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
    More: Obvious, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, tree rings, ice cores, heat spike  
•       •       •

5506 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 6:31 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



366 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.netView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size

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.orgView Full Size


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 [BareFark]
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.orgView Full Size

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-08 06:53:02 PM  
slowpokecomics.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.

distantmirror.discoveryworld.orgView Full Size
 
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.eduView Full Size
 
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.orgView Full Size



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.comView Full Size
 
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.orgView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-08 07:06:57 PM  
This thread needs some more derp. Kirk Cameron it is!

cdn.videogum.comView Full Size
 
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.ukView Full Size
 
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

planetaryvisions.comView Full Size

or this

productionhausmedia.comView Full Size
 
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.orgView Full Size


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.comView Full Size


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.usView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size

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.usView Full Size
 
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.usView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.orgView Full Size

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.

ace.gatech.eduView Full Size


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.comView Full Size

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