've posted before, but considering the subject, I figured it was appropriate for me to scribble it down again...

The global warming denial thing is the singular most perfect subject upon which the entirety of the GOP can agree and I'll explain why.

The GOP is composed of two major groups, the religious right and the business interests.  Now, the religious right 'hates' the idea of global warming due to the fact that the premise behind it is that we, as a species, are causing global warming due to our prolific growth and industrial efforts.

Now, that right there is going piss them off.  Cause they believe that GOD made the world and everything in it, and 'He' controls that world inherently and we're just passengers on that ship.  It's an abdication of responsibility.  There's also the fact that the religious right rage about the concept that 'we' are capable of destroying the world through our adherence to 'be fruitful and multiply'.  Finally, the believe that it's the height of hubris to think that we're capable of 'accidentally' destroying the world, something created by GOD.  Sure, nukes are one thing, that's a DELIBERATE destruction of the world and a destruction by 'fire', something that the religious nuts like a lot for some reason.

So they're going to get up arms about it, sneering at the educated scientists that have been pissing them off for about 500 years now.

Now, the business interests are all about denying global warming, because it's THEIR industrial efforts that causing the worst of it.  And they're not about to take a cut in profits to save the world.  Why should they?  It's the most primal form of 'short term profit', after all.  What do they care what happens in a hundred years?  They'll be dead!

That's why you see the GOP so united on this particular issue.
 
2013-03-08 07:14:46 PM  
something something RESEARCHERS something something
 
2013-03-08 07:14:59 PM  
AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.
 
2013-03-08 07:15:52 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


WOW. we have satellites (voyager) past the heliopause, and yet we have stuff like this spewed, like the solar winds themselves, to keep facts out of the lil model solar system.. in his mind. Great.
 
2013-03-08 07:16:41 PM  

sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.


I for one would be very surprised if you know more about anything than anybody.
 
2013-03-08 07:17:34 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.


What's funny is that you think that academics have to worry about staying funded.
 
2013-03-08 07:17:49 PM  

oren0: Marcott's data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don't show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies.

Hey look, it's Michael Mann's Nature Trick(TM) again! Your data is for 11,000 years. Of those, we can only compare 100 to instrumental temperature readings, and those don't line up. It's OK, though, just staple temperature readings on the end of your proxy results and then claim the warming is unprecedented.

Which is more likely? That this proxy is accurate for 10,900 years, but happens to be inaccurate for the only 100 years we can actually check, or that this proxy is crap for the whole period?


There are other accurate measures that are very good at predicting the temperatures over a century old, but you knew that
 
2013-03-08 07:18:41 PM  

Infernalist: That's why you see the GOP so united on this particular issue.


And here I was thinking it was just stupidity ... Hanlon's Razor and all.

Maybe we're both right.
 
2013-03-08 07:19:32 PM  
We really are the center of the universe, aren't we.
 
2013-03-08 07:21:05 PM  

Farking Canuck: Infernalist: That's why you see the GOP so united on this particular issue.

And here I was thinking it was just stupidity ... Hanlon's Razor and all.

Maybe we're both right.


Understanding motivation is key.  With the business interests, it's simple: What makes them money is 'good', what costs them money is 'evil'.

With the religious, it's not that simple.  You have to understand their strange mix of of deliberate ignorance, hatred of science, adherence to tradition and the absolute NEED to maintain their persecution complex.  Because they're the victims here.
 
2013-03-08 07:21:27 PM  

Farking Canuck: JRoo: So global warming has saved us from an advancing ice age?

Sweet.

Now we just have to figure out how to slow it down and control it.

This is effectively all true. The problems with is are as follows:

- we know how to control it (manage the greenhouse gas %) but the anti-science movement opposes all actions that will enable us to actually turn it down

- we are already too high

- there is a large lag in the system and we are already going to way overshoot our ideal temperature. It is already too late to stop things from getting bad ... if we act now all we can to is reduce how bad and for how long.

I do small scale reactor controller programming as one of my many jobs and lag is a biatch ... makes control difficult.



There is obviously 'anti-science bias', but the reason there will be no solution is anti-tax bias, at least in the US.  There is ZERO chance of carbon taxes or some similar scheme happening in the US, China, India and most of the world.  It is missing the point to claim 'anti-science' is the issue when it is rejection of the 'solution' of massive tax hikes that is really the issue.
 
2013-03-08 07:21:31 PM  
So in other words we  staved off a new ice age that among other thigns  would have lowered sea levels and increased incidents of drought due to so much moisture being locked up in ice.

So it becomes a question of what inevitable climate change are we best able to cope with:

This

www.planetaryvisions.com
or this

productionhausmedia.com
 
2013-03-08 07:21:37 PM  

sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.


the argument from human insignificance.. that's not new at all! [/sarcasm]

upload.wikimedia.org

10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

Stop being a moron.
 
2013-03-08 07:23:38 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.


Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.
 
2013-03-08 07:23:39 PM  
Bah. Just invoke the possibility of this being caused by every possible mechanism not already proven as a non-factor. Like the air friction caused by too many poor people walking around. Or methane caused by too many bean eating illegal immigrants. There. Problem solved.

/A tip of the hat to that Republican Critical Thinking Skills course I took recently.
 
2013-03-08 07:23:47 PM  

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

 
2013-03-08 07:23:50 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


cinenthusiast.files.wordpress.com

Great Scott!
 
2013-03-08 07:24:42 PM  
You realize you're arguing with paid shills, right? They don't actually give a crap one way or the other, they're actually being paid to troll you.

To the paid shills in this thread: Are there any openings where you work? It seems like a fun job.
 
2013-03-08 07:25:20 PM  
How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?
 
2013-03-08 07:25:35 PM  
Remind me why 'facts' matter again?
 
2013-03-08 07:26:04 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

Cosmic Background Radiation is at about 4 Kelvin.  You are retarded.


Wait. Is there a fellow Astrophysicist I spy?! (Well, I'm only a Master's student, but meh w/e).
 
2013-03-08 07:26:27 PM  
IT WAS THOSE DAMN LIBERALS
 
2013-03-08 07:26:31 PM  

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?


You haven't made ANY sacrifices to Ra yet?! You're screwed, man.
 
2013-03-08 07:28:01 PM  

Raging Thespian: You realize you're arguing with paid shills, right? They don't actually give a crap one way or the other, they're actually being paid to troll you.

To the paid shills in this thread: Are there any openings where you work? It seems like a fun job.


I've read articles from guys who've admitted to being paid trolls.  They say it's pretty much what it appears to be: Mind-dulling, soul-rotting work by people who don't believe what they're posting and are only doing it for the paycheck.

As for me, I'm bored and waiting for dinner to get here.  Plus, for all the paid trolls that do frequent this site, we do have more than a few people who still have their dignity and souls.
 
2013-03-08 07:29:46 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: There is obviously 'anti-science bias', but the reason there will be no solution is anti-tax bias, at least in the US.  There is ZERO chance of carbon taxes or some similar scheme happening in the US, China, India and most of the world.  It is missing the point to claim 'anti-science' is the issue when it is rejection of the 'solution' of massive tax hikes that is really the issue.


There is much that can be done without massive tax hits. Other countries are commercially successful in green industries.

The anti-science propaganda impedes everything from moving in a good direction ... both the expensive solutions and the free change in mind-set that can also have an impact.

The idea that every solution is expensive is part of the anti-science propaganda.
 
2013-03-08 07:30:30 PM  
Do you guys mean to tell me that humans may have altered Earth's climate by release millions of years worth of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in about 100.?  Do you guy honestly think that depleting the planet's forests have somehow changed the equilibrium that life has evolved around?  Crazy stuff man, crazy.
 
2013-03-08 07:30:32 PM  

hasty ambush: So in other words we  staved off a new ice age that among other thigns  would have lowered sea levels and increased incidents of drought due to so much moisture being locked up in ice.

So it becomes a question of what inevitable climate change are we best able to cope with:

This

[www.planetaryvisions.com image 638x359]
or this

[productionhausmedia.com image 640x266]


Being from Canada, I wholeheartedly support option "B".  I REALLY like what it does to Florida.
 
2013-03-08 07:31:30 PM  

Kazan: sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

....
Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

Stop being a moron.



img855.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-08 07:31:34 PM  
1804 - 1927 world population doubled from 1 billion to 2 billion people.

Obvious remedies are obvious.

Stop time.
 
2013-03-08 07:33:22 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: Meh. We have too many people anyway. It's time for a good flushing


mimg.ugo.com
These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood.
 
2013-03-08 07:33:49 PM  
So we're all in agreement, it's the farting then?
 
2013-03-08 07:33:55 PM  

TheOther: Stop time.


This assumes time exists.

...

Whoa.
 
2013-03-08 07:34:40 PM  

hasty ambush: So in other words we  staved off a new ice age that among other thigns  would have lowered sea levels and increased incidents of drought due to so much moisture being locked up in ice.

So it becomes a question of what inevitable climate change are we best able to cope with:

This

[www.planetaryvisions.com image 638x359]
or this

[productionhausmedia.com image 640x266]


I'm best able to cope with the one that gets rid of Florida.
 
2013-03-08 07:35:04 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.


Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?


Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.
 
2013-03-08 07:35:47 PM  
Anyone notice we killed off the American Bison and dug up the prairie around the same time everything went into an upswing.
 
2013-03-08 07:36:01 PM  
A single species irrevocably changing the Earth's atmosphere is not unheard of.
To wit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
Blue green algae, people.
Teh Google is your friend.
 
2013-03-08 07:37:29 PM  

leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.


Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?
 
2013-03-08 07:37:34 PM  

Farking Canuck: Ow! That was my feelings!: There is obviously 'anti-science bias', but the reason there will be no solution is anti-tax bias, at least in the US.  There is ZERO chance of carbon taxes or some similar scheme happening in the US, China, India and most of the world.  It is missing the point to claim 'anti-science' is the issue when it is rejection of the 'solution' of massive tax hikes that is really the issue.

There is much that can be done without massive tax hits. Other countries are commercially successful in green industries.

The anti-science propaganda impedes everything from moving in a good direction ... both the expensive solutions and the free change in mind-set that can also have an impact.

The idea that every solution is expensive is part of the anti-science propaganda.



ok, but that is not really the argument I hear here in the States.  Any legislative solution is all about massive tax increases that have zero chance of becoming reality.  Maybe a change in tactics and message is needed.
 
2013-03-08 07:39:00 PM  

efgeise: SN1987a goes boom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

Cosmic Background Radiation is at about 4 Kelvin.  You are retarded.

Wait. Is there a fellow Astrophysicist I spy?! (Well, I'm only a Master's student, but meh w/e).


Homogeneity and Isotropism, biatches.
 
2013-03-08 07:39:22 PM  
I mean, seriously. Was Giedi Prime really that bad of a planet? Everyone had a job, living a good life until they ran out of fingers, toes or eyes, and best of all, free oxygen cylinders! And the airborne soot protected everyone from the dangers of their sun! Win Win!
 
2013-03-08 07:39:42 PM  

Farking Canuck: There is much that can be done without massive tax hits.


When they start talking about globally banning the combustion engine we'll be moving in the right direction. As soon as those are illegal alternatives will naturally appear, and all car company research will go towards making them better and better.

What, that's too extreme? I thought this was an extreme problem which had to be dealt with immediately?
 
2013-03-08 07:39:59 PM  

iheartscotch: No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?


It definitely isn't interstellar.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:23 PM  

TeamEd: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

For all intents and purposes the cosmic background radiation is entirely uniform in every direction. Seriously, the CMB is  2.72548±0.00057K with the  ±0.00057K accounting for all of the variation you see in those splotchy green and blue maps.


What's really cool is that theoretically, you can use the CMBR anisotropies as a "universal coordinate system" of sorts, because no location in space will have the same distributions, but they change in a predictable way depending where you go. So, you could receive the equation for a particular location's CMBR anisotropies and then navigate to it, by monitoring the way in which the anisotropies move.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:43 PM  

hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:45 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: A single species irrevocably changing the Earth's atmosphere is not unheard of.
To wit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
Blue green algae, people.
Teh Google is your friend.


Cites Evilution, therefore didn't happen.
 
2013-03-08 07:42:10 PM  
img397.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-08 07:42:56 PM  
So I'm reading the paper and they do what all the proxy people do. They do statistics on thicknesses of things and then lay that series on top of a temperature series from the CRU that runs from 1961-1990 and tweak the series until it matches in shape and then assume that the rest of the series now represents temperature for thousands of years. They say their resolution runs from 20-500 years with a mean of 120 years. And surely the temperature spike comes from direct thermometer measurements and didn't come at all from their proxies. I mean, come on, people.
 
2013-03-08 07:43:31 PM  
I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).
 
2013-03-08 07:45:18 PM  

TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.


TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.


No, I meant the "certain people in power are listening to guy's philosophy" part. I believe you that the guy is a loon.
 
2013-03-08 07:45:46 PM  

ReverendJasen: God did it.
And who are we to question God's will?


See, when you say "God", I hear "ReverendJasen". Because, the only people I know of that talk about God so faux-humbly are those that are actually arrogant enough to think they speak for God.  And, of course, they're both arrogant and deceptive enough to tell their followers not to question their revelations...making them believe they are God.
 
2013-03-08 07:45:51 PM  
Oh Boy- This gem.

The whole week on fark seems to have been revisiting old, hashed out discussions on old, hashed out topics. Some goofball Berkely politico wants to tax email. The USPS is bloated and outdated (when really it's burdened by unfair GOP requests to fund it's pension, and ripe for pillaging by the GOP crowd). Global warming (it's climate change, really). Obama sucks (nothing like George W did or the GOP in general). The GOP is evil (it is, but also damn good at what it does-also evil/selfish). Our country is in deep shiat (yes it is, but not because of Obama, just because ol' George W and his crew put us on the inevitable road to ruin-we are going to crash and burn no matter what at this point). North Korea is batshiat crazy (I think we all agree on that, but somehow it's all Obama's fault to you GOP'ers.

OK, let's hear conservatives and fundies deny there is climate change occurring, and if it is, has nothing to do with us- then the rest of us will point out the undeniable validity of empirical evidence and real science. That'll be fun.

Have a great weekend!
 
2013-03-08 07:46:07 PM  

Infernalist: Now, the business interests are all about denying global warming, because it's THEIR industrial efforts that causing the worst of it.  And they're not about to take a cut in profits to save the world.  Why should they?  It's the most primal form of 'short term profit', after all.  What do they care what happens in a hundred years?


Actually, limiting carbon release would work in the big fossil fuel companies favors.
If you were them, would you prefer having your finite resource, which you sell at a killing profit anyway, to be further regulated and limited, thereby making it even more valuable and thereby locking in future profits, or would you just prefer to conduct business at the mercy of an dangerously oscillating free market?
The answer is quite clear.
Big energy wants its product metered out in measured doses, like any good drug dealer.
Think about it.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:13 PM  
The problem with the industrial revolution as a trigger for global warming is that those that believe that to be the case think they've gone into the room for an argument, but they're still stuck in abuse.

/Toffee-nosed malodorous perverts, the lot of them.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:42 PM  

Civil_War2_Time: I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).


lead isn't bad for you, it's just a scare. Drink up.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:43 PM  
Err...ignore the double-quote. Damn it.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:54 PM  

Raging Thespian: FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

You haven't made ANY sacrifices to Ra yet?! You're screwed, man.


I got caught up in that whole moon goddess thing with the beer and the cats.
 
2013-03-08 07:47:08 PM  
img803.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-08 07:48:20 PM  

clowncar on fire: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

[cinenthusiast.files.wordpress.com image 400x245]

Great Scott!

And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects, called the human race. Lost in time, and lost in space... and meaning.
 
2013-03-08 07:48:54 PM  
1) North Korea is not threat. We can gassify that place in a heartbeat and they know it.
2) The climate is changing; get over it and adapt. Move away from the farking coasts, idiots.
3) Candlesticks make a great gift.

That is all.
Good weekend, everyone.
 
2013-03-08 07:49:10 PM  

Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?


It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.
 
2013-03-08 07:49:31 PM  

hawcian: TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.

TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put for ...


Not just was he a loon, but a discredited loon and mocked heavily from the 'left'.  He's the 1963 version of Glenn Beck, only unlike the Right, this loon was properly scorned and abandoned by the left.

He was a hypocrite and a borderline racist and basically abandoned to the fringe where he rightfully belonged, an example of how not to do things.
 
2013-03-08 07:49:45 PM  

Nick Nostril: [img803.imageshack.us image 576x393]


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-08 07:50:45 PM  

sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.


No, there's a higher arrogance...and that would be to believe that we could not do such a thing.  And those that tell us fact is arrogance also tell us that their blatant arrogance (that tells them that God talks to them personally) is actually humility.
 
2013-03-08 07:51:55 PM  

Krieghund: iheartscotch: No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?

It definitely isn't interstellar.


Maybe I am wrong; but, isn't the definition of interstellar is a body that moves though space? The sun moves; from a galactic standpoint. I mean; we are in one of the "arms" of the galaxy.

And the sun does provide warmth to us.

/ it wouldn't take much increased output from the sun to cook us; from the perspective of the energy that the sun already puts out.

// not that I am saying that is what is happening
 
2013-03-08 07:54:14 PM  

Raging Thespian: TheOther: Stop time.
This assumes time exists.
...
Whoa.


Whoa, indeed!  Read this book, "The End of Time".  It's about a different way of looking at time: it doesn't exist but is a convenient construct we use to make things make sense.  I don't think there's anything more to the 'theory' than thought-experiments, but it's a pretty interesting read.
 
2013-03-08 07:54:35 PM  
HotIgneous Intruder:
Actually, limiting carbon release would work in the big fossil fuel companies favors.
If you were them, would you prefer having your finite resource, which you sell at a killing profit anyway, to be further regulated and limited, thereby making it even more valuable and thereby locking in future profits, or would you just prefer to conduct business at the mercy of an dangerously oscillating free market?
The answer is quite clear.
Big energy wants its product metered out in measured doses, like any good drug dealer.
Think about it.



"Competition is a sin" - John D. Rockefeller.
 
2013-03-08 07:55:38 PM  

leadmetal: Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?

It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.


Okay, just so we're clear here, that's an idiotic presenting of things.  You're equating the priesthood of ages past with today's scientific community.

One counted on the ignorance of the masses, and often worked HARD to keep them ignorant, while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.

They are, quite simply, as opposite from each other as any two things could possibly be.

The fact that you're trying to make them 'the same lol' pretty much relegates you to the lunatic corner or 'herpa derp' crowd.

You're basically saying that because scientists figured out that something LEAD is bad for you and smoking causes cancer...that they're telling you that you have to 'sacrifice' and not eat that yummy lead and give up those nifty cigarettes.

I just hope to god that you're trolling and you're not actually this retarded.
 
2013-03-08 07:56:35 PM  

hasty ambush: So in other words we  staved off a new ice age that among other thigns  would have lowered sea levels and increased incidents of drought due to so much moisture being locked up in ice.

So it becomes a question of what inevitable climate change are we best able to cope with:

This


or this


The one where Florida is swallowed by the sea, duh
 
2013-03-08 07:57:03 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


Because if you don't know everything, you know nothing!
 
2013-03-08 07:57:15 PM  
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it might have been the birth of Sophia Loren.
 
2013-03-08 07:57:48 PM  
Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!
 
2013-03-08 07:58:12 PM  

leadmetal: Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?

It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.


On Fark, make a silly comment, then a superduper serious conversation ensues. It's like the opposite of actual life.
 
2013-03-08 07:58:35 PM  
ITT: Idiots claiming the enormous amounts of crap our factories, cars, power plants, etc. spew into the atmosphere can't POSSIBLY have an effect.
 
2013-03-08 07:59:12 PM  

LookForTheArrow: Civil_War2_Time: I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).

lead isn't bad for you, it's just a scare. Drink up.


What does the word "almost" mean to you?
 
2013-03-08 08:01:20 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: There is much that can be done without massive tax hits.

When they start talking about globally banning the combustion engine we'll be moving in the right direction. As soon as those are illegal alternatives will naturally appear, and all car company research will go towards making them better and better.

What, that's too extreme? I thought this was an extreme problem which had to be dealt with immediately?


This is denier propaganda. The vast majority of non-deniers just want to move in the right direction:

- reduction of pollution - so we can breathe in our cities
- reduction of dependence on Middle East oil - so we can stop funding the sand farmers who want to kill us
- increase on clean sources of electricity - our society will always demand more energy and increasingly it is in the form of electricity

The anti-science movement paints all improvements in the above as "economy destroying" because they are trying to maintain the extremely profitable (for them) status quo.

Are some of the proposals unrealistic or expenisve? Sure. Do you have to buy into every one of them? No!

It is not an all-or-nothing deal like the deniers are trying to paint it. Support programs that make sense to you and don't support the ones that don't. Just don't buy into the ridiculous anti-science propaganda that says scientists with their 5 figure salaries are the corrupt ones and oil execs with their 8 figure incomes are the good guys that are protecting you from the evil science.
 
2013-03-08 08:01:20 PM  

Infernalist: leadmetal: Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?

It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.

Okay, just so we're clear here, that's an idiotic presenting of things.  You're equating the priesthood of ages past with today's scientific community.

One counted on the ignorance of the masses, and often worked HARD to keep them ignorant, while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.

They are, quite simply, as opposite from each other as any two things could possibly be.

The fact that you're trying to make them 'the same lol' pretty much relegates you to the lunatic corner or ...


Why do you seriously assume that 'facts' matter to people, just because you think they matter to you?
 
2013-03-08 08:01:39 PM  

Infernalist: while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.


Try some in-depth investigation of the history of science. It is far--quite far from the idealized version you make it out to be. It is as full of political bs/crap as any other human institution. I don't think that takes away from the very real issues of Global Climate Change, but neither is it some effortlessly-running edifice of rigorious and efficient knowledge production. Science always takes place in a human/narrative context and is no less affected by it than any other field of human endeavor.
 
2013-03-08 08:03:58 PM  
To repeat: why do some people act like 'facts' matter?

I mean, sure, the 'fact' of whether we're all going to die when the Earth becomes inhospitable to life will eventually matter in a so-called "real" sense, but that won't cause a lick of policy change before then, and no so-called "evidence" will convince anyone with the power to affect things one way or the other, so why do we keep pretending like it matters what's "really" happening?
 
2013-03-08 08:04:42 PM  

gorgon38: Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!


You're a frog in a pot of water. Good luck with that.
 
2013-03-08 08:04:52 PM  

iheartscotch: Krieghund: iheartscotch: No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?

It definitely isn't interstellar.

Maybe I am wrong; but, isn't the definition of interstellar is a body that moves though space? The sun moves; from a galactic standpoint. I mean; we are in one of the "arms" of the galaxy.

And the sun does provide warmth to us.

/ it wouldn't take much increased output from the sun to cook us; from the perspective of the energy that the sun already puts out.

// not that I am saying that is what is happening


Dude.... interstellar means BETWEEN STARS. it's right there in the frackin' word  Please, for the LOLs, tells us all how a star can between itself. should be good.
 
2013-03-08 08:06:13 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: There are other accurate measures that are very good at predicting the temperatures over a century old, but you knew that


Are there? The accuracy of tree ring proxies has been torn to shreds in the literature, and many other proxies are similarly problematic due to issues with improper statistics or bad assumptions about causation, see hockey stick controversy, Yamal trees, etc. Even if other proxies are accurate, how does this one compare? If your proxy can't perform in the one era where it is falsifiable by the instrumental temperature record, why should its accuracy over thousands of years be trusted?
 
2013-03-08 08:06:31 PM  

LordJiro: ITT: Idiots claiming the enormous amounts of crap our factories, cars, power plants, etc. spew into the atmosphere can't POSSIBLY have an effect.


It has such an enormous effect it caused global warming on Mars.

The entire solar system is at stake here, people. And the only thing that can save it is your money.
 
2013-03-08 08:06:56 PM  

Farking Canuck: gorgon38: Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!

You're a frog in a pot of water. Good luck with that.


You're in the same pot I am, at least when it goes, it'll kill you with me.

And if I can keep people giving me all the ways out of the pot, then I can use them to make sure that I die last, which means I get to watch the rest of you farkers burn before I go. What's not to love?
 
2013-03-08 08:07:02 PM  

ialdabaoth: Why do you seriously assume that 'facts' matter to people, just because you think they matter to you?


It scares me how much truth there is to this question.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:16 PM  

Civil_War2_Time: LookForTheArrow: Civil_War2_Time: I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).

lead isn't bad for you, it's just a scare. Drink up.

What does the word "almost" mean to you?


ah so you admit you're wrong and that people had the same ignorance about lead as they do about more modern issues, but you of all people are qualified to separate that wheat from the chaff, assuring us all that almost all science is just scares.

methinks you protest too much.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:36 PM  

leadmetal: The priests made a good living doing this. In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things.


Not sure why you're equating the two. Religion is a thing, interpreted by priests, translated into dogma, for the sake of power, position and privilege. Science is a process, used by scientists, interpreted into theories, for the sake of increasing our understanding of the natural world and its faculties.

The two aren't even comparable.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:44 PM  

oren0: machodonkeywrestler: There are other accurate measures that are very good at predicting the temperatures over a century old, but you knew that

Are there? The accuracy of tree ring proxies has been torn to shreds in the literature, and many other proxies are similarly problematic due to issues with improper statistics or bad assumptions about causation, see hockey stick controversy, Yamal trees, etc. Even if other proxies are accurate, how does this one compare? If your proxy can't perform in the one era where it is falsifiable by the instrumental temperature record, why should its accuracy over thousands of years be trusted?


fact, fact, fact... honestly, why are you bothering?
 
2013-03-08 08:07:58 PM  

Somacandra: Infernalist: while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.

Try some in-depth investigation of the history of science. It is far--quite far from the idealized version you make it out to be. It is as full of political bs/crap as any other human institution. I don't think that takes away from the very real issues of Global Climate Change, but neither is it some effortlessly-running edifice of rigorious and efficient knowledge production. Science always takes place in a human/narrative context and is no less affected by it than any other field of human endeavor.


Yeah, once upon a time, science said that maggots spawned from raw meat and the sun revolved around the Earth.  Religious retards fought hard to maintain those mistakes, but the truth was eventually verified by others and 'science' happened.

That's the thing about science today.  If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties.  Is it free of bias?  Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.

It's about as bias-free as any thing in this world can be.  You can argue philosophy and history and concepts and ideas, but you can't argue with numbers.  You can't argue with verified data.

You can accept it or you can simply deny it, disparage the scientists and make deriding comments insinuating that they need global warming in order to stay funded, which is window-licking retarded.
 
2013-03-08 08:08:01 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 1) North Korea is not threat. We can gassify that place in a heartbeat and they know it.
2) The climate is changing; get over it and adapt. Move away from the farking coasts, idiots.
3) Candlesticks make a great gift.

That is all.
Good weekend, everyone.


you're a farking idiot....candlesticks SUCK!
 
2013-03-08 08:08:34 PM  
1) Civilization has flourished at each of the warmest points of the last 11,000 years.
2) Yesterday, researchers told me that temperatures have been warming steadily for about the last 800 years.  Which is it?
3) Whatever.  I live in Minnesota and we unquestionably benefit tremendously from global warming, so bring it on.
 
2013-03-08 08:09:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: ialdabaoth: Why do you seriously assume that 'facts' matter to people, just because you think they matter to you?

It scares me how much truth there is to this question.


Yeah. I'm actually *not* trolling; I'm trying to get people to take a good, hard stare in to that abyss. Because honestly, this is where we are.
 
2013-03-08 08:11:56 PM  

Farking Canuck: JRoo: So global warming has saved us from an advancing ice age?

Sweet.

Now we just have to figure out how to slow it down and control it.

This is effectively all true. The problems with is are as follows:

- we know how to control it (manage the greenhouse gas %) but the anti-science movement opposes all actions that will enable us to actually turn it down

- we are already too high

- there is a large lag in the system and we are already going to way overshoot our ideal temperature. It is already too late to stop things from getting bad ... if we act now all we can to is reduce how bad and for how long.

I do small scale reactor controller programming as one of my many jobs and lag is a biatch ... makes control difficult.


I can't see the world actually doing anything effective in the emissions reduction side of things, it will be too little, too late etc. Especially while we've still got people arguing global climate change isn't caused by human activity. There are too many different parties with their own agendas agreement is not going to be possible. We can't even get one country to agree on something as simple as whether abortion should be legal or not, let alone get all the countries in the world to agree on action against climate change.

At this point I think we would be better to look at what exactly the new conditions will be, and at what we need to do to deal with them.
 
2013-03-08 08:13:20 PM  

ialdabaoth: Farking Canuck: gorgon38: Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!

You're a frog in a pot of water. Good luck with that.

You're in the same pot I am, at least when it goes, it'll kill you with me.

And if I can keep people giving me all the ways out of the pot, then I can use them to make sure that I die last, which means I get to watch the rest of you farkers burn before I go. What's not to love?


Well I'm old enough that I'm pretty confident that I will be gone before things go all Mad Max. So I am more arguing against stupidity than expecting any real change.

Even if there is change now it will be 30 years before we see any impact ... so I don't expect to see much of it.

All I expect out of all of this is a bit of schadenfreude in watching the red states burn first. In a decade or so I think all you'll smell down there during the summers is bacon as the fatties fry!
 
2013-03-08 08:13:25 PM  
The Federal Reserve?
 
2013-03-08 08:13:25 PM  
iheartscotch: ...
Maybe I am wrong; but, isn't the definition of interstellar is a body that moves though space? The sun moves; from a galactic standpoint. I mean; we are in one of the "arms" of the galaxy.

Are you serious? Interstellar space is the distance between -star systems-. We're ever-so-slightly closer to the sun than any other stars, y'know. When we start freaking out about global warming on Eris then we can worry about interstellar influence.
 
2013-03-08 08:15:20 PM  

Farking Canuck: ialdabaoth: Farking Canuck: gorgon38: Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!

You're a frog in a pot of water. Good luck with that.

You're in the same pot I am, at least when it goes, it'll kill you with me.

And if I can keep people giving me all the ways out of the pot, then I can use them to make sure that I die last, which means I get to watch the rest of you farkers burn before I go. What's not to love?

Well I'm old enough that I'm pretty confident that I will be gone before things go all Mad Max. So I am more arguing against stupidity than expecting any real change.

Even if there is change now it will be 30 years before we see any impact ... so I don't expect to see much of it.

All I expect out of all of this is a bit of schadenfreude in watching the red states burn first. In a decade or so I think all you'll smell down there during the summers is bacon as the fatties fry!


Nah, the red states won't burn first; they'll just invade the blue states.
 
2013-03-08 08:15:55 PM  

Syrrh: iheartscotch: ...
Maybe I am wrong; but, isn't the definition of interstellar is a body that moves though space? The sun moves; from a galactic standpoint. I mean; we are in one of the "arms" of the galaxy.

Are you serious? Interstellar space is the distance between -star systems-. We're ever-so-slightly closer to the sun than any other stars, y'know. When we start freaking out about global warming on Eris then we can worry about interstellar influence.


Why are you taking any of this seriously?
 
2013-03-08 08:16:07 PM  
FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes
 
2013-03-08 08:16:17 PM  
i heard that research in low emission technologies was a casualty of the sequester of 1906
 
2013-03-08 08:16:20 PM  
the world was actually rapidly cooling until SOMETHING made the temperatures start to climb in the early 20th century

upload.wikimedia.org
It was  SOCIALISM!!!!!
 
2013-03-08 08:18:27 PM  

Syrrh: iheartscotch: ...
Maybe I am wrong; but, isn't the definition of interstellar is a body that moves though space? The sun moves; from a galactic standpoint. I mean; we are in one of the "arms" of the galaxy.

Are you serious? Interstellar space is the distance between -star systems-. We're ever-so-slightly closer to the sun than any other stars, y'know. When we start freaking out about global warming on Eris then we can worry about interstellar influence.


My point was; our sun is a big factor in us being warm. I realize there are other factors; but, I was not saying that other stars were contributing.

/ the sun goes in cycles; if the information that I have seen is any indication, we are currently in a up cycle. The regular cycles are about a decade or so long.
 
2013-03-08 08:19:04 PM  

New Age Redneck: FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes


you ass. Algae, a motherfarking microbe you can't even see, terra formed the entire planet. 3 billion years later, those same microbes can now dig through the earth and unleash/mine/extract any amount of material we find convenient to extract and you think that's "small fries"?

you moron.
 
2013-03-08 08:19:39 PM  
Goddam bicyclists.
 
2013-03-08 08:19:53 PM  
Oldiron_79:

The one where Florida is swallowed by the sea, duh

The problem in Florida is the people, and most aren't quite stupid enough to sit at home and drown as the waters rise.  Do you want to deal with Floridian refugees?

The state will eventually collapse into one big sinkhole, but it's in our best interest to keep Floridians in Florida where they can entertain us from a distance for as long as possible.
 
2013-03-08 08:20:35 PM  

LookForTheArrow: New Age Redneck: FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes

you ass. Algae, a motherfarking microbe you can't even see, terra formed the entire planet. 3 billion years later, those same microbes can now dig through the earth and unleash/mine/extract any amount of material we find convenient to extract and you think that's "small fries"?

you moron.


See my post about the religious right raging about the 'hubris' of assuming that we have the ability to effect the planet.
 
2013-03-08 08:20:53 PM  

LookForTheArrow: New Age Redneck: FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes

you ass. Algae, a motherfarking microbe you can't even see, terra formed the entire planet. 3 billion years later, those same microbes can now dig through the earth and unleash/mine/extract any amount of material we find convenient to extract and you think that's "small fries"?

you moron.


Why do you believe that those microbes ever existed? Why do you believe that "three billion years" even happened? Why do you believe that we live on a "planet"?

How do you intend to argue with someone who is willing to disregard those beliefs in order to maintain their belief that you're full of shiat?
 
2013-03-08 08:20:57 PM  

iheartscotch: My point was; our sun is a big factor in us being warm.


Oh, really? Perhaps you could point to some research that confirms this hypothesis.
 
2013-03-08 08:21:33 PM  

Infernalist: LookForTheArrow: New Age Redneck: FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes

you ass. Algae, a motherfarking microbe you can't even see, terra formed the entire planet. 3 billion years later, those same microbes can now dig through the earth and unleash/mine/extract any amount of material we find convenient to extract and you think that's "small fries"?

you moron.

See my post about the religious right raging about the 'hubris' of assuming that we have the ability to effect the planet.


"Hubris" is a human word, and therefore means whatever those in power want it to mean. This is why it's so important that the religious right stay in power.
 
2013-03-08 08:21:36 PM  

Nidiot: At this point I think we would be better to look at what exactly the new conditions will be, and at what we need to do to deal with them.


It has to be both or humanity will be eternally chasing a moving target.

The fact is that if predictions are remotely correct, and so far they have been quite accurate (contrary to denier propaganda), eventually the denier movement will burn out (pun intended). And with this resistance gone things will start moving in a good direction. But it will be hundreds of years before we will be able to truly stabilize anything ... to actually claim control.

So, you are right, the short term solution is to learn to adapt. But without a long term effort it will not be enough (IMO).
 
2013-03-08 08:22:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: My point was; our sun is a big factor in us being warm.

Oh, really? Perhaps you could point to some research that confirms this hypothesis.


Are you seriously still on that 'facts' BS?
 
2013-03-08 08:22:26 PM  

Kazan: 10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.


What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is that? How does the annual amount compare to the amount emitted by natural processes, such as decaying trees or the ocean? Hint: it's about two orders of magnitude smaller.
 
2013-03-08 08:22:37 PM  
Dear Americans deeply concerned about climate change:

You lost on the 'grand' solution. There will NEVER be massive carbon taxation or a similar scheme. If you honestly believe that is still possible, you need check yourselves into rehab. It is not happening! You need a new tactic, a new goal, a new message. This issue is obviously not over, but the big "easy" solution you want is never gonna happen. Adapt your message or... die.
 
2013-03-08 08:23:41 PM  
LookForTheArrow

"methinks you protest too much."

It's as if reading comprehension has completely escaped you, and you're in attack mode. That's standard for Fark nowadays.

I said: "Politics, policies, and TV/Internet" scare people into being funded more. Grants, commercials, page clicks, etc. ALL fall into what I said, and I'm 100% right.

You throw out the lead crap again trying to say I'm wrong?

I agree with you on the lead issue, and never said a single word to dispute that.
 
2013-03-08 08:23:46 PM  

ialdabaoth: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: My point was; our sun is a big factor in us being warm.

Oh, really? Perhaps you could point to some research that confirms this hypothesis.

Are you seriously still on that 'facts' BS?


Oops. My mistake!
 
2013-03-08 08:24:28 PM  

New Age Redneck: We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature?


Right! We'll never split the atom either! And decoding DNA?? How can we be so arrogant??

/just because you are a moran that will never understand science does not mean everyone else is stupid too
 
2013-03-08 08:24:28 PM  

ialdabaoth: LookForTheArrow: New Age Redneck: FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes

you ass. Algae, a motherfarking microbe you can't even see, terra formed the entire planet. 3 billion years later, those same microbes can now dig through the earth and unleash/mine/extract any amount of material we find convenient to extract and you think that's "small fries"?

you moron.

Why do you believe that those microbes ever existed? Why do you believe that "three billion years" even happened? Why do you believe that we live on a "planet"?

How do you intend to argue with someone who is willing to disregard those beliefs in order to maintain their belief that you're full of shiat?


If anything, it's arrogant to think Mother Nature can stop us from killing her if that's what blind idiots want to do to her. But then again, we're talking about the party of rape-rape....
 
2013-03-08 08:25:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: But it will be hundreds of years before we will be able to truly stabilize anything ... to actually claim control.


You are hilarious. Stupendously hilarious.
When has the Earth's climate EVER been stable, other than in your non-to-powerful imagination?
Wait, I'll answer that: NEVER.
Truly Amazing.
 
2013-03-08 08:25:41 PM  

Civil_War2_Time: I said: "Politics, policies, and TV/Internet" scare people into being funded more. Grants, commercials, page clicks, etc. ALL fall into what I said, and I'm 100% right.


Okay, please point to studies that got increased funding after confirming global warming due to "scariness"
 
2013-03-08 08:27:09 PM  

gopher321: Ha ha drown you lowland bastards, heh heh-wait. I'm one of those lowland bastards.

Crap.


Im in Nebraska have fun :)
 
2013-03-08 08:28:04 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Farking Canuck: But it will be hundreds of years before we will be able to truly stabilize anything ... to actually claim control.

You are hilarious. Stupendously hilarious.
When has the Earth's climate EVER been stable, other than in your non-to-powerful imagination?
Wait, I'll answer that: NEVER.
Truly Amazing.


He's not talking about stabilizing the climate, Sir Robin.  He's referring to stabilizing and claiming control over our emissions/effect on the environment.
 
2013-03-08 08:28:09 PM  

oren0: Kazan: 10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is that? How does the annual amount compare to the amount emitted by natural processes, such as decaying trees or the ocean? Hint: it's about two orders of magnitude smaller.


Did you know that the temperature difference between ice and liquid water is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the actual temperature of ice?

Did you know that the distance between "I'm safe on the sidewalk" and "I'm in the middle of the damn road and will be promptly hit by a car" is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the length of a city block?

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.
 
2013-03-08 08:29:49 PM  
LookForTheArrow:
If anything, it's arrogant to think Mother Nature can stop us from killing her if that's what blind idiots want to do to her. But then again, we're talking about the party of rape-rape....

At least they have the balls to be the party of rape, genocide, racism, environmental destruction and all the other things that have kept our species strong and dominant. Really, they're the party of blind instinctual dominance - which has *always* been the winning strategy.
 
2013-03-08 08:30:37 PM  

Malenfant: Oldiron_79:

The one where Florida is swallowed by the sea, duh

The problem in Florida is the people, and most aren't quite stupid enough to sit at home and drown as the waters rise.  Do you want to deal with Floridian refugees?

The state will eventually collapse into one big sinkhole, but it's in our best interest to keep Floridians in Florida where they can entertain us from a distance for as long as possible.


Put them in one of the square western states with nothing of value in it like Kansas or Wyoming, then put a fence around it.
 
2013-03-08 08:31:54 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


No, no, no.

We've got it ALL figured out!

Surely the conditions will be EXACTLY the same throughout our travels around the galactic core. It would ludicrous to believe that there could be other factors involved that may be worth investigating.
 
2013-03-08 08:32:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: My point was; our sun is a big factor in us being warm.

Oh, really? Perhaps you could point to some research that confirms this hypothesis.


I said the sun is a factor in us being warm; not that it is necessarily a factor in warming trends. I was also pointing out that it is known that the sun goes in cycles. Here's a handy little article from the Goddard center concerning sun spots.


http://web.archive.org/web/20070823050403/http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gs f c/spacesci/solarexp/sunspot.htm

(Copy paste)
 
2013-03-08 08:32:58 PM  
although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.
 
2013-03-08 08:37:18 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.


Some warming is 'not' bad, and if it is, indeed, keeping us from descending into a minor ice age, then it's more than good, it's a great thing.

The problem lies in the fact that our warming is uncontrolled, unregulated and often completely denied by the people in charge.

The difference is, quite simply, comparing a furnace running to keep the house warm, to the house being engulfed in flames and the home owners are denying that the fire even exists, and even if it did exist, it's an Act of God and not something we should concern ourselves with.
 
2013-03-08 08:37:31 PM  

iheartscotch: I said the sun is a factor in us being warm; not that it is necessarily a factor in warming trends.


Oh, I see. You can't differentiate between weather and climate.
 
2013-03-08 08:37:50 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.


TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?
 
2013-03-08 08:38:53 PM  

ialdabaoth: LookForTheArrow:
If anything, it's arrogant to think Mother Nature can stop us from killing her if that's what blind idiots want to do to her. But then again, we're talking about the party of rape-rape....

At least they have the balls to be the party of rape, genocide, racism, environmental destruction and all the other things that have kept our species strong and dominant. Really, they're the party of blind instinctual dominance - which has *always* been the winning strategy.


you're not at all wrong about the 'winning strategy' of unthinking dominance ... right up to the invention of the nuclear weapon, that was true. Conscious evolution is many thousands times faster than the natural version; we can only hope half the population becomes vegan homosexuals.

in fact, the only real future we have if the republican party is completely wrong. Thankfully, that's the case, even if seeing a tree for the forest makes us think things aren't changing sociopolitically, i do actually believe "adapt or die" will shortly refer to these out-of-balance individuals.

Apropos, the initiative by news corp to give out "educational tablets" to marginalize teachers (i'm all for teaching tech, just not stupid, biased, motivated, unusable teaching tech) is really just a desperate bid to give these numbskulls a few more years.

A few more "big storms" and the pitch forks will come out..
 
2013-03-08 08:40:11 PM  

LookForTheArrow: you're not at all wrong about the 'winning strategy' of unthinking dominance ... right up to the invention of the nuclear weapon, that was true. Conscious evolution is many thousands times faster than the natural version; we can only hope half the population becomes vegan homosexuals.


Even after the invention of the nuclear weapon, it's still true. We're slowly reaching a point where we'll either grow past it or die, but we ain't there yet.
 
2013-03-08 08:40:44 PM  
ialdabaoth:

Did you know that the distance between "I'm safe on the sidewalk" and "I'm in the middle of the damn road and will be promptly hit by a car" is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the length of a city block?

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.

www.ace.gatech.edu

preach!
 
2013-03-08 08:42:37 PM  

LookForTheArrow: ialdabaoth:

Did you know that the distance between "I'm safe on the sidewalk" and "I'm in the middle of the damn road and will be promptly hit by a car" is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the length of a city block?

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.
[www.ace.gatech.edu image 444x333]

preach!


Before I became unemployed and occasionally-homeless, I did AI research and complex systems theory. I miss it sometimes.
 
2013-03-08 08:45:07 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.


Because it will cause worldwide drought, and anyone who thinks water can't just disappear is anti-science. Water can totally disappear from the Earth. It goes into, like, dark matter holes in the quantum magnetic field. I saw a graph once.
 
2013-03-08 08:45:54 PM  

ialdabaoth: occasionally-homeless, I did AI research and complex syst


have you read "Naturally intelligent systems"? I recommend it for everyone (mostly because it has NO equations or math, it's all enjoyable narrative) and it is one of the three books that changed my life by assuring me that, actually, intelligence is probably quite common and an expected outcome of random chance (that's my opinion, not in the book)

http://books.google.com/books/about/Naturally_Intelligent_Systems.ht ml ?id=34wC4zu_Ql8C

(dad was a freebsd committer (compsci), mother was cognitive science/instructional design. lots of books left around as I grew up)
 
2013-03-08 08:47:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: I said the sun is a factor in us being warm; not that it is necessarily a factor in warming trends.

Oh, I see. You can't differentiate between weather and climate.


I see you don't seem to understand that during peak solar events that the sun throws addition energy out into space. And the sun cycles are typically a decade or so long.

Even if we only recieve .0001% of said energy; it can effect the climate of the earth.

/ I'm not saying that is the only cause; far from it, what I'm saying that solar output can effect us. The earth isn't a closed system
 
2013-03-08 08:48:12 PM  

ialdabaoth: GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.

TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?


i dont know, humans have always been subject to the environment and have ahd to change to adapt. new areas are populated or depopulated throughout history (harrapan civilization for example). It seems that this happens gradually over many centuries and so it gives people time to adapt. although some areas will be less fertile, new ones will open up.
 
2013-03-08 08:48:44 PM  
ialdabaoth: occasionally-homeless, I did AI research and complex systems theory. I mis

(oh, and I'm occasionally "homeless" when i camp in my car for weeks writing code for a startup, albeit, by my choice.. stay positive and enjoy the freedom of not being in a cubicle. going insane can be done with a nice paycheck as easily as not)
 
2013-03-08 08:50:32 PM  

iheartscotch: I see you don't seem to understand that during peak solar events that the sun throws addition energy out into space. And the sun cycles are typically a decade or so long.


Could you explain how a decade-long event can affect temperatures consistently over 150 years? Could you also point to evidence that this is affecting temperatures?
 
2013-03-08 08:50:58 PM  
I'm absolutely 100% for the people biatching about allegedly anthropogenic global warming having their share of resources rationed and having a fund started that they can pay into to (LOL) "offset" carbon emissions. Because, y'know, tossing money at it helps.
 
2013-03-08 08:51:03 PM  

Farking Canuck: This is effectively all true. The problems with is are as follows:

- we know how to control it (manage the greenhouse gas %) but the anti-science movement opposes all actions that will enable us to actually turn it down


Let's say it were unequivocally true that AGW was caused by CO2 and was going to be catastrophic. Why is this the only solution? For example, we know that SO2 can cause global cooling (see Mount Pinatubo, 1991). Geoengineering effects such as releasing SO2 into the atmosphere would be hundreds if not thousands of times cheaper than cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Why is it that the only solutions environmentalists will accept are the ones that cost trillions of dollars?
 
2013-03-08 08:51:52 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: ialdabaoth: GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.

TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?

i dont know, humans have always been subject to the environment and have ahd to change to adapt. new areas are populated or depopulated throughout history (harrapan civilization for example). It seems that this happens gradually over many centuries and so it gives people time to adapt. although some areas will be less fertile, new ones will open up.


Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops?  How long do you think before Mexico gets annexed?
 
2013-03-08 08:52:22 PM  
wonderthought.files.wordpress.com
This guy?

/it'd be the trifecta of environmental degradation/public health nightmare for him
 
2013-03-08 08:52:48 PM  

ialdabaoth: GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.

TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?


Well, it agrees with what the libby-libs at the CIA, the Joint Chiefs  and all the insurance companies in the world believe.
 
2013-03-08 08:52:56 PM  

TV's Vinnie: So obviously, the solution is to

1. Give billions of dollars to the scientists
2. Round up everyone, exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets of course), and force the remaining 10% to shiver in unlit caves and allowed to only eat their own dung & wear clothes made only out of their own hair  (again, excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets, who will have mansions).


As long as we keep throwing money at infectious disease research I'm sure some scientist will accidentally produce a new global plague to wipe out 99% of Earth's human population.  Or we can always hope for nuclear winter.  That should cool things off for a while and keep the remaining population shivering in caves for a few decades.
 
2013-03-08 08:53:42 PM  

iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: I said the sun is a factor in us being warm; not that it is necessarily a factor in warming trends.

Oh, I see. You can't differentiate between weather and climate.

I see you don't seem to understand that during peak solar events that the sun throws addition energy out into space. And the sun cycles are typically a decade or so long.

Even if we only recieve .0001% of said energy; it can effect the climate of the earth.

/ I'm not saying that is the only cause; far from it, what I'm saying that solar output can effect us. The earth isn't a closed system


yes it can affect us. Saying that it's the cause of a 100 year spike that perfectly lines up with huge carbon increases is just grasping at straws. Sure it might be an issue. It's not THE issue.

even if there was some natural effect, isn't it completely logical not to add a new perturbation of unknown quantity to the system, arbitrarily? Until the results are in? That's the issue here - if you want to say any number of things are causing global instability, you can hardly suggest we're doing the right thing exacerbating it!
 
2013-03-08 08:54:14 PM  

ialdabaoth: oren0: Kazan: 10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is that? How does the annual amount compare to the amount emitted by natural processes, such as decaying trees or the ocean? Hint: it's about two orders of magnitude smaller.

Did you know that the temperature difference between ice and liquid water is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the actual temperature of ice?

Did you know that the distance between "I'm safe on the sidewalk" and "I'm in the middle of the damn road and will be promptly hit by a car" is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the length of a city block?

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.


All I'm saying is that a big-sounding number like 10^12 tons is meaningless without context.
 
2013-03-08 08:55:18 PM  
I wouldn't mind shorter winters when I'm older.

/is ok with this
 
2013-03-08 08:55:45 PM  

oren0: ialdabaoth: oren0: Kazan: 10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is that? How does the annual amount compare to the amount emitted by natural processes, such as decaying trees or the ocean? Hint: it's about two orders of magnitude smaller.

Did you know that the temperature difference between ice and liquid water is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the actual temperature of ice?

Did you know that the distance between "I'm safe on the sidewalk" and "I'm in the middle of the damn road and will be promptly hit by a car" is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the length of a city block?

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.

All I'm saying is that a big-sounding number like 10^12 tons is meaningless without context.


it's only big sounding to you. To the scientists that study this, it's quite acceptable to deal with numbers like that, as a matter of course, and they aren't amused.
 
2013-03-08 08:55:48 PM  

Infernalist: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

What's funny is that you think that academics have to worry about staying funded.


They do. Buck the trend? Better have a good reason or get out of the pool.

Politics is a giant influence in research. How is it that liberals dominate any given university? It ain't because liberals are smarter, that's for sure.
 
2013-03-08 08:55:53 PM  

Chach: I'm absolutely 100% for the people biatching about allegedly anthropogenic global warming having their share of resources rationed and having a fund started that they can pay into to (LOL) "offset" carbon emissions. Because, y'know, tossing money at it helps.


You are a fool of the highest magnitude. "Throwing money at it" is more realistically called paying your bills. Like I throw money at my electric bill, I throw money at my mortgage. I throw money at the grocery store, the gym, and all kinds of other places, and you know what? My electric stays on, I eat, I have a place to ;live.

Throwing money at problems is HOW you solve them.,
 
2013-03-08 08:56:16 PM  

Infernalist: Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops? How long do you think before Mexico gets annexed?


You should read the writing of James Hansen and other leading alarmists from the '90s about what the food supply would be like in the 2010-2020 decade. Despite their predictions, crop yields are at an all time high.
 
2013-03-08 08:56:43 PM  

Chach: Infernalist: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

What's funny is that you think that academics have to worry about staying funded.

They do. Buck the trend? Better have a good reason or get out of the pool.

Politics is a giant influence in research. How is it that liberals dominate any given university? It ain't because liberals are smarter, that's for sure.


Your posts indicate the opposite.
 
2013-03-08 08:56:44 PM  

Lith: Infernalist: Did not read the article, but wouldn't it be amusing if our mere industrialized presence is keeping the world from slipping back into another Little Ice Age?

While an Ice age would be bad. I think flooding the most densely populated and productive areas and the acceleration of desertification of our farming belts is probably worse for us.


Yeah, when the Yukon is opened up as a wine-making region and the Heartland of the US is a desert, we're all farked.

I'll take ice over desert any day.
 
2013-03-08 08:56:51 PM  

Chach: Infernalist: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

What's funny is that you think that academics have to worry about staying funded.

They do. Buck the trend? Better have a good reason or get out of the pool.

Politics is a giant influence in research. How is it that liberals dominate any given university? It ain't because liberals are smarter, that's for sure.


No, it's because conservatives prefer willful ignorance to facing up to a reality that doesn't conform to their dogma.
 
2013-03-08 08:58:04 PM  
Clearly global warming is due to increased friction as Earth moves through a thicker section of the luminiferous aether.
 
2013-03-08 08:58:05 PM  

LookForTheArrow: oren0: ialdabaoth: oren0: Kazan: 10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is that? How does the annual amount compare to the amount emitted by natural processes, such as decaying trees or the ocean? Hint: it's about two orders of magnitude smaller.

Did you know that the temperature difference between ice and liquid water is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the actual temperature of ice?

Did you know that the distance between "I'm safe on the sidewalk" and "I'm in the middle of the damn road and will be promptly hit by a car" is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the length of a city block?

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.

All I'm saying is that a big-sounding number like 10^12 tons is meaningless without context.

it's only big sounding to you. To the scientists that study this, it's quite acceptable to deal with numbers like that, as a matter of course, and they aren't amused.


The OP clearly wrote "TERATONS" in all caps and referenced the "law of extremely large numbers" to make this sound like a big number. I was actually making the opposite point: this is not a significant amount relative to either the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or the amount emitted by natural processes.
 
2013-03-08 08:59:24 PM  

oren0: Infernalist: Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops? How long do you think before Mexico gets annexed?

You should read the writing of James Hansen and other leading alarmists from the '90s about what the food supply would be like in the 2010-2020 decade. Despite their predictions, crop yields are at an all time high.


Good lord, you people really don't stop. Ah well, I hope you're getting paid enough.
 
2013-03-08 09:01:07 PM  

Infernalist: GF named my left testicle thundercles: ialdabaoth: GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.

TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?

i dont know, humans have always been subject to the environment and have ahd to change to adapt. new areas are populated or depopulated throughout history (harrapan civilization for example). It seems that this happens gradually over many centuries and so it gives people time to adapt. although some areas will be less fertile, new ones will open up.

Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops?  How long do you think before Me ...


but my understanding is that north american rain fed crops will increase by 5%-20%. other continents are going to be farked but thats fine with me. Seems like a good way to eliminate our competitors
 
2013-03-08 09:01:09 PM  

oren0: Infernalist: Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops? How long do you think before Mexico gets annexed?

You should read the writing of James Hansen and other leading alarmists from the '90s about what the food supply would be like in the 2010-2020 decade. Despite their predictions, crop yields are at an all time high.


Absolutely.  Carefully bred strands of sustenance crops have saved billions of lives.  The Green Revolution doesn't get nearly enough attention in the history books.

But, unless they can breed a strand of corn/wheat that can survive on next to no water, eventually climate change is going to result in a powerful nation suddenly going hungry.  And desperate times result in desperate measures.  If it's not the US, it'll be China or Russia or maybe India.  What happens when there's not enough water to feed those super-crops?
 
2013-03-08 09:01:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: I see you don't seem to understand that during peak solar events that the sun throws addition energy out into space. And the sun cycles are typically a decade or so long.

Could you explain how a decade-long event can affect temperatures consistently over 150 years? Could you also point to evidence that this is affecting temperatures?


The thing about sun cycles is; it's not a one and done thing.

There have been at least 3 high points just since the 70's. One in the early 80's, another in the early 90's, and one more in the early 2000's. If the pattern holds; we should be getting close to another high point.

No one can prove that it has any direct effect on the temperature; but, it remains a possible contributing factor. It just adds additional energy to the equation. It can't all go out into space. Some of it has to make it here.

/ even a small increase in the sun's output could cook us all
 
2013-03-08 09:02:20 PM  
cameroncrazy1984

A short, but well written article (recent) with all kinds of links that you should read in full. It's from Cal Berkley, too...

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays
 
2013-03-08 09:02:58 PM  
Vectron: The Federal Reserve?

Speaking of which, this year is their Centennial!

100 years of Unmitigated Usury.

We really should celebrate, don't you think?

Any ideas, Farkers?
 
2013-03-08 09:03:56 PM  
so this is good right?
the earth was rapidly cooling and we fixed it.
We now just have a little bit of warming.  Seems a lot better than more rapid cooling.
 
2013-03-08 09:05:10 PM  

ghare: oren0: Infernalist: Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops? How long do you think before Mexico gets annexed?

You should read the writing of James Hansen and other leading alarmists from the '90s about what the food supply would be like in the 2010-2020 decade. Despite their predictions, crop yields are at an all time high.

Good lord, you people really don't stop. Ah well, I hope you're getting paid enough.


THAT'S funny! You and the oil billionaires accusing global instability advocates of maintaining a world-view for MONEY!

When you look in the mirror, does your reflection even have the will to look back at you?
 
2013-03-08 09:05:23 PM  

ghare: "Throwing money at it" is more realistically called paying your bills. Like I throw money at my electric bill, I throw money at my mortgage. I throw money at the grocery store, the gym, and all kinds of other places, and you know what? My electric stays on, I eat, I have a place to ;live.

Throwing money at problems is HOW you solve them.,


That's quite a bit different than some guy showing up claiming the only way to pay your bills is to give him money. And when you get suspicious he becomes indignant, and starts saying if you don't give him money you're risking the chance that everything will be ruined forever, but if you do give him money the worst that can happen is it turns out to not be true.
 
2013-03-08 09:05:43 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Infernalist: GF named my left testicle thundercles: ialdabaoth: GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.

TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?

i dont know, humans have always been subject to the environment and have ahd to change to adapt. new areas are populated or depopulated throughout history (harrapan civilization for example). It seems that this happens gradually over many centuries and so it gives people time to adapt. although some areas will be less fertile, new ones will open up.

Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops?  How long do you th ...


We don't live in a vacuum, man.  If Russia/China suddenly realize that not only are they not able to grow the food that they need, but that they can't 'afford' to buy the food that they need for their people...Well, shiat will get ugly in a hurry.

Wars happen for far less pressing reasons than starving masses.  Starvation may well be one of the original causes of warfare in the first place.  And while, in the past, this might have been sufficient to alleviate the underlying cause of the lack of food(too many people), we now live in an age of nuclear weapons.  Even a minor exchange of nuclear weaponry would be enough to fark all of us.
 
2013-03-08 09:07:43 PM  
fta:   Jeff Severinghaus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography thinks temperatures may have been notably warmer just 12,000 years ago, at least in Greenland based on research by some of his colleagues.


so was that man caused too?

if not, how do we know what cause the recent changes?
 
2013-03-08 09:07:52 PM  

LookForTheArrow: iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: I said the sun is a factor in us being warm; not that it is necessarily a factor in warming trends.

Oh, I see. You can't differentiate between weather and climate.

I see you don't seem to understand that during peak solar events that the sun throws addition energy out into space. And the sun cycles are typically a decade or so long.

Even if we only recieve .0001% of said energy; it can effect the climate of the earth.

/ I'm not saying that is the only cause; far from it, what I'm saying that solar output can effect us. The earth isn't a closed system

yes it can affect us. Saying that it's the cause of a 100 year spike that perfectly lines up with huge carbon increases is just grasping at straws. Sure it might be an issue. It's not THE issue.

even if there was some natural effect, isn't it completely logical not to add a new perturbation of unknown quantity to the system, arbitrarily? Until the results are in? That's the issue here - if you want to say any number of things are causing global instability, you can hardly suggest we're doing the right thing exacerbating it!


I agree; I wasn't saying that it was a major factor. I was just saying that it could be a contributing factor. I agree, it isn't the only issue; high carbon output is also a factor.


/ The whole thing is complicated as hell.
 
2013-03-08 09:08:47 PM  

oren0: Let's say it were unequivocally true that AGW was caused by CO2 and was going to be catastrophic. Why is this the only solution? For example, we know that SO2 can cause global cooling (see Mount Pinatubo, 1991). Geoengineering effects such as releasing SO2 into the atmosphere would be hundreds if not thousands of times cheaper than cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Why is it that the only solutions environmentalists will accept are the ones that cost trillions of dollars?


This is 100% anti-science propaganda. Only deniers say "he only solutions environmentalists will accept are the ones that cost trillions of dollars ". They paint all options as "economy destroying" to maintain the status quo.

People who are actually trying to help are interested in all potential improvements ... from the free to the different. Obviously there will be cost/benefit analyses on any proposed solutions before they can be implemented and there needs to be evidence to support the effectiveness.

But your corporate masters appreciate you continuing to spread their propaganda.
 
2013-03-08 09:12:27 PM  

iheartscotch: LookForTheArrow: iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: I said the sun is a factor in us being warm; not that it is necessarily a factor in warming trends.

Oh, I see. You can't differentiate between weather and climate.

I see you don't seem to understand that during peak solar events that the sun throws addition energy out into space. And the sun cycles are typically a decade or so long.

Even if we only recieve .0001% of said energy; it can effect the climate of the earth.

/ I'm not saying that is the only cause; far from it, what I'm saying that solar output can effect us. The earth isn't a closed system

yes it can affect us. Saying that it's the cause of a 100 year spike that perfectly lines up with huge carbon increases is just grasping at straws. Sure it might be an issue. It's not THE issue.

even if there was some natural effect, isn't it completely logical not to add a new perturbation of unknown quantity to the system, arbitrarily? Until the results are in? That's the issue here - if you want to say any number of things are causing global instability, you can hardly suggest we're doing the right thing exacerbating it!

I agree; I wasn't saying that it was a major factor. I was just saying that it could be a contributing factor. I agree, it isn't the only issue; high carbon output is also a factor.


/ The whole thing is complicated as hell.


chaos theory is really complicated, yes. The notion that it changes suddenly - if not in the exact vector/time we predict? that's childs play. we KNOW adding energy to the system is going to fark us over and here we have people arguing "but we dont know exactly how so let's keep partying!"

i am sure I'm not arguing against you, i just wish people other than us here and now realize that you dont have to prove exactly what happens -- or even why -- to know what to do to prevent it.

we got together for CFCs. now we need to sweep aside some asinine, traitorous oil tycoons who will be long dead before the world they made comes to bite their children. That's insane levels of apathy and evil - although  I can understand sociopolitically, if one country doesn't use the oil another probably will, being fungible and all. But i CANT understand a debate about where that leads. It leads to hell.
 
2013-03-08 09:12:31 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: fta:   Jeff Severinghaus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography thinks temperatures may have been notably warmer just 12,000 years ago, at least in Greenland based on research by some of his colleagues.


so was that man caused too?

if not, how do we know what cause the recent changes?


You know, troll, does it MATTER if climate change is man-made or not?  Is the origin of the shiat really that important?  Who gives a shiat 'what' is causing it, IT'S HAPPENING.  Let's break out the farking super-science and fix it.
 
2013-03-08 09:25:53 PM  

oren0: machodonkeywrestler: There are other accurate measures that are very good at predicting the temperatures over a century old, but you knew that

Are there? The accuracy of tree ring proxies has been torn to shreds in the literature, and many other proxies are similarly problematic due to issues with improper statistics or bad assumptions about causation, see hockey stick controversy, Yamal trees, etc. Even if other proxies are accurate, how does this one compare? If your proxy can't perform in the one era where it is falsifiable by the instrumental temperature record, why should its accuracy over thousands of years be trusted?


Tree ring proxy data tracks well with other proxies until about 1960.  Instrumental records track well with tree ring data from the 1800's until around 1960.  Tree growth in general has been predictable until ... guess when ... 1960.  This is an old argument that's been beaten to death.  An anomaly was discovered, discussion ensued, more tests were conducted, data was updated, all this was peer-reviewed and the conclusion was: tree growth has changed in the last few decades due to mostly anthropomorphic factors.  This is how science is done.

Welcome to science.
 
2013-03-08 09:28:53 PM  
Not to throw monkey wrenches into a fine rehash of an old arguement.....

Given this result:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/01/us-carbon-emissions - lowest-levels">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/01/us-c arbon-emissions- lowest-levels

Coming out of the US switching from coal to natural gas, increased use of hybrids, and use of renewables. We haven't completely destroyed our economy in doing this, and the indications are that gas will continue to supplant coal.

So if the US is halfway to goal in achieving a significant reduction, how do we get China (the largest emitter now) to do likewise?
 
2013-03-08 09:31:13 PM  
GF named my left testicle thundercles: "although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea."

ialdabaoth: "TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?"



Approves-
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-08 09:37:18 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


A masterful troll.
It's short, sweet, doesn't go overboard with frothing indignance, and contains logical and factual flaws that people will just HAVE to correct.
 
2013-03-08 09:37:59 PM  

Farking Canuck: I have to admit ... I am not sure where I supposedly crossed the line.


Ahhh ... I found the post. I did call you a moran and I apologize as I don't usually resort to direct name calling. I usually just highlight the person's own words which demonstrate my point to the world ... making name-calling redundant.

So, you were discussing how we are arrogant to think we can influence climate. And I was pointing out that, compared to splitting the atom or mapping the human genome, controlling greenhouse gas levels should be child's play (the science of it ... not the politics/economics of it).

We understand energy balances, we understand the source of the energy, we understand and can replicate in the lab the mechanism for trapping the energy and we have many different options for adjusting this balance. We have already seriously adjusted this balance unintentionally ... why is it so hard to conceive of us adjusting it intentionally??

What is arrogant about thinking that we can take something that we are already doing unintentionally and doing it in a controlled manner??
 
2013-03-08 09:44:34 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: LordJiro: ITT: Idiots claiming the enormous amounts of crap our factories, cars, power plants, etc. spew into the atmosphere can't POSSIBLY have an effect.

It has such an enormous effect it caused global warming on Mars.


Lol, yes, the conjecture of one guy totally disproves all the other work that has been done.
If he is right, his work will be replicated and built upon.  If not, it won't be.  For now he is just an outlier with a pet hypothesis.
 
2013-03-08 09:46:29 PM  

Gawdzila: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

A masterful troll.
It's short, sweet, doesn't go overboard with frothing indignance, and contains logical and factual flaws that people will just HAVE to correct.


dont think of it as trolling. think of it as a chance to educate all the younger readers of Fark, thoughtfully provided by a difficult to perceive quadruped. it all makes sense now!
 
2013-03-08 09:49:49 PM  
Depends where they put the thermometers.
 
2013-03-08 09:53:25 PM  

TeamEd: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

For all intents and purposes the cosmic background radiation is entirely uniform in every direction. Seriously, the CMB is  2.72548±0.00057K with the  ±0.00057K accounting for all of the variation you see in those splotchy green and blue maps.


I'm way late to this, but it's worth pointing out: It's physically impossible to disentangle the apparent dipole moment created in the CMB by our relative motion from an actual one, so the 500uK is actually the sum over everything after subtracting out the dipole.

Which makes CMB measurements even more impressive, actually, since we're looking at 2.73K, subtracting a 1/1000 effect, then analyzing 1/100000 effects.

imgs.xkcd.com

I actually debated not pointing this out, since now that I've "admitted" that there's actually a "much larger" temperature difference, you can imagine the scandal that will result.
 
2013-03-08 09:53:40 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Here's another bit of "wisdom" from Garret Hardin, who thinks that only the rich should be allowed to have a decent standard of living, and all the non-rich will jyst have to get used to living like midieval peasants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8yOamWq3a0

I bet the Koches just LOVE this dickhead.


Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?
 
2013-03-08 09:57:10 PM  

Infernalist: Okay, just so we're clear here, that's an idiotic presenting of things. You're equating the priesthood of ages past with today's scientific community.

One counted on the ignorance of the masses, and often worked HARD to keep them ignorant, while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.

They are, quite simply, as opposite from each other as any two things could possibly be.

The fact that you're trying to make them 'the same lol' pretty much relegates you to the lunatic corner or 'herpa derp' crowd.

You're basically saying that because scientists figured out that something LEAD is bad for you and smoking causes cancer...that they're telling you that you have to 'sacrifice' and not eat that yummy lead and give up those nifty cigarettes.

I just hope to god that you're trolling and you're not actually this retarded.


Name calling, insults, blah blah blah.

You're so angered that I don't share your belief that scientists have super-human traits. Always trustworthy, logical, rational, and grounded in evidence.

You clearly dislike that I see "science" as part of an intellectual class that supports the ruling class.  

Peer review has so many problems that when someone trots it out the way you do I know it's just a religious belief rather than a rational look at the process.  Anyone who had a clue should be aware of it. There's some TED talks on it if you want to learn.

This class of government dependent intellectuals exists to make those who sign their paychecks happy and not risking their careers by deviating from the beliefs of their peers.  From economics to social science to climate science and beyond, the intellectual class is part of how power maintains itself in the modern world. They do what is best for where their paychecks come from. They are -human- beings and like any other group there is a significant portion that will go along with the sociopaths at the top just to live a comfortable life. What is most silly is those people who call scientists funded by private industry as being biased but then turn around and say the results are pure when it is funded by the political process..... it's laughable.  If I had said that scientists getting funding from tobacco companies produced biased work then you'd probably nod your head in agreement. What grinds your gears is that I find the same true of politically funded work. That it would reflect the desires of those with political power.

Many an individual scientist has published papers or done work that went against the grain. What happens is that their careers are ruined. Funding dries up. Few people have the strength of character to go through that. Many times, 20, 30, 40, 100 years later they are called 'ahead of their time' and things like that. But in their time they suffer and are called 'kooks' and worse. Few people care more about being proven correct after they are dead than living comfortably in the present.

Science has chased out so many people who challenged the status-quo of their day only for it to be accepted decades later it's laughable to think the processes are anywhere close to fair let alone unbiased.

Ishkur: Not sure why you're equating the two. Religion is a thing, interpreted by priests, translated into dogma, for the sake of power, position and privilege. Science is a process, used by scientists, interpreted into theories, for the sake of increasing our understanding of the natural world and its faculties.

The two aren't even comparable.


They are in the role they play for the power structure of the society. How they do it is indeed quite different, but what they do is the same. Ever read early 20th century texts about how "science" will replace religion? About how society will be shaped and so forth?  It's good to read, it's eye opening stuff. Especially when it shows that the science of today fits the plan of yesterday. Also, keep in mind, that the intellectuals of centuries past were often monks, priests, and so forth. If you wanted to be educated and were not born into wealth you went into that system. They were in large part, the intellectuals of their time.

An intellectual class tells us, the people, why we should obey the ruling class. They serve to justify the agenda. To get our consent to being ruled. The processes used in the scientific part of that modern intellectual class, in an ideal sense could work, for some things, if the people involved didn't have to worry about funding their next study. If they didn't have to worry about their careers. But they do, and thus the 'process of science' is far from pure. Worse yet, it is politically funded.Funded by the government, funded by the foundations that influence government. Funded by those who create the agenda. The agenda behind CO2 driven climate change is very high stakes considering the degree of control the ruling class wants to leverage from it.

If you found out that CO2 driven global warming was bunk and your work proved it without a doubt would you have the balls to publish it knowing your entire career would circle the toilet bowl and be flushed because of it? That you would be accused of being a fossil fuel company shill and worse? That you and your work would be discredited in the minds of people and nothing would likely change? Could you take that treatment? Could you drive a cab to feed to your kids just to stick your guns? Could you?

"Science" has intentionally wrecked the careers of many who were ultimately proven correct. Often for simple no-shiat-sherlock things like 'wash your hands after handling a corpse and before delivering a baby'. It also refuses to recognize error based on crappy work for decades. No, sorry, it's not this infallible group of people using perfect processes. Far from it. The fact so many believe it to be practically infallible is the problem, not my seeing the political process as corrupting factor.
 
2013-03-08 10:02:26 PM  
leadmetal:

This class of government dependent intellectuals exists to make those who sign their paychecks happy and not risking their careers by deviating from the beliefs of their peers.  From economics to social science to climate science and beyond, the intellectual class is part of how power maintains itself in the modern world. They do what is best for where their paychecks come from. They are -human- beings and like any other group there is a significant portion that will go along with the sociopaths at the top just to live a comfortable life. Wha ...

AGAIN, that's funny. Really funny that you accuse someone making 58K a year of publishing for the sake of money, while the oil tycoons that have billions at stake would never do such a thing. Obviously, they're just whistling dixie.

you realize occam's razor, by your own posts reasoning, clearly points to us not believing a whit of global instability deniers for the very reasons you give?
 
2013-03-08 10:03:10 PM  

Kazan: Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers".


Look, I'm on your side here, but...  the Law of Large Numbers (or the Law of Truly Large Numbers) has nothing to do with this statement.
The Law of Large Numbers is a statement about statistics.  It is about the expected results of events that happens many times -- millions, billions, or quadrillions of times.  It has an important role in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, but really nothing at all to do with this.  It doesn't get invoked just because something involves a number with a lot of zeroes.


HotIgneous Intruder: Infernalist: Now, the business interests are all about denying global warming, because it's THEIR industrial efforts that causing the worst of it.  And they're not about to take a cut in profits to save the world.  Why should they?  It's the most primal form of 'short term profit', after all.  What do they care what happens in a hundred years?

Actually, limiting carbon release would work in the big fossil fuel companies favors.
If you were them, would you prefer having your finite resource, which you sell at a killing profit anyway, to be further regulated and limited, thereby making it even more valuable and thereby locking in future profits, or would you just prefer to conduct business at the mercy of an dangerously oscillating free market?
The answer is quite clear.
Big energy wants its product metered out in measured doses, like any good drug dealer.
Think about it.


I don't agree with that logic at all.
The thing is, the more people depend on their resource the more it is worth.  In the future it is likely that we will have alternatives to petroleum, which will make oil less valuable as a resource.  If resources and production capacity dwindle compared to demand it drives up the per-unit value of oil which in turn drives up the total theoretical value of all fossil fuels.  Oscillating or not, basic supply and demand would assure that the prices stayed high.  The best possible scenario for an oil company is if we don't develop a good alternative until they have already sold virtually every last drop.  That would ensure that the resources they dug up would have all been sold at the highest possible value.
 
2013-03-08 10:07:55 PM  
What? No green text yet?

I guess the thread is still too active.
 
2013-03-08 10:08:51 PM  

Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?


He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.
 
2013-03-08 10:10:16 PM  
leadmetal: wall-of-text

What your argument reminded me of.

4.bp.blogspot.com

 "But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"

 It has a similar cadence to your thought process.
 
2013-03-08 10:13:25 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.


pleaselet us know how you can  shill for climate change when the real money is entirely in denying it?

i dont think you know the definition of shill, shill.
 
2013-03-08 10:13:42 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.


According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.
 
2013-03-08 10:15:54 PM  

hawcian: According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.


Apparently he's trying to lead by example. He is that much of an extremist!!
 
2013-03-08 10:16:16 PM  

hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.

According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.


Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.
 
2013-03-08 10:17:26 PM  

BigLuca: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.

According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.

Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.


Actually, he did in fact kill himself.
 
2013-03-08 10:22:27 PM  

hawcian: BigLuca: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.

According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.

Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.

Actually, he did in fact kill himself.


Oh.  Well now I feel bad.

...aaaaand I'm over it.
 
2013-03-08 10:23:03 PM  
I broke the dam.
 
2013-03-08 10:25:38 PM  
The grant-grubbing climate scientists are at it again. algore!
 
2013-03-08 10:27:55 PM  

LookForTheArrow: leadmetal:

This class of government dependent intellectuals exists to make those who sign their paychecks happy and not risking their careers by deviating from the beliefs of their peers.  From economics to social science to climate science and beyond, the intellectual class is part of how power maintains itself in the modern world. They do what is best for where their paychecks come from. They are -human- beings and like any other group there is a significant portion that will go along with the sociopaths at the top just to live a comfortable life. Wha ...

AGAIN, that's funny. Really funny that you accuse someone making 58K a year of publishing for the sake of money, while the oil tycoons that have billions at stake would never do such a thing. Obviously, they're just whistling dixie.

you realize occam's razor, by your own posts reasoning, clearly points to us not believing a whit of global instability deniers for the very reasons you give?


He didn't say that. He said they are similarly motivated to support whoever signs their paychecks.

And why does a climatologist's annual salary mean they are beyond reproach? People kill trying to steal $100 farking shoes.

Attributing well-known global warming to CO2 while ignoring other variables to support a multi-decade hatred of fossile fuels isn't so far fetched. We've all heard the saying correlation doesn't prove causation -- except when it comes to global warming apparently.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/#more - 11057


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/marcott-et-al-claim-of-unpreced e nted-warming-compared-to-gisp-ice-core-data/#more-81694
 
2013-03-08 10:31:10 PM  

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.


He's not a donkey.  He's a hippo.  And stealthy, like this one:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-08 10:39:51 PM  

Infernalist: tenpoundsofcheese: fta:   Jeff Severinghaus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography thinks temperatures may have been notably warmer just 12,000 years ago, at least in Greenland based on research by some of his colleagues.


so was that man caused too?

if not, how do we know what cause the recent changes?

You know, troll, does it MATTER if climate change is man-made or not?  Is the origin of the shiat really that important?  Who gives a shiat 'what' is causing it, IT'S HAPPENING.  Let's break out the farking super-science and fix it.


fix what?
is there any proof that global warming, I mean climate change, is bad?
Are we currently at the absolute perfect climate for the world and any variation from that is bad?

Do you have any sources for an answer?
 
2013-03-08 10:41:10 PM  

leadmetal: They are in the role they play for the power structure of the society.


Not they don't.

The scientist as a class has NEVER held power in ANY culture, time period, or location in the HISTORY of mankind. All human hierarchical systems have always been dominated by either the army, the clergy or the merchant. Never the scientist.

leadmetal: Ever read early 20th century texts about how "science" will replace religion?


Science is not interested in replacing anything, it is only interested in studying that which exists so that we may understand it better. It doesn't see religion as very pertinent in pursuit of these aims.

Religion sees science as a threat only because religion has historically made a lot of postulations about the natural world that have been proven to be wrong, but that's not science's fault. Science isn't trying to prove religion wrong because science isn't interested in what the answers are, only in the process used to reach them. Religion has always prided itself on having all the answers. Science makes no such claim -- it's only interested in studying the questions.

There are a lot of things that science does not and will not ever study (love, philosophy, faith, metaphysics, etc.) because those things are outside the realm of rational inquiry and hence are inadmissible to science.

leadmetal: An intellectual class tells us, the people, why we should obey the ruling class.


First of all, there is no "intellectual" class. Intellectuals are found in all segments of humanity, so they do not exist as a cohesive class to begin with, and if they did, they would usually BE the ruling class, so what you're essentially saying is that a class of particular-minded people want to manipulate us into obeying them, which is terribly redundant not to mention uproariously stupid.

leadmetal: The processes used in the scientific part of that modern intellectual class, in an ideal sense could work, for some things, if the people involved didn't have to worry about funding their next study. If they didn't have to worry about their careers.


You have a gross misunderstanding of what science really is if this is what you think. First of all, the people who attack scientific theories the most are scientists, because science is not dogma, it is a process for studying and understanding the natural world, and that entails constantly testing scientific assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept any theory at face value. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks. If there were holes in any theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis will find them.

Secondly, scientists are only interested in doing good science. So long as they adhere to that mandate, they don't fear anything about their careers. And because it is a process of testing and re-testing assertions, fraudulent scientific studies are very quickly found and thrown out. This is what bolsters the process.

Every scientist would LOVE to come up with a competing theory to anything that exists today. In fact, scientists attempt to come up with new theories all the time. Nobel Prizes are given out for those who do it successfully, and the recognition earns them respect and accolades around the world and in the scientific community. So the attractive prospect of advancing science by coming up with something brand new is overwhelming. But they got to do the science first, and the science must stand up to scrutiny.

leadmetal: Science" has intentionally wrecked the careers of many who were ultimately proven correct


Such as?

leadmetal: No, sorry, it's not this infallible group of people using perfect processes. Far from it. The fact so many believe it to be practically infallible is the problem,


No one thinks scientists are infallible or that the process is infallible. In fact, science runs almost entirely on mistakes. The most common phrase in science is not "Eureka!" but rather "Hmmm. That's weird -- why did that happen?" Scientists love not knowing, and they love figuring things out, and they love the thousand failures it takes to produce one success. And that is why the process keeps pushing us forward.

You can't really say that about the apparatus of any other system.
 
2013-03-08 10:43:41 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Didn't man invent beer around that time?

I blame fat sweaty men drinking beer and farting.


I don't sweat THAT much!
 
2013-03-08 11:01:23 PM  

Farking Canuck: ialdabaoth: Why do you seriously assume that 'facts' matter to people, just because you think they matter to you?

It scares me how much truth there is to this question.


Oh, yes. Look how much attention that guy who always posts in green can divert away from the issue by trundling out his graphs and charts full of HIS version of "facts." People have decided that "facts" are as mutable as anything else, and that nothing is really "true" except what we want it to be. It's our own fault, too: 30 years of reality TV and shows like "Law & Order" and "CSI" which seem to prove that a) there is Truth out there if only one drills down far enough, but b) said Truth is entirely subjective depending on if you're the good guys or the bad guys.

So nobody really trusts Science like they did when I was a wee lass, if only because we know from watching TV that it can mean anything Gil Grissom wants it to mean. Or whatever your high-priced lawyer wants it to mean. Nevermind that CSI is really really bad science--it's what people think they know that is most dangerous.
 
2013-03-08 11:09:25 PM  

leadmetal: You clearly dislike that I see "science" as part of an intellectual class that supports the ruling class.  

Peer review has so many problems that when someone trots it out the way you do I know it's just a religious belief rather than a rational look at the process.  Anyone who had a clue should be aware of it. There's some TED talks on it if you want to learn.



TED talks are given by the intellectual class in support of the ruling class. Anyone who has a clue is aware of that. There's some pokemon cards on it if you want to learn.
 
2013-03-08 11:25:12 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.


If he's so loud, how come I'd never even heard of him until almost a decade after he died?

As an argument against global warming, this is right up there with "Algore is fat!".
 
2013-03-09 12:31:08 AM  

leadmetal: Name calling, insults, blah blah blah.

You're so angered that I don't share your belief that scientists have super-human traits. Always trustworthy, logical, rational, and grounded in evidence.

You clearly dislike that I see "science" as part of an intellectual class that supports the ruling class


[...]


Hear here.
 
2013-03-09 12:35:40 AM  
Keep banging that drum, subby. Maybe someday your dreams of relevance will come true.

/bang
//bang bang
 
2013-03-09 12:37:17 AM  

sigdiamond2000: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

We're in the hotter part of space now.


This is why I read the internet, for the lulz.

Could you imagine if we ended up in an area of space where the vacuum was so cold it was within mere degrees of absolute zero?

I'm guessing the sun would freeze.
 
2013-03-09 12:56:31 AM  

Mithiwithi: If he's so loud, how come I'd never even heard of him until almost a decade after he died?


Yeah. Like the writings of Ayn Rand died the moment she did. Right?
 
2013-03-09 01:07:55 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: fix what?
is there any proof that global warming, I mean climate change, is bad?


How about the number of cities that have been built at sea level?
Here is just a small list of very large ones (I have homes in two of them).
But seriously...why was there any need to post this? Have you never thought of it?
 
2013-03-09 01:08:03 AM  

hawcian: BigLuca: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.

According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.

Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.

Actually, he did in fact kill himself.


That still doesn't make him a hypocrite
 
2013-03-09 02:10:52 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


You have just demonstrated a stupidity so profound that I cannot even begin to address it.

That's it, folks, I'm done for the night. Be sure to tip your server, and shut the lights off when you leave.
 
2013-03-09 02:15:18 AM  

iheartscotch: Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.

I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.

No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?


An object. A star. All kinds of things.

Literally anything other than "the interstellar medium" would be more accurate. It would be more accurate to call the Sun a kangaroo.
 
2013-03-09 02:22:35 AM  
fools!  the goddam internet is what's causing global warming.  and who invented the internet? Al goddam Gore.
 
2013-03-09 03:22:44 AM  

occamswrist: LookForTheArrow: leadmetal:

This class of government dependent intellectuals exists to make those who sign their paychecks happy and not risking their careers by deviating from the beliefs of their peers.  From economics to social science to climate science and beyond, the intellectual class is part of how power maintains itself in the modern world. They do what is best for where their paychecks come from. They are -human- beings and like any other group there is a significant portion that will go along with the sociopaths at the top just to live a comfortable life. Wha ...

AGAIN, that's funny. Really funny that you accuse someone making 58K a year of publishing for the sake of money, while the oil tycoons that have billions at stake would never do such a thing. Obviously, they're just whistling dixie.

you realize occam's razor, by your own posts reasoning, clearly points to us not believing a whit of global instability deniers for the very reasons you give?

He didn't say that. He said they are similarly motivated to support whoever signs their paychecks.

And why does a climatologist's annual salary mean they are beyond reproach? People kill trying to steal $100 farking shoes.

Attributing well-known global warming to CO2 while ignoring other variables to support a multi-decade hatred of fossile fuels isn't so far fetched. We've all heard the saying correlation doesn't prove causation -- except when it comes to global warming apparently.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/#more - 11057

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/marcott-et-al-claim-of-unpreced e nted-warming-compared-to-gisp-ice-core-data/#more-81694


So, you're saying that "It's all a conspiracy by many thousands of scientists with funding from different sources!" is more likely than it being, you know, real? Tell ya what... right now, CO2 is a VERY strong fit to everything we're seeing, and explained by very well known and tested mechanisms. If you have a better explanation, I'm sure the world would love to hear it. By the way, invoking "correlation is not causation" is not a magic spell. As Randall Munroe puts it, "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."


TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: If he's so loud, how come I'd never even heard of him until almost a decade after he died?

Yeah. Like the writings of Ayn Rand died the moment she did. Right?


They should have:  http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-se cur ity-medicare/

Money quote: "Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. "
 
2013-03-09 03:33:02 AM  
 "We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly."

BULLshiat.
The fluctuations during the ice ages were much larger at times. At least according to the ice core records.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Mile-Time-Machine-Abrupt-Climate/dp/069110 29 61
Alley would like to have a word with the author about ice age data.
 
2013-03-09 05:20:09 AM  

namatad: "We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly."

BULLshiat.
The fluctuations during the ice ages were much larger at times. At least according to the ice core records.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Mile-Time-Machine-Abrupt-Climate/dp/069110 29 61
Alley would like to have a word with the author about ice age data.


They said "quickly."
You said "larger."

The two measurements--time and magnitude--are completely separate from one another. You need to go to bed.
 
2013-03-09 06:09:56 AM  
Study is based on marine fossil record.

Data extrapolated several times.

That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.

/sounds legit
//if I can buy, browbeat and cajole enough people to say the same thing then it must be true.
 
2013-03-09 06:25:48 AM  

thrgd456: Study is based on marine fossil record.

Data extrapolated several times.

That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.

/sounds legit
//if I can buy, browbeat and cajole enough people to say the same thing then it must be true.


Well if your gut says it's wrong then we can all go ahead and ignore all them fancy folks with their high falutin' book learnin'!! What has it ever done for us anyway?!?
 
2013-03-09 07:48:57 AM  

jvl: According to this study, global warming may be keeping us out of an ice age, and the warming happened between 1930 and 1940 even though actual thermometers failed to observe the warming.

A single study. Let's not overthink this.

/ Although.... 1930s had the most hurricanes in a season until the Katrina-season surpassed it...


Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
2013-03-09 09:02:23 AM  

Farking Canuck: That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.


Except for the fact that these are scientists, and you're someone who doesn't understand what the fossil record is.
 
2013-03-09 09:08:34 AM  

Infernalist: Even a minor exchange of nuclear weaponry would be enough to fark all of us.


YOu mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't do?
 
2013-03-09 09:12:18 AM  

Infernalist:

That's the thing about science today. If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties. Is it free of bias? Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.
How about if a couple of scientists -- the ones who keep the global data sets -- "enhance" the data, and then claim that the dog ate the original data?  Actually, I don't think a dog was blamed, but the data no longer exist.  Personally, I'd say that if you're using "just trust me" data, you're NOT doing science.... and welcome to modern climatology.
 
2013-03-09 09:13:48 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Farking Canuck: That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.

Except for the fact that these are scientists, and you're someone who doesn't understand what the fossil record is.


You've quoted the wrong person here. I did not say that.
 
2013-03-09 09:14:05 AM  

Gawdzila: In the future it is likely that we will have alternatives to petroleum


Like what? Trees?
Or "technology"?
Yes, let me put some technology in my tank.
Where can I buy it and how much per gallon does it cost?
 
2013-03-09 09:15:50 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race


You should publish a paper on that.

But I'd do some math first if I were you.

And Co2 is really easy to measure:
schoolworkhelper.net
 
2013-03-09 09:17:37 AM  

GeneralJim: Infernalist: That's the thing about science today. If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties. Is it free of bias? Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.How about if a couple of scientists -- the ones who keep the global data sets -- "enhance" the data, and then claim that the dog ate the original data?  Actually, I don't think a dog was blamed, but the data no longer exist.  Personally, I'd say that if you're using "just trust me" data, you're NOT doing science.... and welcome to modern climatology.


Yay! The thread has died down enough that the green thread-shiatter can post walls of lies unopposed!

Today he describes how not all scientists are corrupt ... they are all just so stupid that they can easily be tricked by the few corrupt ones!! It is such a likely story ... so believable ... how can anyone doubt our benevolent oil barons when they point out how evil scientists are??
 
2013-03-09 09:57:41 AM  

Farking Canuck: - we are already too high


Too early in the day for me.
 
2013-03-09 09:59:13 AM  

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?




We sacrifice to the road gods everyday.
 
2013-03-09 10:09:24 AM  

Time for a reality check....


o  Earth normally does not have ice caps.  It does now, which makes now an ice age, using the geological term.

o  While we are in an ice age, we have about 100,000 years of major glaciation ("ice age," colloquially) and around 12,000 of interglacial.

o We are most of the way through our brief (geologically speaking) interglacial period.

o The question "Is the Earth warming or cooling?"  Cannot be accurately answered without a reference to time frame.  For example:

-  Earth has stopped warming for the last 16 years, and should cool now for 20-30 years.

-  Considering the last 30 years, it has warmed.  The thirty years before that, it cooled.

-  We are in the warming part of a 1600 year cycle, with around 400 years to go.

-  Longer scale, we have been cooling for 8,000 years, and will go into a major glaciation (ice age) soon -- geologically.

-  We've been in a geologic ice age for about 20 million years, and are about half done.

-  When the ice age is over, we'll be about 10 K (10 degrees Celsius) warmer.  That period should last more than 100 million years.

 
2013-03-09 10:53:43 AM  

Nidiot: Farking Canuck: JRoo: So global warming has saved us from an advancing ice age?

Sweet.

Now we just have to figure out how to slow it down and control it.

This is effectively all true. The problems with is are as follows:

- we know how to control it (manage the greenhouse gas %) but the anti-science movement opposes all actions that will enable us to actually turn it down

- we are already too high

- there is a large lag in the system and we are already going to way overshoot our ideal temperature. It is already too late to stop things from getting bad ... if we act now all we can to is reduce how bad and for how long.

I do small scale reactor controller programming as one of my many jobs and lag is a biatch ... makes control difficult.

I can't see the world actually doing anything effective in the emissions reduction side of things, it will be too little, too late etc. Especially while we've still got people arguing global climate change isn't caused by human activity. There are too many different parties with their own agendas agreement is not going to be possible. We can't even get one country to agree on something as simple as whether abortion should be legal or not, let alone get all the countries in the world to agree on action against climate change.

At this point I think we would be better to look at what exactly the new conditions will be, and at what we need to do to deal with them.


Hey, you never know. You might change your mind in a few years and start working towards a goal. Of course, you might get taken out in a massive auto wreck.
 
2013-03-09 11:20:01 AM  
Don't let that "Medieval Warm Period" get in the way!
 
2013-03-09 11:51:29 AM  

blatz514: Was it farting?  I'm going with farting.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 238x170]

RUSTY!


I already went with farting. Sorry.
 
2013-03-09 12:00:19 PM  

GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....


all systems fail.
 
2013-03-09 12:06:26 PM  

Bucky Katt: Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

He's not a donkey.  He's a hippo.  And stealthy, like this one:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


Are you sure he's not attacky and chargy, like this one?

www.world-insights.com
 
2013-03-09 12:09:44 PM  
I call BS
 
2013-03-09 01:14:57 PM  

GeneralJim: Infernalist: That's the thing about science today. If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties. Is it free of bias? Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.How about if a couple of scientists -- the ones who keep the global data sets -- "enhance" the data, and then claim that the dog ate the original data?  Actually, I don't think a dog was blamed, but the data no longer exist.  Personally, I'd say that if you're using "just trust me" data, you're NOT doing science.... and welcome to modern climatology.


And if you think that's the basis for modern climatology, you are a fool.
 
2013-03-09 01:58:29 PM  
People, PLEASE stop fapping to pics of Evelyn Nesbit!  For the planet's sake!

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-09 02:13:32 PM  

GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....


o  Earth normally does not have ice caps.  It does now, which makes now an ice age, using the geological term.

o  While we are in an ice age, we have about 100,000 years of major glaciation ("ice age," colloquially) and around 12,000 of interglacial.

o We are most of the way through our brief (geologically speaking) interglacial period.

o The question "Is the Earth warming or cooling?"  Cannot be accurately answered without a reference to time frame.  For example:


Not bad so far, let's see if your "reality check" continues to match with reality.


GeneralJim: -  Earth has stopped warming for the last 16 years, and should cool now for 20-30 years.


Guess not. One false claim, and one bit of prognostication.

GeneralJim: -  Considering the last 30 years, it has warmed.  The thirty years before that, it cooled.


Half reality, half not (the second bit):

www.woodfortrees.org


GeneralJim: -  Longer scale, we have been cooling for 8,000 years, and will go into a major glaciation (ice age) soon -- geologically.

-  We've been in a geologic ice age for about 20 million years, and are about half done.

-  When the ice age is over, we'll be about 10 K (10 degrees Celsius) warmer.  That period should last more than 100 million years.


Questionable, especially with no evidence to back it up.

So, some false claims in there mixed with some questionable ones, with some random facts included that have no reasoning or inferences attached to them. Not quite a reality check.
 
2013-03-09 02:27:17 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

You should publish a paper on that.

But I'd do some math first if I were you.

And Co2 is really easy to measure:
[schoolworkhelper.net image 600x505]


Interesting that he CO2 line spikes way the hell up at the very end, but the temperature line doesn't.
 
2013-03-09 03:15:08 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

You should publish a paper on that.

But I'd do some math first if I were you.

And Co2 is really easy to measure:
[schoolworkhelper.net image 600x505]


99.9% of your graph is completely made up data.  No, you don't have measured temperature or CO2 in the atmosphere readings from more than 3k years ago.
 
2013-03-09 03:40:30 PM  
Sweet.  better hurry up  and tax CO2 before its too late.  Hopefully the UN will get around to taxing H20 vapor since we all know that it has 4x the heat capacity of CO2.  Probably we should get rid of the pesky ocean while we're at it.  Life should be free and convenient to our moreal whims.
 
2013-03-09 04:10:53 PM  
wow general  zipdoes only post after it settles down.. i think his reality has too hot a cup of tea attached to it.
 
2013-03-09 04:24:12 PM  

Wook: Sweet.  better hurry up  and tax CO2 before its too late.  Hopefully the UN will get around to taxing H20 vapor since we all know that it has 4x the heat capacity of CO2.  Probably we should get rid of the pesky ocean while we're at it.  Life should be free and convenient to our moreal whims.


Hah. Someone called it upthread. Who gets the free beer?
 
2013-03-09 07:28:50 PM  

Fast Thick Pants: Wow, the Koch-funded alts are out in force... I guess that's Friday night for ya.


Oh, puh-leeze. I don't think any of the astro-turfers are that dumb. It's after the propaganda has been filtered through a few heads as dim as Karl Pilkington that you get this level of bare-faced and fact-free assertion.

Deniers aren't even trying any more. Their factoids and arguments have worn so thread-bare that they're just trolling now--seeing how ridiculous they have to be to get a response.
 
2013-03-09 07:36:07 PM  
GeneralJim - the reasonable face of climate change denial.
 
2013-03-09 07:56:03 PM  

nickerj1: Marcus Aurelius: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

You should publish a paper on that.

But I'd do some math first if I were you.

And Co2 is really easy to measure:
[schoolworkhelper.net image 600x505]

99.9% of your graph is completely made up data.  No, you don't have measured temperature or CO2 in the atmosphere readings from more than 3k years ago.


Ah, the old "Only direct temperature readings from a thermometer are valid" play.
 
2013-03-09 08:24:27 PM  
The Koch Brothers (and their siblings) (their name s pronounced COKE, to rhyme with COKE, the product of the partial combustion of coal, used as an industrial fuel) own the second largest private conglomeration of companies in America.

They own the coal. They own the gas and the petroleum. They own the logging rights to millions of acres of Government land. They are the miners and deforesters and the corporate farmers.
 They don't care about the politics provided they can buy their own way.


They own the Senators in the states where their money is invested. A politician they don't own is dead.

They own the Government of the State of Wisconsin, which used to be liberal and cool because it was full of Scandinavians and farmer coops.

They have been buying up university Economics departments and converting them to Libertarian think tanks, which have as much to do with economic realities as Creationism has to do with physics, chemistry, geology and especially biology.

They don't care about the science.

They don't care if alternative energy is feasible and cheap. They don't care about low-hanging fruit and energy convservation. THEY OWN THE COAL. If, as the science suggests, we have to stop burning coal, natural gas, and petroleum for at least the next thousand years, it ceases to be worth trillions of dollars (even in the ground). It stays in the ground. It is worth nada.

You go from $25 billion to nothing. In six seconds.

The countries that are holding up global policy and action have a lot of fossil fuels in the ground or are burning a lot of them. Exceptions include Norway, which is sequestering about a third of the carbon from their oil fields, and Cuba, which apparently hasn't got the money or the technology to get at the natural gas and oil under its territorial waters. They may even be afraid to acknowledge how much bounty they are sitting on because they know the marines would be in Havana six days later.

And so it goes, and so it goes ....

The Kochs own the coal. They and others like them in other countries, know that the upshot of climate change is this: THE COAL WILL HAVE TO STAY IN THE GROUND.

Today, tomorrow, five hundred years from now, no matter. Because THEY OWN THE COAL, ALL OF THE COAL, AND SOME OF THEM, NOTHING BUT THE COAL.

This coal is worth trillions of dollars, as is the natural gas and the oil and the coke. Even in the ground, although it is not taxed until you take it out, if then. And they get billions of dollars of subsidies to look for it, find it and keep it in the ground until it is wanted. There is enough coal alone to keep us going for hundreds of years. THEY OWN IT ALL!

But the day that we do what we must in order to avoid the terrible, unimaginably expensive externalities of burning the carbon in the ground and destroying the forests and wilderness and farmland--that day is the day that their net worths fall to ZERO. Not a plugged Canadian penny's worth of coal. No price on coal at all--ever.

That is the fact that you should always bear in mind.

Slim Pickens is invested in wind power. Warren Buffett is a smart guy, but he is buying railroads because he suspects that pipelines aren't going to be popular. George Soros is George Soros--he helped to free Eastern Europe as much as Reagan, the Pope and God Almighty combined. But he is off doing something else, perhaps something none of the other super-rich guys are doing. And so is Bill Gates III.

But understanding the dinosaurian, predatory coal magnate minds of the Koch Brothers is all you really need to understand, and if you don't, it doesn't matter if you are a warmer or a denier because you just don't get it.
 
2013-03-09 09:31:10 PM  
brantgoose: Slim Pickens is invested in wind power

www.nndb.com

Pretty sure Slim's days with "wind power" are over.

More likely he's focused on below-ground interests, these days.


/I'll be here all week
//Don't forget to tip your waitress
/// Try the T. Boone
 
2013-03-09 11:03:26 PM  

brantgoose: But understanding the dinosaurian, predatory coal magnate minds of the Koch Brothers is all you really need to understand, and if you don't, it doesn't matter if you are a warmer or a denier because you just don't get it.


It doesn't really matt even if you DO get it, unless you have billions of dollars to throw around towards influencing policy. Power does what it wants.
 
2013-03-10 03:31:21 AM  
Just reposting this from the other thread. GeneralJim managed to surprise me and argue in a rational manner for a bit, before he fell back into his usual patterns. I'm reposting this in the hope that he will return to a rational mind-set later on.


GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: What you're outlining is the exact reason why your claim that anthropogenic climate change is "part of a single cycle of climate" isn't supported by the line of reasoning you tend to use with very long-term graphs.
It most certainly IS. Allow me to illustrate: If you measured global warming from 4:00 a.m. at each site, and stopped at 4:00 p.m. for one day only, and based your conclusions on that, you would get way too much time, because the longer, 24 hour circadian cycle interferes -- the site was warming already, from the transition from night to day.  To anything reasonable with the data you collected, assuming you could not continue collecting it, you would have to factor OUT the normal 4:00 a.m. to 4:00 rise in temperature.  What is LEFT might be at least slightly amenable to teasing out a factor.
And that is exactly what you are doing, with different time scales.  Right now, in 2013, it's about 1:00 p.m. in the example, and you started measuring at about 8:30 a.m., if we look at the 1600 year climate cycle as starting the warming at 4:00 a.m., and lasting 24 hours.  In our "day," it is as important to remove the effects of the 'background' warming as it is if we were taking the readings described above.


Hey, we also agree for the most part on the basics here, and I do appreciate the fact that you've tried to address the argument in a rational manner. However, I'm not sure you realize that the line of reasoning you've used ultimately argues against your own previous position, and in two ways.

First, if one needs to "remove the effects of the 'background' warming", then the approach you've chosen won't work for this, because, as you previously stated, shorter-term processes (like ENSO and anthropogenic climate change) "don't show up much on a longer-term graph". What this means is that the coarse resolution necessitated by a long scale means that shorter-term processes are not portrayed. This is what I was getting at when I stated that your line of argument would argue equally against the contribution of ENSO as it would the current warming trend - any shorter-term process would 'disappear' due to the lack of resolution in the long scale you've chosen. Put another way, by choosing to use a long-term graph, you lose the resolution to be able to distinguish short-term processes in the first place - and would therefore conclude no matter what "a situation which is part of a single cycle of climate" regardless of the existence or amount of change due to short-term processes. Heck, you could have an apocalyptic bunch of meteors raising the earth's temperature by a degree and you would still conclude that it would be "a situation which is part of a single cycle of climate".

Second, and more importantly, the necessity you highlight of removing different factors is fundamentally different from the approach you tend to use. As I have stated to you on more than one occasion, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple regression or correlation - your eye-balling of graphs is even worse.  The idea that you need to "factor out" other changes would argue against the eyeballing of graphs that you use. Think about it like this - if we use the example you've just put forward, would you be able to 'eyeball' the temperature change due to global warming on a graph showing a 24-hour period? Of course not - and you would mistakenly conclude, as you did previously that what you were seeing is"a situation which is part of a single cycle". That does not mean it doesn't exist - you would need to understand the underlying processes and mechanisms and from that attempt to decompose their contribution to temperature.


All that aside, let me repeat that I do appreciate the fact that you've chosen to respond in a rational manner, and I think this line of argument gets to heart of the matter. I'll carry this forward to the next thread if you don't manage to respond by the time this thread closes.
 
2013-03-10 04:14:17 AM  

HighZoolander:

GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....

all systems fail.
Okay, Bucky...  How about you point out ONE thing in that post that is not true?  Or, of course, you could STFU.
 
2013-03-10 09:08:05 AM  
Urantia book != evidence
 
2013-03-10 09:19:54 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....

all systems fail.Okay, Bucky...  How about you point out ONE thing in that post that is not true?  Or, of course, you could STFU.


Well, you could address one of the falsehoods I pointed out already. Or, of course, you could heed your own advice ;)
 
2013-03-11 08:14:57 PM  

vygramul:

Urantia book != evidence

So far, YOU are the only jackass using it as evidence. Granted, it IS specious evidence, retardedly used in ad hominem attack, but, still...
 
2013-03-11 08:43:15 PM  

GeneralJim: vygramul: Urantia book != evidence
So far, YOU are the only jackass using it as evidence. Granted, it IS specious evidence, retardedly used in ad hominem attack, but, still...


Are you reading people's minds again? Which hominem am I attacking ad? I posted a non-sequitur.
 
2013-03-11 11:03:56 PM  
I'll just leave this here:

Somebody thinks the Urantia Book is science but likes to pretend what he posts on the internet isn't forever.
 
2013-03-11 11:55:25 PM  

Farking Canuck: I'll just leave this here:

Somebody thinks the Urantia Book is science but likes to pretend what he posts on the internet isn't forever.


ah fark, the gift that keeps on giving :)
 
Displayed 366 of 366 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report