If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

5475 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 6:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 08:51:52 PM

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

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

Does that make sense?

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


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

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

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

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

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

Does that make sense?


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Does that make sense?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of which, this year is their Centennial!

100 years of Unmitigated Usury.

We really should celebrate, don't you think?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Throwing money at problems is HOW you solve them.,


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

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

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

Does that make sense?

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

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

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


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

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


so was that man caused too?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


/ The whole thing is complicated as hell.


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

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

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

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


so was that man caused too?

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


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

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

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


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

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

Given this result:

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

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

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

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

Does that make sense?"



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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

imgs.xkcd.com

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

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

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

I bet the Koches just LOVE this dickhead.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Name calling, insults, blah blah blah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two aren't even comparable.


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

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

If you found out that CO2 driven global warming was bunk and your work proved it without a doubt would you have the balls to publish it knowing your entire career would circle the toilet bowl and be flushed because of it? That you would be accused of being a fossil fuel company shill and worse? That you and your work would be discredited in the minds of people and nothing would likely change? Could you take that treatment? Could you drive a cab to feed to your kids just to stick your guns? Could you?

"Science" has intentionally wrecked the careers of many who were ultimately proven correct. Often for simple no-shiat-sherlock things like 'wash your hands after handling a corpse and before delivering a baby'. It also refuses to recognize error based on crappy work for decades. No, sorry, it's not this infallible group of people using perfect processes. Far from it. The fact so many believe it to be practically infallible is the problem, not my seeing the political process as corrupting factor.
 
2013-03-08 10:02:26 PM
leadmetal:

This class of government dependent intellectuals exists to make those who sign their paychecks happy and not risking their careers by deviating from the beliefs of their peers.  From economics to social science to climate science and beyond, the intellectual class is part of how power maintains itself in the modern world. They do what is best for where their paychecks come from. They are -human- beings and like any other group there is a significant portion that will go along with the sociopaths at the top just to live a comfortable life. Wha ...

AGAIN, that's funny. Really funny that you accuse someone making 58K a year of publishing for the sake of money, while the oil tycoons that have billions at stake would never do such a thing. Obviously, they're just whistling dixie.

you realize occam's razor, by your own posts reasoning, clearly points to us not believing a whit of global instability deniers for the very reasons you give?
 
2013-03-08 10:03:10 PM

Kazan: Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers".


Look, I'm on your side here, but...  the Law of Large Numbers (or the Law of Truly Large Numbers) has nothing to do with this statement.
The Law of Large Numbers is a statement about statistics.  It is about the expected results of events that happens many times -- millions, billions, or quadrillions of times.  It has an important role in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, but really nothing at all to do with this.  It doesn't get invoked just because something involves a number with a lot of zeroes.


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

Actually, limiting carbon release would work in the big fossil fuel companies favors.
If you were them, would you prefer having your finite resource, which you sell at a killing profit anyway, to be further regulated and limited, thereby making it even more valuable and thereby locking in future profits, or would you just prefer to conduct business at the mercy of an dangerously oscillating free market?
The answer is quite clear.
Big energy wants its product metered out in measured doses, like any good drug dealer.
Think about it.


I don't agree with that logic at all.
The thing is, the more people depend on their resource the more it is worth.  In the future it is likely that we will have alternatives to petroleum, which will make oil less valuable as a resource.  If resources and production capacity dwindle compared to demand it drives up the per-unit value of oil which in turn drives up the total theoretical value of all fossil fuels.  Oscillating or not, basic supply and demand would assure that the prices stayed high.  The best possible scenario for an oil company is if we don't develop a good alternative until they have already sold virtually every last drop.  That would ensure that the resources they dug up would have all been sold at the highest possible value.
 
2013-03-08 10:07:55 PM
What? No green text yet?

I guess the thread is still too active.
 
2013-03-08 10:08:51 PM

Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?


He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.
 
2013-03-08 10:10:16 PM
leadmetal: wall-of-text

What your argument reminded me of.

4.bp.blogspot.com

 "But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"

 It has a similar cadence to your thought process.
 
2013-03-08 10:13:25 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.


pleaselet us know how you can  shill for climate change when the real money is entirely in denying it?

i dont think you know the definition of shill, shill.
 
2013-03-08 10:13:42 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: Our of curiosity, who is this Garret Hardin fellow and why is he relevant to this thread?

He's one of the loudest climate-change shills out there biatching about how man's very existence is the cause for global warming, and his solutions tend to be of the "final" kind.


According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.
 
2013-03-08 10:15:54 PM

hawcian: According to the wiki article you linked earlier, he's been dead for ten years.


Apparently he's trying to lead by example. He is that much of an extremist!!
 
Displayed 50 of 366 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report