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  
•       •       •

5481 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 10:16:16 PM  

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

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

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


Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.
 
2013-03-08 10:17:26 PM  

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

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

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

Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.


Actually, he did in fact kill himself.
 
2013-03-08 10:22:27 PM  

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

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

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

Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.

Actually, he did in fact kill himself.


Oh.  Well now I feel bad.

...aaaaand I'm over it.
 
2013-03-08 10:23:03 PM  
I broke the dam.
 
2013-03-08 10:25:38 PM  
The grant-grubbing climate scientists are at it again. algore!
 
2013-03-08 10:27:55 PM  

LookForTheArrow: leadmetal:

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

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

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


He didn't say that. He said they are similarly motivated to support whoever signs their paychecks.

And why does a climatologist's annual salary mean they are beyond reproach? People kill trying to steal $100 farking shoes.

Attributing well-known global warming to CO2 while ignoring other variables to support a multi-decade hatred of fossile fuels isn't so far fetched. We've all heard the saying correlation doesn't prove causation -- except when it comes to global warming apparently.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/#more - 11057


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/marcott-et-al-claim-of-unpreced e nted-warming-compared-to-gisp-ice-core-data/#more-81694
 
2013-03-08 10:31:10 PM  

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

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


He's not a donkey.  He's a hippo.  And stealthy, like this one:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-08 10:39:51 PM  

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


so was that man caused too?

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

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


fix what?
is there any proof that global warming, I mean climate change, is bad?
Are we currently at the absolute perfect climate for the world and any variation from that is bad?

Do you have any sources for an answer?
 
2013-03-08 10:41:10 PM  

leadmetal: They are in the role they play for the power structure of the society.


Not they don't.

The scientist as a class has NEVER held power in ANY culture, time period, or location in the HISTORY of mankind. All human hierarchical systems have always been dominated by either the army, the clergy or the merchant. Never the scientist.

leadmetal: Ever read early 20th century texts about how "science" will replace religion?


Science is not interested in replacing anything, it is only interested in studying that which exists so that we may understand it better. It doesn't see religion as very pertinent in pursuit of these aims.

Religion sees science as a threat only because religion has historically made a lot of postulations about the natural world that have been proven to be wrong, but that's not science's fault. Science isn't trying to prove religion wrong because science isn't interested in what the answers are, only in the process used to reach them. Religion has always prided itself on having all the answers. Science makes no such claim -- it's only interested in studying the questions.

There are a lot of things that science does not and will not ever study (love, philosophy, faith, metaphysics, etc.) because those things are outside the realm of rational inquiry and hence are inadmissible to science.

leadmetal: An intellectual class tells us, the people, why we should obey the ruling class.


First of all, there is no "intellectual" class. Intellectuals are found in all segments of humanity, so they do not exist as a cohesive class to begin with, and if they did, they would usually BE the ruling class, so what you're essentially saying is that a class of particular-minded people want to manipulate us into obeying them, which is terribly redundant not to mention uproariously stupid.

leadmetal: The processes used in the scientific part of that modern intellectual class, in an ideal sense could work, for some things, if the people involved didn't have to worry about funding their next study. If they didn't have to worry about their careers.


You have a gross misunderstanding of what science really is if this is what you think. First of all, the people who attack scientific theories the most are scientists, because science is not dogma, it is a process for studying and understanding the natural world, and that entails constantly testing scientific assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept any theory at face value. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks. If there were holes in any theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis will find them.

Secondly, scientists are only interested in doing good science. So long as they adhere to that mandate, they don't fear anything about their careers. And because it is a process of testing and re-testing assertions, fraudulent scientific studies are very quickly found and thrown out. This is what bolsters the process.

Every scientist would LOVE to come up with a competing theory to anything that exists today. In fact, scientists attempt to come up with new theories all the time. Nobel Prizes are given out for those who do it successfully, and the recognition earns them respect and accolades around the world and in the scientific community. So the attractive prospect of advancing science by coming up with something brand new is overwhelming. But they got to do the science first, and the science must stand up to scrutiny.

leadmetal: Science" has intentionally wrecked the careers of many who were ultimately proven correct


Such as?

leadmetal: No, sorry, it's not this infallible group of people using perfect processes. Far from it. The fact so many believe it to be practically infallible is the problem,


No one thinks scientists are infallible or that the process is infallible. In fact, science runs almost entirely on mistakes. The most common phrase in science is not "Eureka!" but rather "Hmmm. That's weird -- why did that happen?" Scientists love not knowing, and they love figuring things out, and they love the thousand failures it takes to produce one success. And that is why the process keeps pushing us forward.

You can't really say that about the apparatus of any other system.
 
2013-03-08 10:43:41 PM  

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

I blame fat sweaty men drinking beer and farting.


I don't sweat THAT much!
 
2013-03-08 11:01:23 PM  

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

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


Oh, yes. Look how much attention that guy who always posts in green can divert away from the issue by trundling out his graphs and charts full of HIS version of "facts." People have decided that "facts" are as mutable as anything else, and that nothing is really "true" except what we want it to be. It's our own fault, too: 30 years of reality TV and shows like "Law & Order" and "CSI" which seem to prove that a) there is Truth out there if only one drills down far enough, but b) said Truth is entirely subjective depending on if you're the good guys or the bad guys.

So nobody really trusts Science like they did when I was a wee lass, if only because we know from watching TV that it can mean anything Gil Grissom wants it to mean. Or whatever your high-priced lawyer wants it to mean. Nevermind that CSI is really really bad science--it's what people think they know that is most dangerous.
 
2013-03-08 11:09:25 PM  

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

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



TED talks are given by the intellectual class in support of the ruling class. Anyone who has a clue is aware of that. There's some pokemon cards on it if you want to learn.
 
2013-03-08 11:25:12 PM  

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

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


If he's so loud, how come I'd never even heard of him until almost a decade after he died?

As an argument against global warming, this is right up there with "Algore is fat!".
 
2013-03-09 12:31:08 AM  

leadmetal: Name calling, insults, blah blah blah.

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

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


[...]


Hear here.
 
2013-03-09 12:35:40 AM  
Keep banging that drum, subby. Maybe someday your dreams of relevance will come true.

/bang
//bang bang
 
2013-03-09 12:37:17 AM  

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

We're in the hotter part of space now.


This is why I read the internet, for the lulz.

Could you imagine if we ended up in an area of space where the vacuum was so cold it was within mere degrees of absolute zero?

I'm guessing the sun would freeze.
 
2013-03-09 12:56:31 AM  

Mithiwithi: If he's so loud, how come I'd never even heard of him until almost a decade after he died?


Yeah. Like the writings of Ayn Rand died the moment she did. Right?
 
2013-03-09 01:07:55 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: fix what?
is there any proof that global warming, I mean climate change, is bad?


How about the number of cities that have been built at sea level?
Here is just a small list of very large ones (I have homes in two of them).
But seriously...why was there any need to post this? Have you never thought of it?
 
2013-03-09 01:08:03 AM  

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

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

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

Well, at least he isn't a hypocrite.

Actually, he did in fact kill himself.


That still doesn't make him a hypocrite
 
2013-03-09 02:10:52 AM  

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


You have just demonstrated a stupidity so profound that I cannot even begin to address it.

That's it, folks, I'm done for the night. Be sure to tip your server, and shut the lights off when you leave.
 
2013-03-09 02:15:18 AM  

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

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

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

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

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


An object. A star. All kinds of things.

Literally anything other than "the interstellar medium" would be more accurate. It would be more accurate to call the Sun a kangaroo.
 
2013-03-09 02:22:35 AM  
fools!  the goddam internet is what's causing global warming.  and who invented the internet? Al goddam Gore.
 
2013-03-09 03:22:44 AM  

occamswrist: LookForTheArrow: leadmetal:

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

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

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

He didn't say that. He said they are similarly motivated to support whoever signs their paychecks.

And why does a climatologist's annual salary mean they are beyond reproach? People kill trying to steal $100 farking shoes.

Attributing well-known global warming to CO2 while ignoring other variables to support a multi-decade hatred of fossile fuels isn't so far fetched. We've all heard the saying correlation doesn't prove causation -- except when it comes to global warming apparently.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/#more - 11057

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/marcott-et-al-claim-of-unpreced e nted-warming-compared-to-gisp-ice-core-data/#more-81694


So, you're saying that "It's all a conspiracy by many thousands of scientists with funding from different sources!" is more likely than it being, you know, real? Tell ya what... right now, CO2 is a VERY strong fit to everything we're seeing, and explained by very well known and tested mechanisms. If you have a better explanation, I'm sure the world would love to hear it. By the way, invoking "correlation is not causation" is not a magic spell. As Randall Munroe puts it, "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."


TV's Vinnie: Mithiwithi: If he's so loud, how come I'd never even heard of him until almost a decade after he died?

Yeah. Like the writings of Ayn Rand died the moment she did. Right?


They should have:  http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-se cur ity-medicare/

Money quote: "Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. "
 
2013-03-09 03:33:02 AM  
 "We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly."

BULLshiat.
The fluctuations during the ice ages were much larger at times. At least according to the ice core records.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Mile-Time-Machine-Abrupt-Climate/dp/069110 29 61
Alley would like to have a word with the author about ice age data.
 
2013-03-09 05:20:09 AM  

namatad: "We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly."

BULLshiat.
The fluctuations during the ice ages were much larger at times. At least according to the ice core records.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Mile-Time-Machine-Abrupt-Climate/dp/069110 29 61
Alley would like to have a word with the author about ice age data.


They said "quickly."
You said "larger."

The two measurements--time and magnitude--are completely separate from one another. You need to go to bed.
 
2013-03-09 06:09:56 AM  
Study is based on marine fossil record.

Data extrapolated several times.

That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.

/sounds legit
//if I can buy, browbeat and cajole enough people to say the same thing then it must be true.
 
2013-03-09 06:25:48 AM  

thrgd456: Study is based on marine fossil record.

Data extrapolated several times.

That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.

/sounds legit
//if I can buy, browbeat and cajole enough people to say the same thing then it must be true.


Well if your gut says it's wrong then we can all go ahead and ignore all them fancy folks with their high falutin' book learnin'!! What has it ever done for us anyway?!?
 
2013-03-09 07:48:57 AM  

jvl: According to this study, global warming may be keeping us out of an ice age, and the warming happened between 1930 and 1940 even though actual thermometers failed to observe the warming.

A single study. Let's not overthink this.

/ Although.... 1930s had the most hurricanes in a season until the Katrina-season surpassed it...


Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
2013-03-09 09:02:23 AM  

Farking Canuck: That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.


Except for the fact that these are scientists, and you're someone who doesn't understand what the fossil record is.
 
2013-03-09 09:08:34 AM  

Infernalist: Even a minor exchange of nuclear weaponry would be enough to fark all of us.


YOu mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't do?
 
2013-03-09 09:12:18 AM  

Infernalist:

That's the thing about science today. If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties. Is it free of bias? Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.
How about if a couple of scientists -- the ones who keep the global data sets -- "enhance" the data, and then claim that the dog ate the original data?  Actually, I don't think a dog was blamed, but the data no longer exist.  Personally, I'd say that if you're using "just trust me" data, you're NOT doing science.... and welcome to modern climatology.
 
2013-03-09 09:13:48 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Farking Canuck: That's like me reading a record of how much a person in ancient Greece pooped and calculating "scientifically" his body temperature.

Except for the fact that these are scientists, and you're someone who doesn't understand what the fossil record is.


You've quoted the wrong person here. I did not say that.
 
2013-03-09 09:14:05 AM  

Gawdzila: In the future it is likely that we will have alternatives to petroleum


Like what? Trees?
Or "technology"?
Yes, let me put some technology in my tank.
Where can I buy it and how much per gallon does it cost?
 
2013-03-09 09:15:50 AM  

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


You should publish a paper on that.

But I'd do some math first if I were you.

And Co2 is really easy to measure:
schoolworkhelper.net
 
2013-03-09 09:17:37 AM  

GeneralJim: Infernalist: That's the thing about science today. If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties. Is it free of bias? Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.How about if a couple of scientists -- the ones who keep the global data sets -- "enhance" the data, and then claim that the dog ate the original data?  Actually, I don't think a dog was blamed, but the data no longer exist.  Personally, I'd say that if you're using "just trust me" data, you're NOT doing science.... and welcome to modern climatology.


Yay! The thread has died down enough that the green thread-shiatter can post walls of lies unopposed!

Today he describes how not all scientists are corrupt ... they are all just so stupid that they can easily be tricked by the few corrupt ones!! It is such a likely story ... so believable ... how can anyone doubt our benevolent oil barons when they point out how evil scientists are??
 
2013-03-09 09:57:41 AM  

Farking Canuck: - we are already too high


Too early in the day for me.
 
2013-03-09 09:59:13 AM  

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




We sacrifice to the road gods everyday.
 
2013-03-09 10:09:24 AM  

Time for a reality check....


o  Earth normally does not have ice caps.  It does now, which makes now an ice age, using the geological term.

o  While we are in an ice age, we have about 100,000 years of major glaciation ("ice age," colloquially) and around 12,000 of interglacial.

o We are most of the way through our brief (geologically speaking) interglacial period.

o The question "Is the Earth warming or cooling?"  Cannot be accurately answered without a reference to time frame.  For example:

-  Earth has stopped warming for the last 16 years, and should cool now for 20-30 years.

-  Considering the last 30 years, it has warmed.  The thirty years before that, it cooled.

-  We are in the warming part of a 1600 year cycle, with around 400 years to go.

-  Longer scale, we have been cooling for 8,000 years, and will go into a major glaciation (ice age) soon -- geologically.

-  We've been in a geologic ice age for about 20 million years, and are about half done.

-  When the ice age is over, we'll be about 10 K (10 degrees Celsius) warmer.  That period should last more than 100 million years.

 
2013-03-09 10:53:43 AM  

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

Sweet.

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

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

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

- we are already too high

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

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

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

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


Hey, you never know. You might change your mind in a few years and start working towards a goal. Of course, you might get taken out in a massive auto wreck.
 
2013-03-09 11:20:01 AM  
Don't let that "Medieval Warm Period" get in the way!
 
2013-03-09 11:51:29 AM  

blatz514: Was it farting?  I'm going with farting.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 238x170]

RUSTY!


I already went with farting. Sorry.
 
2013-03-09 12:00:19 PM  

GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....


all systems fail.
 
2013-03-09 12:06:26 PM  

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

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

He's not a donkey.  He's a hippo.  And stealthy, like this one:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


Are you sure he's not attacky and chargy, like this one?

www.world-insights.com
 
2013-03-09 12:09:44 PM  
I call BS
 
2013-03-09 01:14:57 PM  

GeneralJim: Infernalist: That's the thing about science today. If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties. Is it free of bias? Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.How about if a couple of scientists -- the ones who keep the global data sets -- "enhance" the data, and then claim that the dog ate the original data?  Actually, I don't think a dog was blamed, but the data no longer exist.  Personally, I'd say that if you're using "just trust me" data, you're NOT doing science.... and welcome to modern climatology.


And if you think that's the basis for modern climatology, you are a fool.
 
2013-03-09 01:58:29 PM  
People, PLEASE stop fapping to pics of Evelyn Nesbit!  For the planet's sake!

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-09 02:13:32 PM  

GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....


o  Earth normally does not have ice caps.  It does now, which makes now an ice age, using the geological term.

o  While we are in an ice age, we have about 100,000 years of major glaciation ("ice age," colloquially) and around 12,000 of interglacial.

o We are most of the way through our brief (geologically speaking) interglacial period.

o The question "Is the Earth warming or cooling?"  Cannot be accurately answered without a reference to time frame.  For example:


Not bad so far, let's see if your "reality check" continues to match with reality.


GeneralJim: -  Earth has stopped warming for the last 16 years, and should cool now for 20-30 years.


Guess not. One false claim, and one bit of prognostication.

GeneralJim: -  Considering the last 30 years, it has warmed.  The thirty years before that, it cooled.


Half reality, half not (the second bit):

www.woodfortrees.org


GeneralJim: -  Longer scale, we have been cooling for 8,000 years, and will go into a major glaciation (ice age) soon -- geologically.

-  We've been in a geologic ice age for about 20 million years, and are about half done.

-  When the ice age is over, we'll be about 10 K (10 degrees Celsius) warmer.  That period should last more than 100 million years.


Questionable, especially with no evidence to back it up.

So, some false claims in there mixed with some questionable ones, with some random facts included that have no reasoning or inferences attached to them. Not quite a reality check.
 
2013-03-09 02:27:17 PM  

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

You should publish a paper on that.

But I'd do some math first if I were you.

And Co2 is really easy to measure:
[schoolworkhelper.net image 600x505]


Interesting that he CO2 line spikes way the hell up at the very end, but the temperature line doesn't.
 
2013-03-09 03:15:08 PM  

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

You should publish a paper on that.

But I'd do some math first if I were you.

And Co2 is really easy to measure:
[schoolworkhelper.net image 600x505]


99.9% of your graph is completely made up data.  No, you don't have measured temperature or CO2 in the atmosphere readings from more than 3k years ago.
 
2013-03-09 03:40:30 PM  
Sweet.  better hurry up  and tax CO2 before its too late.  Hopefully the UN will get around to taxing H20 vapor since we all know that it has 4x the heat capacity of CO2.  Probably we should get rid of the pesky ocean while we're at it.  Life should be free and convenient to our moreal whims.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report