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  
•       •       •

5492 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 6:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-09 04:10:53 PM  
wow general  zipdoes only post after it settles down.. i think his reality has too hot a cup of tea attached to it.
 
2013-03-09 04:24:12 PM  

Wook: Sweet.  better hurry up  and tax CO2 before its too late.  Hopefully the UN will get around to taxing H20 vapor since we all know that it has 4x the heat capacity of CO2.  Probably we should get rid of the pesky ocean while we're at it.  Life should be free and convenient to our moreal whims.


Hah. Someone called it upthread. Who gets the free beer?
 
2013-03-09 07:28:50 PM  

Fast Thick Pants: Wow, the Koch-funded alts are out in force... I guess that's Friday night for ya.


Oh, puh-leeze. I don't think any of the astro-turfers are that dumb. It's after the propaganda has been filtered through a few heads as dim as Karl Pilkington that you get this level of bare-faced and fact-free assertion.

Deniers aren't even trying any more. Their factoids and arguments have worn so thread-bare that they're just trolling now--seeing how ridiculous they have to be to get a response.
 
2013-03-09 07:36:07 PM  
GeneralJim - the reasonable face of climate change denial.
 
2013-03-09 07:56:03 PM  

nickerj1: Marcus Aurelius: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

You should publish a paper on that.

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

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

99.9% of your graph is completely made up data.  No, you don't have measured temperature or CO2 in the atmosphere readings from more than 3k years ago.


Ah, the old "Only direct temperature readings from a thermometer are valid" play.
 
2013-03-09 08:24:27 PM  
The Koch Brothers (and their siblings) (their name s pronounced COKE, to rhyme with COKE, the product of the partial combustion of coal, used as an industrial fuel) own the second largest private conglomeration of companies in America.

They own the coal. They own the gas and the petroleum. They own the logging rights to millions of acres of Government land. They are the miners and deforesters and the corporate farmers.
 They don't care about the politics provided they can buy their own way.


They own the Senators in the states where their money is invested. A politician they don't own is dead.

They own the Government of the State of Wisconsin, which used to be liberal and cool because it was full of Scandinavians and farmer coops.

They have been buying up university Economics departments and converting them to Libertarian think tanks, which have as much to do with economic realities as Creationism has to do with physics, chemistry, geology and especially biology.

They don't care about the science.

They don't care if alternative energy is feasible and cheap. They don't care about low-hanging fruit and energy convservation. THEY OWN THE COAL. If, as the science suggests, we have to stop burning coal, natural gas, and petroleum for at least the next thousand years, it ceases to be worth trillions of dollars (even in the ground). It stays in the ground. It is worth nada.

You go from $25 billion to nothing. In six seconds.

The countries that are holding up global policy and action have a lot of fossil fuels in the ground or are burning a lot of them. Exceptions include Norway, which is sequestering about a third of the carbon from their oil fields, and Cuba, which apparently hasn't got the money or the technology to get at the natural gas and oil under its territorial waters. They may even be afraid to acknowledge how much bounty they are sitting on because they know the marines would be in Havana six days later.

And so it goes, and so it goes ....

The Kochs own the coal. They and others like them in other countries, know that the upshot of climate change is this: THE COAL WILL HAVE TO STAY IN THE GROUND.

Today, tomorrow, five hundred years from now, no matter. Because THEY OWN THE COAL, ALL OF THE COAL, AND SOME OF THEM, NOTHING BUT THE COAL.

This coal is worth trillions of dollars, as is the natural gas and the oil and the coke. Even in the ground, although it is not taxed until you take it out, if then. And they get billions of dollars of subsidies to look for it, find it and keep it in the ground until it is wanted. There is enough coal alone to keep us going for hundreds of years. THEY OWN IT ALL!

But the day that we do what we must in order to avoid the terrible, unimaginably expensive externalities of burning the carbon in the ground and destroying the forests and wilderness and farmland--that day is the day that their net worths fall to ZERO. Not a plugged Canadian penny's worth of coal. No price on coal at all--ever.

That is the fact that you should always bear in mind.

Slim Pickens is invested in wind power. Warren Buffett is a smart guy, but he is buying railroads because he suspects that pipelines aren't going to be popular. George Soros is George Soros--he helped to free Eastern Europe as much as Reagan, the Pope and God Almighty combined. But he is off doing something else, perhaps something none of the other super-rich guys are doing. And so is Bill Gates III.

But understanding the dinosaurian, predatory coal magnate minds of the Koch Brothers is all you really need to understand, and if you don't, it doesn't matter if you are a warmer or a denier because you just don't get it.
 
2013-03-09 09:31:10 PM  
brantgoose: Slim Pickens is invested in wind power

www.nndb.com

Pretty sure Slim's days with "wind power" are over.

More likely he's focused on below-ground interests, these days.


/I'll be here all week
//Don't forget to tip your waitress
/// Try the T. Boone
 
2013-03-09 11:03:26 PM  

brantgoose: But understanding the dinosaurian, predatory coal magnate minds of the Koch Brothers is all you really need to understand, and if you don't, it doesn't matter if you are a warmer or a denier because you just don't get it.


It doesn't really matt even if you DO get it, unless you have billions of dollars to throw around towards influencing policy. Power does what it wants.
 
2013-03-10 03:31:21 AM  
Just reposting this from the other thread. GeneralJim managed to surprise me and argue in a rational manner for a bit, before he fell back into his usual patterns. I'm reposting this in the hope that he will return to a rational mind-set later on.


GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: What you're outlining is the exact reason why your claim that anthropogenic climate change is "part of a single cycle of climate" isn't supported by the line of reasoning you tend to use with very long-term graphs.
It most certainly IS. Allow me to illustrate: If you measured global warming from 4:00 a.m. at each site, and stopped at 4:00 p.m. for one day only, and based your conclusions on that, you would get way too much time, because the longer, 24 hour circadian cycle interferes -- the site was warming already, from the transition from night to day.  To anything reasonable with the data you collected, assuming you could not continue collecting it, you would have to factor OUT the normal 4:00 a.m. to 4:00 rise in temperature.  What is LEFT might be at least slightly amenable to teasing out a factor.
And that is exactly what you are doing, with different time scales.  Right now, in 2013, it's about 1:00 p.m. in the example, and you started measuring at about 8:30 a.m., if we look at the 1600 year climate cycle as starting the warming at 4:00 a.m., and lasting 24 hours.  In our "day," it is as important to remove the effects of the 'background' warming as it is if we were taking the readings described above.


Hey, we also agree for the most part on the basics here, and I do appreciate the fact that you've tried to address the argument in a rational manner. However, I'm not sure you realize that the line of reasoning you've used ultimately argues against your own previous position, and in two ways.

First, if one needs to "remove the effects of the 'background' warming", then the approach you've chosen won't work for this, because, as you previously stated, shorter-term processes (like ENSO and anthropogenic climate change) "don't show up much on a longer-term graph". What this means is that the coarse resolution necessitated by a long scale means that shorter-term processes are not portrayed. This is what I was getting at when I stated that your line of argument would argue equally against the contribution of ENSO as it would the current warming trend - any shorter-term process would 'disappear' due to the lack of resolution in the long scale you've chosen. Put another way, by choosing to use a long-term graph, you lose the resolution to be able to distinguish short-term processes in the first place - and would therefore conclude no matter what "a situation which is part of a single cycle of climate" regardless of the existence or amount of change due to short-term processes. Heck, you could have an apocalyptic bunch of meteors raising the earth's temperature by a degree and you would still conclude that it would be "a situation which is part of a single cycle of climate".

Second, and more importantly, the necessity you highlight of removing different factors is fundamentally different from the approach you tend to use. As I have stated to you on more than one occasion, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple regression or correlation - your eye-balling of graphs is even worse.  The idea that you need to "factor out" other changes would argue against the eyeballing of graphs that you use. Think about it like this - if we use the example you've just put forward, would you be able to 'eyeball' the temperature change due to global warming on a graph showing a 24-hour period? Of course not - and you would mistakenly conclude, as you did previously that what you were seeing is"a situation which is part of a single cycle". That does not mean it doesn't exist - you would need to understand the underlying processes and mechanisms and from that attempt to decompose their contribution to temperature.


All that aside, let me repeat that I do appreciate the fact that you've chosen to respond in a rational manner, and I think this line of argument gets to heart of the matter. I'll carry this forward to the next thread if you don't manage to respond by the time this thread closes.
 
2013-03-10 04:14:17 AM  

HighZoolander:

GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....

all systems fail.
Okay, Bucky...  How about you point out ONE thing in that post that is not true?  Or, of course, you could STFU.
 
2013-03-10 09:08:05 AM  
Urantia book != evidence
 
2013-03-10 09:19:54 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Time for a reality check....

all systems fail.Okay, Bucky...  How about you point out ONE thing in that post that is not true?  Or, of course, you could STFU.


Well, you could address one of the falsehoods I pointed out already. Or, of course, you could heed your own advice ;)
 
2013-03-11 08:14:57 PM  

vygramul:

Urantia book != evidence

So far, YOU are the only jackass using it as evidence. Granted, it IS specious evidence, retardedly used in ad hominem attack, but, still...
 
2013-03-11 08:43:15 PM  

GeneralJim: vygramul: Urantia book != evidence
So far, YOU are the only jackass using it as evidence. Granted, it IS specious evidence, retardedly used in ad hominem attack, but, still...


Are you reading people's minds again? Which hominem am I attacking ad? I posted a non-sequitur.
 
2013-03-11 11:03:56 PM  
I'll just leave this here:

Somebody thinks the Urantia Book is science but likes to pretend what he posts on the internet isn't forever.
 
2013-03-11 11:55:25 PM  

Farking Canuck: I'll just leave this here:

Somebody thinks the Urantia Book is science but likes to pretend what he posts on the internet isn't forever.


ah fark, the gift that keeps on giving :)
 
Displayed 16 of 366 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | 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