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.

(Science Blogs)   Good news: The climate "hockey stick" is a misnomer. Bad news: It should actually be the climate "reaper scythe." EVERYBODY PANIC   (scienceblogs.com) divider line 221
    More: Scary, hockey sticks, Grim Reaper, misnomer, climate  
•       •       •

4267 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2013 at 1:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-22 09:09:26 PM  

SunsetLament: Let me know when we're back to pretending we're all about to freeze to death again.


Another idiot who get's their science from the media. I'm sure you have a lot to offer to the conversation.
 
2013-03-22 09:27:29 PM  

RedVentrue: FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x414]

You OK Floyd? Now I ain't complaining, but there's suddenly a lot of girly arse in my GW thread. :)



From Thread # 7655664

"The anti-science position can be summarized as follows: "climate is not changing, and if it is, it's not our fault, and if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it, and if we could do something about it it would cost to much anyway."

This is an incredibly stupid argument, so the only appropriate response to it is mockery.  I propose that rather than insults, we just post (SFW) pictures of pretty posteriors in reply to climate change deniers.  That way, at least the non-stupid people will get some benefit from the thread.  What do you say? "


The type of people who want to pretend that we don't have to worry about climate change are, to be blunt, stupid.  They are simply not capable of engaging in productive discussion.  Anyone who denies that cumulative pollution is a problem is just a f**king idiot who is demonstrably not qualified to talk about the subject and simply not worth listening to.

So, my proposal is that those of us who have at least some modicum of interest and intellectual capacity should discuss possible responses to the problem with each other.  When a denier or some other moron shows up and starts blathering about whatever Fox News told him to say, we shouldn't bother to respond, since it's pointless.  Deniers will not be swayed by evidence and logic.  So instead, just post a picture of an attractive butt.  Spending time actually trying to explain science to the people who deny climate change is a waste of time- they are either too stupid or too dishonest to grasp the concepts.  An eloquent, detailed, empirically supported, and thoroughly cited explanation won't change their mind, because their opinions are not based on facts, evidence or logic.  A picture of a nice butt  also won't change their minds, so it is exactly as effective, but has the added benefits of (1) being much more enjoyable for the rest of us to look at, and (2) being much quicker to post.
 
2013-03-22 10:04:35 PM  
So here's the bottom line: it's too late to do anything about it. Really. No industrialized nation is going to undertake the drastic CO2 cuts necessary to level off global warming. And even if we do, and Europe does, China, Russia, Brazil, India etc. sure as hell won't. So the whole "is global warming real" debate is largely academic. Because nothing's going to change.

/fatalism
 
2013-03-22 10:11:47 PM  

kazikian: So here's the bottom line: it's too late to do anything about it. Really. No industrialized nation is going to undertake the drastic CO2 cuts necessary to level off global warming. And even if we do, and Europe does, China, Russia, Brazil, India etc. sure as hell won't. So the whole "is global warming real" debate is largely academic. Because nothing's going to change.

/fatalism


Wow ... the deniers all seem to be singing a new tune today. Did a Fox News memo go out saying: "We are utterly failing when we debate science so, from now on, just whine about not being able to do anything!"
 
2013-03-22 10:26:17 PM  

MyRandomName: T-Servo: I'm sure nothing will change with all this extra CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It's not like the greenhouse effect is governed by the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything...

Yes. The laws of physics. Such as absorption beimg logarithmic, not linear.


Most environmental systems are non-linear, and I never claimed otherwise. What's your point?
 
2013-03-22 11:09:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: kazikian: So here's the bottom line: it's too late to do anything about it. Really. No industrialized nation is going to undertake the drastic CO2 cuts necessary to level off global warming. And even if we do, and Europe does, China, Russia, Brazil, India etc. sure as hell won't. So the whole "is global warming real" debate is largely academic. Because nothing's going to change.

/fatalism

Wow ... the deniers all seem to be singing a new tune today. Did a Fox News memo go out saying: "We are utterly failing when we debate science so, from now on, just whine about not being able to do anything!"


I am not a denier. I believe in global warming. I have no idea how bad it'll get, but I keep my options open; could be nothing, could be the end of the world, could be margaritas for me in December. I really don't know. What I do know is it's too late to change things. No one will agree to a truly drastic CO2 cut, and any minor gains we do achieve will be just that: minor. In sum: "we don't need no water, let the motherfarker burn. Burn, motherfarker, burn."
 
2013-03-22 11:45:33 PM  

kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things


I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.
 
2013-03-22 11:56:40 PM  

Farking Canuck: kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things

I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.


Also directly contrary to what American culture has been about for the last century or so.  Until relatively recently, any sort of challenge was met with the decision to try damn hard to succeed.  Sad to see really.

bindlestiff2600: just thoughts (no snark intended)

if the world temperature goes up
shouldnt we expect more moisture in the air?
    if so shouldnt we see an increase of air pressure over time?

as world temperature goes up
  shouldnt we expect expansion of the layers of atmosphere?
  is the timberline going up or down or staying the same ?


The problem with your first question is that water is a self-correctly issue.  Simply: it rains out.  There will be a small increase in water vapor in the troposphere, but not enough to increase air pressure much.  As I recall, the Troposphere is expected to expand somewhat as average temperature increases.
 
2013-03-23 12:03:14 AM  
Zafler:

Also directly contrary to what American culture has been about for the last century or so.

Exactly. That's where I was going with my modern reinterpretation of the famous JFK quote earlier in the thread.
 
2013-03-23 12:33:23 AM  

FloydA: RedVentrue: FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x414]

You OK Floyd? Now I ain't complaining, but there's suddenly a lot of girly arse in my GW thread. :)


From Thread # 7655664

"The anti-science position can be summarized as follows: "climate is not changing, and if it is, it's not our fault, and if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it, and if we could do something about it it would cost to much anyway."

This is an incredibly stupid argument, so the only appropriate response to it is mockery.  I propose that rather than insults, we just post (SFW) pictures of pretty posteriors in reply to climate change deniers.  That way, at least the non-stupid people will get some benefit from the thread.  What do you say? "

The type of people who want to pretend that we don't have to worry about climate change are, to be blunt, stupid.  They are simply not capable of engaging in productive discussion.  Anyone who denies that cumulative pollution is a problem is just a f**king idiot who is demonstrably not qualified to talk about the subject and simply not worth listening to.

So, my proposal is that those of us who have at least some modicum of interest and intellectual capacity should discuss possible ...


So it's an arse diversion technique?
 
2013-03-23 12:34:01 AM  

nekom: I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.


Can you at least accept the possibility that perhaps our actions are having some measurable effect on the world around us? If so, could you realistically argue that the effects of our actions are positive, overall?
 
2013-03-23 02:13:15 AM  

Baryogenesis:

These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.

Really?  You think so?  I LOVE that technique of putting ninety squiggling lines on a chart and saying "SEE?" although it shows pretty much nothing.  If you look separately, the ones with Mann, Jones, and Briffa involved do, 'cause they're all cheating on the same game, with the same data.  But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle, as corrected:
www.drroyspencer.com

Lest one think that this is a flier somehow, the following is from Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.  It uses different data.  The one constant is that the crappy tree-ring data is left out, rather than given extra weight, as Mann did.  Observe the similarity with Loehle's work:


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

Now, let's look at the two together:


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-23 02:29:27 AM  

FloydA:

i105.photobucket.com

FloydA - the only worthwhile ass-poster on the thread.  That is all.
 
2013-03-23 02:40:31 AM  

robhidalgo:

nekom: I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.

Can you at least accept the possibility that perhaps our actions are having some measurable effect on the world around us? If so, could you realistically argue that the effects of our actions are positive, overall?

First question: Yes.  Not what's claimed, but measurable.

Second question: No freaking way.  We are over-fishing, over-planting, over-consuming, over-excreting, over-polluting, and the summary problem: we are over-breeding.  About the only GOOD thing we're doing is releasing carbon dioxide into the air.  We were, pre-industry, only about 50% away from a major extinction event.  In other words, if we had done something which dragged half of the carbon dioxide out of the air, instead of increasing it, a good percentage of life on Earth would have died.

 
2013-03-23 02:41:16 AM  
George Walker Bush 2013-03-22 04:10:24 PM
(farky'd as: Miserable Failure)

*pppfffrrrrrrtt*


Go paint.
 
2013-03-23 04:15:02 AM  

GeneralJim: But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle


LOL.  The paper that didn't pass peer review for any reputable journal, was widely panned and ended up in the junk journal  Energy and Environment? Yeah, typical denier bullshiat, as always.  Find the one (discredited) paper that aligns with your view and hold it up as the only correct one (with no explanation why) despite its internal problems and dozens of better papers that contradict it.

For those who don't know, one of the main reasons the Loehle paper was panned was that many of the proxies used were of low resolution (error bars +/- 400 years on one data set).
 
2013-03-23 06:20:52 AM  

Farking Canuck: kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things

I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.


Your mom's pathetic and idiotic.

QED, biatch.
 
2013-03-23 06:34:33 AM  

Farking Canuck: kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things

I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.


You again.

Saying "do nothing" about global warming is not even remotely anti-science. You obviously have no idea what science is. You think it's some kind of religion or political movement. Seriously, unless you can prove otherwise, you are not qualified to define "science" and I will be pointing this out whenever you imply such on Fark.

/NAME studied philosophy of science at university. csb.
 
2013-03-23 06:40:11 AM  

Farking Canuck: Farking Canuck: Great. Another thread full of "Joe Sixpacks" who have been told by their politician that scientists are all corrupt.

FIFM


You really are a prick, aren't you. Not all intellectuals need to seperate themselves from the general population using elitism. Those that do are usually fakers anyway. Like you, I suspect. Go meet some real people and get over yourself.
 
2013-03-23 08:53:05 AM  

Baryogenesis:

GeneralJim: But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle

LOL.  The paper that didn't pass peer review for any reputable journal, was widely panned and ended up in the junk journal  Energy and Environment? Yeah, typical denier bullshiat, as always.  Find the one (discredited) paper that aligns with your view and hold it up as the only correct one (with no explanation why) despite its internal problems and dozens of better papers that contradict it.

For those who don't know, one of the main reasons the Loehle paper was panned was that many of the proxies used were of low resolution (error bars +/- 400 years on one data set).

Typical alarmist crap.  Tree rings -- which are heavily weighted in the Mann study, and cherry-picked by Briffa, are no good as a proxy for temperatures.  Tree ring width shows that, in the normal growing times, the tree grew more.  The same tree ring widths are ALSO used as a proxy for rainfall.  Cold and rainy gives the same results as hotter and dryer.

And that is not the only problem with them...  If you have a situation where days are warmer, and nights are cooler, let's assume by the same amount, it shows as warmer.  Trees don't grow at night, so if a temperature shift is not the same during the day and night, tree rings give false results.  Trees also do not grow during the winters, so any temperature changes that happen in the winter simply do not show up.

This is the process of the warmer alarmist hoax -- any science that does not agree with the group-think is shunned.  Any journal that publishes papers not in agreement with the group think are punished and berated.  And, any scientist who does not toe the line is shunned, finds it impossible to get funding for research, and is sometimes fired.  Intimidation has no place in science.

Observe what we know about Keith Briffa's data.  The closer we get to the present, the more data collection is done -- that's the general rule.  But Briffa's data set drops off precipitously, down to ten, and then to five trees, which alone determine his temperature line.  And the "hockey stick" only shows up when the number of trees are dropped.  So, the question arises: how do the trees that were dropped chart out?   Well, like this:

www.climate-skeptic.com

Read about the fraudulent practices of this circle-jerk of scientists HERE.

 
2013-03-23 09:11:24 AM  
But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.
 
2013-03-23 09:45:56 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: draypresct: brantgoose: In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time?

You're treating Earth as a homogenous population. The question of whether we're over- or under-capacity (in terms of food and resources) is really a nation-by-nation question. The US has enough food for its population. North Korea is over its food-growing capacity. Whether these differences result in bloody conflict and destruction is a complex question not easily answered by simple statistical extrapolation.

Minor quibble side note: It's a "logistic" curve, not "logistics". Logistics has to do with military supplies and transportation.

"North Korea is over its food-growing capacity "

Ummmmm......  Wow. That's one hell of a misdirect there, Alice. Beautiful euphemism. Reality check: Could, just possibly, the reason that NK's population exceeds it's food-growing capacity is that it is a totalitarian hell-hole where privately owned farms and therefore private incentive don't exist?


The entire point of my post was to illustrate that Earth is not homogenous in terms of food resources, and that treating it as such is an ovesimplification. Different regions have different resources. The reasons for these differences can be political and/or geographic and/or economic and/or random chance.

The tone of your post indicates you don't believe differences exist, and that North Korea is somehow an unfair example. Can you support your apparent position; namely that food resources are equally available to all?

To be honest, I thought the original oversimplification was either an oversight or a deliberate summary in order to keep their post from getting too long. I didn't actually think I'd run into someone who thought that food is equally available worldwide.

/I know, welcome to the politics tab.
 
2013-03-23 09:47:57 AM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.
Really?  You think so?  I LOVE that technique of putting ninety squiggling lines on a chart and saying "SEE?" although it shows pretty much nothing.  If you look separately, the ones with Mann, Jones, and Briffa involved do, 'cause they're all cheating on the same game, with the same data.  But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle, as corrected:

Lest one think that this is a flier somehow, the following is from Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.  It uses different data.  The one constant is that the crappy tree-ring data is left out, rather than given extra weight, as Mann did.  Observe the similarity with Loehle's work:

Now, let's look at the two together:


If there was a link I missed, I apologize, but why did the first graph you posted have a dotted line starting a little before 1950? Usually, dotted lines connote extrapolation.
 
2013-03-23 11:51:47 AM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.
Really?  You think so?  I LOVE that technique of putting ninety squiggling lines on a chart and saying "SEE?" although it shows pretty much nothing.  If you look separately, the ones with Mann, Jones, and Briffa involved do, 'cause they're all cheating on the same game, with the same data.  But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle, as corrected:
[www.drroyspencer.com image 528x336]
Lest one think that this is a flier somehow, the following is from Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.  It uses different data.  The one constant is that the crappy tree-ring data is left out, rather than given extra weight, as Mann did.  Observe the similarity with Loehle's work:
[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 782x417]
Now, let's look at the two together:
[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 557x327]



Now, let's look at the two together with Mann 2008 so we can actually make comparisons. Let's also tack on the instrumental record:

www.skepticalscience.com

There's differences between different reconstructions, of course, but nothing all that radical.
 
2013-03-23 11:53:20 AM  

draypresct: The tone of your post indicates you don't believe differences exist, and that North Korea is somehow an unfair example.


No, the tone of his post indicates it's not a matter of simple overpopulation, as you did indeed imply.

He does not disagree, only states that the problem is a complicated one, not to be judged only by food/population ratios.

NK is a "special case", in that you're comparing it to the US which has a completely different political state.  NK's drastic over population in comparison to it's existing food could be remedied by a regime change, and as such, NK is not a proper example of a place that's simply reproduced outside of it's means.

But even if it were apt, it would be comparable to any major city in the US.  If distribution is not allowed in the consideration, every City, Denver to NY are just as bad.

Defining by nationality is kind of misleading as it were.  You'd need to expand to a clearly definable region.

Take Denver, and the landmass that's required to feed it and use that as a base.

That exists on most places on the globe, but specific people/governments inhibit the process of getting them all fed.
Not so much just the nature of the land and the tendency for people to mindlessly over-breed.

Or, more simply.  The shortages of food are commonly a problem created by management, an artificial problem, not a problem of numbers of food/people as a natural state.

If you want to illustrate a specific point, I'd suggest you find a sample other than NK.  Regions more oriented in Africa maybe..what there's tyranny and oppression there as well?  Shirley, you jest.

We're not overtaxing the planet, we're overtaxing man's ability and desire to manage it efficiently..
 
2013-03-23 12:03:33 PM  

GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.


This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.
 
2013-03-23 12:11:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: GeneralJim: But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle

LOL.  The paper that didn't pass peer review for any reputable journal, was widely panned and ended up in the junk journal  Energy and Environment? Yeah, typical denier bullshiat, as always.  Find the one (discredited) paper that aligns with your view and hold it up as the only correct one (with no explanation why) despite its internal problems and dozens of better papers that contradict it.

For those who don't know, one of the main reasons the Loehle paper was panned was that many of the proxies used were of low resolution (error bars +/- 400 years on one data set).
Typical alarmist crap.  Tree rings -- which are heavily weighted in the Mann study, and cherry-picked by Briffa, are no good as a proxy for temperatures.  Tree ring width shows that, in the normal growing times, the tree grew more.  The same tree ring widths are ALSO used as a proxy for rainfall.  Cold and rainy gives the same results as hotter and dryer.
And that is not the only problem with them...  If you have a situation where days are warmer, and nights are cooler, let's assume by the same amount, it shows as warmer.  Trees don't grow at night, so if a temperature shift is not the same during the day and night, tree rings give false results.  Trees also do not grow during the winters, so any temperature changes that happen in the winter simply do not show up.This is the process of the warmer alarmist hoax -- any science that does not agree with the group-think is shunned.  Any journal that publishes papers not in agreement with the group think are punished and berated.  And, any scientist who does not toe the line is shunned, finds it impossible to get funding for research, and is sometimes fired.  Intimidation has no place in science.Observe what we know about Keith Briffa's data.  The closer we get to the present, the more data coll ...


Luckily, we can look at Mann's reconstruction with and without tree ring data:

i55.tinypic.com
There are differences, of course, but not all that much. Of course, you have had the above pointed out to you repeatedly over the course of several years.
 
2013-03-23 12:11:51 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers


irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.
 
2013-03-23 12:19:42 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.


By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317
 
2013-03-23 12:31:55 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.


not a democracy
not democratic

Oops!  Hate it when I fall victim to changing my mind and poor editing.

Anyhow, I think a lot of people misunderstand a popular theory.(from the applicable wiki)

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

I find it amusing that amid constant claims of how we don't understand science, they themselves prove pretty consistently that they do have that flaw.
 
2013-03-23 12:42:53 PM  
oi50.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-23 12:44:43 PM  

Smidge204: It's kind of like saying that if you feed a child more calories they'll become adults faster.


Of course they won`t get to be adults faster but they will be bigger and that is what is important if you are eating them as opposed to trying to use them for a faster breeding program...
 
2013-03-23 12:50:48 PM  

draypresct: Can you support your apparent position; namely that food resources are equally available to all?


Without getting into whatever this might be about, I would say that food resources ARE equally available to all, you just need the cash to buy it and maybe have it shipped or flown in.

Now as to how the cash is distributed...
 
2013-03-23 12:54:42 PM  

LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]


A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.
 
2013-03-23 01:17:48 PM  
Now Dr Benjamin Santer says temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes. This is fair enough.

That`s not far away.

On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
 

1. UAH: since September 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to October)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer's 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 11 months (goes to October.)

If the current trend continues for 12 months the world is not warming. (at least according to RSS, HadCrut3 would agree 4 months later)

I`ll just leave that there.

Carry on arguing.
 
2013-03-23 01:29:04 PM  

dready zim: Now Dr Benjamin Santer says temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes. This is fair enough.

That`s not far away.

On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
 

1. UAH: since September 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to October)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer's 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 11 months (goes to October.)

If the current trend continues for 12 months the world is not warming. (at least according to RSS, HadCrut3 would agree 4 months later)

I`ll just leave that there.

Carry on arguing.


A very good point, well made. It is interesting to compare 3 numbers:

15 years (HadCrut3 cooling period)
20 years (approx warming period that preceded the cooling)
17 years (some climatist's line-in-the-sand saying what should be acted on versus ignored)

What will he say in 5 years' time?
 
2013-03-23 02:29:46 PM  
THE GREAT NAME:

What will he say in 5 years' time?

Depends on his need for grant money, attention.

Just sayin'.  Scientists are not the most reliable sort.  Which is why all good science is based on repeatable tests and proof, not reputation or the practitioner, amount of practitioners  manipulated and questionable data, politics, emotion, evidence, fear.

Disclaimer: Evidence is not necessarily factual information.  Technically speaking, the bible is evidence for the existence of god.  If I say there is an elephant in my kitchen, that is considered evidence.
 
2013-03-23 04:07:08 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.


True enough, but to get an accurate assessment of state of knowledge on a topic, one needs to look at more than just a few carefully-selected papers.
 
2013-03-23 04:13:30 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.

By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317



The range of estimates unsurpisingly emerges from the range of estimates given in different papers - which is why reviews like the one I linked to (as well as the IPCC) are useful in this regard.

That aside, you stating that I lied does not make it so. The reasoning that I provided in that thread still stands - and notably not addressed by you in a rational manner.
 
2013-03-23 04:32:23 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]

A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.


It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And use of green font for sarcasm is quite popular on random web pages
 
2013-03-23 04:34:38 PM  

LewDux: THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]

A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.

It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And use of green font for sarcasm is quite popular on random web pages


Prove it.
 
2013-03-23 04:37:52 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.

By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


The range of estimates unsurpisingly emerges from the range of estimates given in different papers - which is why reviews like the one I linked to (as well as the IPCC) are useful in this regard.


The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?
 
2013-03-23 04:56:38 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.

By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


The range of estimates unsurpisingly emerges from the range of estimates given in different papers - which is why reviews like the one I linked to (as well as the IPCC) are useful in this regard.

The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?



Climate sensitivity, while it does have "narrow technical" aspects to it, is a very important part of what future warming may be. It is the reason why the most used unit of reporting climate sensitivity is how much (longer-term) warming we would expect to see given a doubling of CO2 concentration.

That aside, I urge to you to consider the possibility that ignorance of a topic on your part does not mean lying on my part. The review paper I linked to a few posts ago is a good one since it also incorporates a basic overview of the topic. I highly suggest you read it. If you can't find the paper on your own, I can put up a copy for you somewhere.
 
2013-03-23 05:18:36 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]

A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.

It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And use of green font for sarcasm is quite popular on random web pages

Prove it.



I didn't know about this myself, but it appears to be quite real. It's mentioned in a few places, from knowyourmeme to wikipedia.

I thought the negative connotation of green text was limited to green ink, but there you go.
 
2013-03-23 06:24:03 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippies of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?


Some of them got some money. If you want to have some fun, get 3 hippies and give all three a collective sum of money and ask them to do `something worthwhile` with it.

Then sit back and get the popcorn out.
 
2013-03-23 06:31:16 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.


You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.
 
2013-03-23 09:29:52 PM  

draypresct:

If there was a link I missed, I apologize, but why did the first graph you posted have a dotted line starting a little before 1950? Usually, dotted lines connote extrapolation.
That's the instrument readings patched in.  I can't say I like the practice, but climatology seems to do it all the time.  Two totally different methodologies on the same graph is not normally the way disparate data are presented.  Good call.
 
2013-03-23 10:27:26 PM  

THE GREAT NAME:

The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?

Almost that entire generation sold out, plain and simple.  As for THIS guy...  lying is his specialty.  He goes for the subtle lies, ones that take a full explanation to expose.  His apparently favorite it to misrepresent the statements of opponents.  A close second is to misrepresent the point of studies, as he has done here.  Both of these types of lies are done politely, of course.  And, sadly, that kind of crap DOES work well with people who either don't know, or don't care to look into the statements made -- which together comprise close to all Fark readers.  And then, in the textbook Alinsky Flip, after his lies, he questions the honesty of the people to whom he is replying.  He's my ignore list.

The APPLICABLE science in this are studies illustrating the RELATIONSHIP between changes in carbon dioxide levels and global temperature.  Those are few and far between, and since the definition and confirmation of the Svensmark Effect, those studies which are NOT based upon model runs have shown a very low climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  Oddly enough, the new estimates almost all fall within the boundaries laid out by Miskolczi, who used mathematics to PROVE his point.

This fact goes to PROVE the political nature of the warmer alarmists' argument.  In essence, all this latest information does is prove all of the assertions of the warmer alarmist crowd -- EXCEPT that the warming will be very much smaller than they expected.  This is, scientifically, great news.  The ideas were correct, except for a few initial guesses, and a potential problem for the planet is not going to happen.  But the warmers HATE it.  The reason must be that the political driver behind this, the desire of governments for more power, and well-nigh complete control over all business activity on the planet is clearly not necessary.

So, the warmers fight the new information as if it disproved all of their ideas -- they deny the science, attack the researchers, and smear anyone who brings it up.  Their latest mass tactic is "you misunderstand the science."  Rather humorous, given how simply the conclusions are put in most of these papers.

 
2013-03-23 11:07:20 PM  

GeneralJim: THE GREAT NAME:

The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?

Almost that entire generation sold out, plain and simple.  As for THIS guy...  lying is his specialty.  He goes for the subtle lies, ones that take a full explanation to expose.  His apparently favorite it to misrepresent the statements of opponents.  A close second is to misrepresent the point of studies, as he has done here.  Both of these types of lies are done politely, of course.  And, sadly, that kind of crap DOES work well with people who either don't know, or don't care to look into the statements made -- which together comprise close to all Fark readers.  And then, in the textbook Alinsky Flip, after his lies, he questions the honesty of the people to whom he is replying.  He's my ignore list.


The alternate (and most likely) explanation is that I tend to present evidence to back up my claims - something that is antithetical to those who rely on intentional ignorance to maintain their opinions. As an example:


GeneralJim: The APPLICABLE science in this are studies illustrating the RELATIONSHIP between changes in carbon dioxide levels and global temperature.  Those are few and far between, and since the definition and confirmation of the Svensmark Effect, those studies which are NOT based upon model runs have shown a very low climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  Oddly enough, the new estimates almost all fall within the boundaries laid out by Miskolczi, who used mathematics to PROVE his point.


Contrary to GeneralJim's claim here, mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity include observationally-based and constrained approaches, such as some of those reviewed by the IPCC AR4:

i46.tinypic.com
Figure 9.20. Comparison between different estimates of the PDF (or relative likelihood) for ECS (°C). All PDFs/likelihoods have been scaled to integrate to unity between 0°C and 10°C ECS. The bars show the respective 5 to 95% ranges, dots the median estimate. The PDFs/likelihoods based on instrumental data are from Andronova and Schlesinger (2001), Forest et al. (2002; dashed line, considering anthropogenic forcings only), Forest et al. (2006; solid, anthropogenic and natural forcings), Gregory et al. (2002a), Knutti et al. (2002), Frame et al. (2005), and Forster and Gregory (2006), transformed to a uniform prior distribution in ECS using the method after Frame et al. (2005). Hegerl et al. (2006a) is based on multiple palaeoclimatic reconstructions of NH mean temperatures over the last 700 years.

This has been pointed out to GeneralJim here on many occasions. As I stated above, he is only able to maintain his opinion in the absence of easily found information - hence his necessity of ignoring said information (and those who post it).


GeneralJim: This fact goes to PROVE the political nature of the warmer alarmists' argument.  In essence, all this latest information does is prove all of the assertions of the warmer alarmist crowd -- EXCEPT that the warming will be very much smaller than they expected.  This is, scientifically, great news.  The ideas were correct, except for a few initial guesses, and a potential problem for the planet is not going to happen.  But the warmers HATE it.  The reason must be that the political driver behind this, the desire of governments for more power, and well-nigh complete control over all business activity on the planet is clearly not necessary.

So, the warmers fight the new information as if it disproved all of their ideas -- they deny the science, attack the researchers, and smear anyone who brings it up.  Their latest mass tactic is "you misunderstand the science."  Rather humorous, given how simply the conclusions are put in most of these papers.


The fact that GeneralJim seems to be ignorant of this basic and easily-checked aspect of the science on which he posts at length shows how little he actually considers the evidence involved and how irrationally he approaches it. It appears it is he who has the need to "fight the new information" - such as ignoring posters who present said information.
 
2013-03-23 11:23:13 PM  

Baryogenesis:

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.

No, that point does NOT remain.  Yes, there are TONS of evidence showing that, over the past three hundred years (since before the industrial revolution) the planet has been warming, on average.  And, yes, there are tons of evidence showing that the carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing, mankind being the cause of most of that increase.  There are lots of evidence for a correlation -- if you limit yourself to the last 150 years.  It's that causation thing you don't have.  Piling on more tons of data showing the temperature increasing, or showing human release of carbon dioxide, does NOTHING to bolster the relationship.

As a matter of fact, if you do NOT restrict the observations to the last 150 years, but go back even 300 years, it's clear that we are in the same warming trend that has gone on for 300 years, and to which the industrial revolution, with its carbon dioxide release, has made no appreciable difference.  Going back further also shows less and less correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature.  If natural changes in carbon dioxide levels have little to no effect on temperature, man-made changes in carbon dioxide levels would be expected to have little to no effect on temperature.

 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report