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 60
    More: Scary, hockey sticks, Grim Reaper, misnomer, climate  
•       •       •

4266 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-22 03:19:47 PM
4 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


This assumes that CO2 is always good for plant growth, and in a linear fashion. It's not.

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com

It's kind of like saying that if you feed a child more calories they'll become adults faster.
=Smidge=
2013-03-22 02:11:15 PM
4 votes:

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


25.media.tumblr.com
2013-03-22 03:39:51 PM
3 votes:
The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military
2013-03-22 03:19:21 PM
3 votes:

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.

DENIER!

img826.imageshack.us
2013-03-22 02:38:47 PM
3 votes:
This is how it looks, unscaled on an alchohol thermometer.


suyts.files.wordpress.com
2013-03-22 02:24:12 PM
3 votes:
www.skepticalscience.com

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...
2013-03-22 06:35:15 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-22 04:33:25 PM
2 votes:
This is the real scythe curve, sort of:

upload.wikimedia.org

In this curve, human population is used as a proxy for 1) CO2 production by breathing (300 kg per annum); 2) CO2 equivalent production by human activities (as human energy use grows from 2,000 Kilocalories a day in the form of food to hundreds of thousands of Kilocalories a day in the form of food, animal labor, wind, water, solar, wood, dung, coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc.)

It should be noted that simply showing the exponential growth of human population is not the whole story.

Before the use of fire and the domestication of dogs, humans used 2,000 Kilocalories (average) of food energy a day. That was all. They produced 300 kg per person (average) a year of CO2. Even with the massive increase in population, those who still live like apes are not a problem. Neither are those who produce say, 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent a year (some of the billions who live on less than $2 a day). Almost all of the damage is done by those of us who are produced many tonnes of CO2 equivalent, to a total of over 30 billion tonnes a year.

To measure the real "hockey stick" you have to take this real hockey stick and multiply it by average energy use and thus pollution production per capita. It is only in the last two centuries that the number of people times the average tonnage of pollution produced per capita has become a problem.

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? Over, we are doomed to a nasty fall. Under, we will have to adjust our growth expectations and learn to live with a population that is no longer growing, and aging, often in poverty, but at least no longer growing exponentially.

If we don't over do it, we may survive, older but wiser. If we do over do it, we will survive, older but mostly deader.

The Reverend Thomas Malthus (we must stop growing) and John M. Keynes ("in the long run, we are all dead.") may combine forces against the perpetual optimism and cancerous growth of free market entrepreneurs, who are the rear-guard against sanity and frugality.

In any case, we will have to learn how to do more with less, because we have already made mince-meat of many world resources. 95% of the big fish are gone. More than 99% of the big mammals are gone. Big tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels will eventually go because people will either go green and go clean, or they will die from the consequences of wasting our finest farm land and some of our best people.

We will be short on water, but perhaps not desperately so. We will be short on some resources, but have plenty of others. Mining garbage dumps may become highly profitable. We are already sticking in straws and sucking out methane gas.

We can not count on the world warming by 1 degree (now impossible) or staying the same. We probably can hope for less than 8C, which would be catastrophic. I expect about 4.5 degrees here in Ottawa (because that figure hasn't changed much in the thirty years I've been here). I've seen what 4.5 degrees look like. It looks like my electricity bill in August--three times what it is in the lowest months of the year.

It looks like my food bill today versus a few years ago--about three times as high. It looks like my cable bill ($85 instead of the $11 phone bill I had when I moved in).

"The future is grave but it is not desperate", to quote a French General on the military situation. We have surrendered without a fight to a difficult future, but we have not lost the war on humanity and the environment just yet.

I expect that just staying in place is going to take all the running we can do. It is the Red Queen's end game. We'll have to run much harder than as hard as we can to get anywhere.

In other words, I think the guy who drew this temperature curve was crazy pessimistic. But was he crazy pessimistic enough?
2013-03-22 03:37:18 PM
2 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.
2013-03-22 03:18:46 PM
2 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


No, they understand it quite well.
2013-03-22 03:00:56 PM
2 votes:

legion_of_doo: T-Servo: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x334]

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...

If this trend keeps going for a million years, the temperature of the earth will be enough to melt steel!
STEEL!

/OMFGPANIC!


upload.wikimedia.org

Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Its relative proximity to the sun (0.7 AU) allowed the runaway greenhouse effect to start without an industrial revolution on its surface.

Average temperature 462° C.
2013-03-22 01:56:52 PM
2 votes:
That's awesome.  This is weapons grade Swine Flu panic level derp
2013-03-22 01:47:42 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-24 05:58:43 PM
1 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: What this means is that the fundamental problem of information loss you're pointing out would mean you would find any science that any use of numbers, regardless of the subject to be "dubious".I'm not sure you've thought this through.


No, only "sciences" that attempt to glean useful information from using the same method, the sciences that claim precision can be garnered from averaging such a large data pool.

The "science" of polls such as FOX news reports on, yeah.  Dubious indeed.

Damnhippyfreak: What you stated about averages was important and valid, but it does not follow from that idea to somehow showing that science surrounding anthropogenic climate change is "dubious", especially, as I discussed above, the problem you stated is ubiquitous and common to all mathematical operations.


Again, I'm not saying all things surrounding ACC/AGW is dubious, but much of it does rely on the supposed accuracy of the "data".
Again, if you say 1+3 = 5, any equation you include that error in is going to be wrong.

That "It does not follow" is irrelevant, because I'm not saying "all" evidence is dubious(speaking of wookie argument..).  You've always got shrinking glaciers, and other things that are irrelevant(to the flaw I am pointing out) to fall back on.

Damnhippyfreak: My uncertainty had to do with the lack of a link from the general principle


Do you really need a citation that 1+3 does not equal 5?
Or how that it will affect the rest of the equation to include the answer?
That goes beyond the ordinary and into extraordinary incredulity.  Or extraordinary stupidity, in this case, if you prefer.

Damnhippyfreak: What does your self-awareness tell you about your knowledge of this topic and what that says about your ability to assess it in an accurate way?


That you are a contrarian nitwit.

I've explained it.  If you can't understand, either give up the trolling, admit fault, or the most likely...continue as you were in denying reality.  There's a word for that last one:  Delusion.

You recommend a better education for my supposed lack thereof, but I suggest some serious psychotherapy for your very evident mental state.
Likewise, I'm not being mean here, just stating the apparent.  Seriously, you either need more drugs, or less drugs.  Who know's, maybe all professionals can do for you is a lobotomy.  Either way, whatever help you get would be best for those around you.
2013-03-24 04:02:04 PM
1 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: While you bring up an important and very basic point about how one loses information about variation when using solely averages, I'm not sure how this specifically applies to the current topic.


1. You are correct, It is important, the broken clock just struck.  One could call it fundamental.  Basic, yes, but provides the foundation for further extrapolation and correlation, in the attempt to establish causation.

2. It is obvious you don't understand.

As I noted above, when a fundamental portion of evidence is dubious, that taints the whole body of any part it is involved in.  Any conclusion drawn from such evidence will inherently have the same flaw in it's foundation.

What's even more entertaining, is that while you admit it's important, you also state that you don't know how it applies, and blame my (supposed) limited and superficial understanding.

Project much?(rhetorical, it's obvious that you do)

You flat out state that you don't understand, how unsure you really are, but it directly turned it around so that it now appears to be my flaw, my fault, my error.

You seem to be of the Belief that you're infallible, a common self deception amongst true believers.
It's easy when you don't hold yourself up to the same standards as you do others.

It's almost cute how you and bary will actually agree on a specific point I make now and again, yet try to make it look like I'm some sort of heretic.  It's like you're almost self aware and sentient beings, on the very brink of approaching that 3 digit IQ barrier, but then fall under the (for you)intense pressure of being responsible for what you've stated.
2013-03-24 07:26:46 AM
1 votes:

Baryogenesis: What's your threshold for 'proof'?


I take it you want the minimum proof required as you say threshold. Well science at it`s heart is all about accurate, repeatable predictions regarding experimental results. It`s not possible to have another earth to use as a control so the repeatable part goes out of the window so all that is left is accurate predictions.

This leads to the conclusion that there needs to be specific temperature predictions made in the past that are accurate in the present accompanied by a prediction for the rate of warming made in the past that is accurate in the present as a minimum test for whether the theory holds up.

As we are dealing with climate scale trends then the prediction must have been made 17 years ago or longer to establish a trend separate from noise.

That would be a start. Should be easy.
2013-03-24 06:28:53 AM
1 votes:
Well good luck trying to convince China and India that this isn`t just a chance to get ahead by polluting the fark out of the planet to gain a bit of extra productivity.

It`s like arguing about the position of the cutlery on the titanic. Put it where you like, unless you get China and India on board you are still sunk if things are how you say.
2013-03-24 04:58:46 AM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon:

As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
2013-03-24 01:42:22 AM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: if an we can


and if we can

Meh, I'm tired.

G'night you god damned dirty hippies!

/figure of speech only
//repurposed from Planet of the Apes
2013-03-24 01:37:33 AM
1 votes:

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.


Bolded:  It's not an appeal to popularity, but popularity makes it stronger evidence?

It's NOT pink...IT'S LIGHT RED!!!

You really have no idea how stupid you are, do you?

As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.

Anyhow..
On to more debunking of inanity:

Why does what may be missing need to be *shown* by me?  I ask because, yet again, you act as if I'm calling information out as patently wrong, when I've done no such thing.
I'm asserting that it's not proven.  There is a world of difference there, but I don't honestly expect you to realize that, even though by now I've stated it about as many ways as possible and you still hound me with what I have not said.

It's as if I'm an atheist because I find the idea of God to be preposterous, and you keep asking me for proof and evidence.(rather exactly like that) What proof or evidence could I give?

The default burden of proof is on the original assertion(in other words, it's the duty of alarmists to provide proof(not only the warming, but the tying it to human causes, and establishing the rate specifically, as well as why it's dangerous to the future, if an we can make an actual change seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give 2 farks...that's a rather tall order).
Until that comes along, I'm free to be undecided, uncaring, or whatever word you would like to sub in that equates to skeptical(actually equates, not you being dishonest and saying denier, yet again).  I really am agnostic, not a denier.  That's the part you're refusing to acknowledge.  I don't disbelieve in AGW, the same way I don't believe in it.  May exist, probably even does, but to the extent that is claimed and all those other things above?

Meh, with the extensive reading I've done, I'm not convinced.

Also
Seeing as how government and politics are heavily involved, on both sides of the argument....
And how money is involved, again, on both sides...

To deny that there isn't money and power involved in change or status quo is to be blatantly naive.  That's why I never got into the conspiracy claims, they could just as easily be true for either part of the argument.  It's a blade that cuts both ways.

Anyone who isn't skeptical is asking for it.  You're falling victim to blind faith just as much as SteveB or Skinnyhead ever did, the only difference is the subject matter.
2013-03-23 01:17:48 PM
1 votes:
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 12:54:42 PM
1 votes:

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 12:50:48 PM
1 votes:

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 12:44:43 PM
1 votes:

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 08:53:05 AM
1 votes:

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 06:34:33 AM
1 votes:

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 02:13:15 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-03-22 11:09:19 PM
1 votes:

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 10:11:47 PM
1 votes:

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 10:04:35 PM
1 votes:
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 09:27:29 PM
1 votes:

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 09:09:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:38:51 PM
1 votes:

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


Time isn't a scientific publication and those articles were about rising prices of heating fuels anyway. The scientific community was publishing papers about global warming even then.
2013-03-22 07:44:50 PM
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

Let me know when we're back to pretending we're all about to freeze to death again.
2013-03-22 07:29:08 PM
1 votes:

brantgoose:

I always think of the goldfish bowl when people say CO2 is plant food. So is plant food. Deadly, deadly plant food. Ever see what a dog turd does to a lawn? Burns the vicinity down to bare earth thanks to the rich load of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, etc. which it provides.

I've always said you can't tell shiat from carbon dioxide.  Thanks for the confirmation, and the load of natural fertilizer in your post...
2013-03-22 07:21:27 PM
1 votes:

T-Servo:

The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military

Yes, when you make up the details, you can make a very stupid straw man, and laugh at it.  On the other hand, there are only a handful of corrupt scientists - a dozen or fewer.  And a WHOLE bunch of corrupt politicians...  but I repeat myself.
2013-03-22 07:15:59 PM
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: What is wrong with mitigating some of the more extreme effects?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

You don't want global temperatures to reach a tipping point.
2013-03-22 06:26:23 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-22 06:15:28 PM
1 votes:
Here's my personal belief:

1. Global warming is real and man-made.
2. But who cares?

That is, I don't think global warming will harm the average middle class American citizen much at all.  Sure, if you are a subsistance farmer in Africa you're probably farked.  Same goes for a bunch of different species of plants and animals that can only survive in a very narrow climate band.  Maybe rising sea levels will take out a few million dollar beachfront homes.  But the world will survive and even prosper.  It could even be a good thing for some people (farmers in colder climates, for example).

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.
2013-03-22 05:33:41 PM
1 votes:

Bullseyed: Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:

While what you said is true, the hockey stick chart is fake for another reason. That model was specifically constructed to give that particular output. You could put in baseball scores or lottery numbers and the model would output the same chart every single time.


Citation needed.

These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.

www.skepticalscience.com
2013-03-22 05:31:30 PM
1 votes:

Ambitwistor: SVenus: aerojockey: Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.

I can't tell from their short perspective piece, but I'm guessing that those plants were grown in the lab or under field conditions that are CO2-limited, not light- or nutrient-limited, unlike conditions in many real fields throughout the world.


It's extra funny because he was replying to someone who said CO2 is almost never the limiting factor in plant growth.

Then, of course, these folks cite one thing that might be a benefit while forgetting all the downsides.  Drought, for example, will put a big damper on plant growth due to extra CO2.
2013-03-22 05:12:49 PM
1 votes:

RminusQ: Giltric: This is how it looks, unscaled on an alchohol thermometer.


[suyts.files.wordpress.com image 850x389]

"On an alchohol [sic] thermometer"? What the hell does that even mean? And why the hell would you use a bar graph?

And if you're going to try to drown out the actual changes that have occurred, why not go whole farking hog and use Kelvin? What the hell relevance does 0° F have to the discussion?


Wow that was an incredibly useful method to identify idiots like RminusQ here. Good job Giltric.

I'll try to use only small words so you can understand RminusQ. Thermometers use alcohol in them because mercury is toxic. When the ball of fire in the sky wakes up from nappy time, it heats the alcohol and makes it expand through the glass tube. The other graphs are scaled based on an deviation from the "average" where the average whatever temperature that particular leftist pulled out of their ass and decided was the ideal temperature. When instead of focusing on the deviation from the average you focus on the raw temperature data, the difference in temperature is so incredibly minuscule that you can't even really see it with the human eye on a chart.
2013-03-22 05:08:16 PM
1 votes:

Dinki: DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 813x555]


I want to make a GIF that expands from 1970 to 2010 to show the drop in temperature in the 1000 year preceding that time.

In short, your GIF is amusing ironic. I'm not sure if you realize this and are trolling, or if you're a derp and don't know.
2013-03-22 05:06:07 PM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


I'm not sure how anyone with any brain cells can read the linked article/chart (top) without bursting out laughing. Look at the y axis. "Temperature Change Relative to 1961-1990 Mean". Surely this blog is a joke... no one could be that stupid, could they?

Yes, 1961 to 1990 was a magical time of perfect climate! All other times must be judged against it! We hath commanded it!
2013-03-22 04:53:42 PM
1 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


The problem is that this CO2 increase may well be accompanied by alternating drought, flood, heat waves, and waves of new parasites. Not good for crops. We may well be heading for a future where outdoor food production is no longer viable.
2013-03-22 04:41:47 PM
1 votes:
Please, people.

Use winky icons.  ; )

I can't tell the jokers to the left of me from the fools to the right of me.
2013-03-22 04:40:29 PM
1 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


Not sure if joking.

But just in case you are, let me remind you of why every plant and goldfish you ever had died: you over-watered the plants (or forgot to water them at all) and over-fed the goldfish until the tank or bowl was a toxic sea of green sludge with goldfish so desperate for oxygen they were gasping for air.

There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, as Dick Cheney said of education and its role in creating Democrats out of potential Republicans as incomes rise (and waistbands expand to the snapping point).

I always think of the goldfish bowl when people say CO2 is plant food. So is plant food. Deadly, deadly plant food. Ever see what a dog turd does to a lawn? Burns the vicinity down to bare earth thanks to the rich load of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, etc. which it provides.
2013-03-22 04:03:05 PM
1 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: give me doughnuts: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

I'm sure you'll get some bites with that.

In all seriousness - it's pretty much word-for-word something I heard said in earnest on a local conservative Christian radio station, from a self-claimed "climate scientist" they had on.


There've been propaganda videos to that effect for over 20 years ...
2013-03-22 03:59:58 PM
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

I'm sure you'll get some bites with that.


In all seriousness - it's pretty much word-for-word something I heard said in earnest on a local conservative Christian radio station, from a self-claimed "climate scientist" they had on. I figured if share the wisdom some of our fellow countrymen are being fed on their morning commute.
2013-03-22 03:59:35 PM
1 votes:

Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere.


Guess what, climate modelers know this and it's already in the models.  If it weren't, they'd predict even more warming than they do.

And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:

Beyond 100% CO2?  What the hell are you talking about?
2013-03-22 03:44:58 PM
1 votes:

T-Servo: The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military


Thanks for that. Hopelessly naive, but probably the best you could do. Bless.
2013-03-22 03:17:04 PM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


One wonders why your "reality" chart starts in 2009.
2013-03-22 03:08:03 PM
1 votes:
I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.
2013-03-22 02:52:49 PM
1 votes:
Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:
2013-03-22 02:49:57 PM
1 votes:

dognose4: The ONLY reliable world wide temperature graph is based on satellite measurement.. and we only have data back to 1979

<img src="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_F eb_2013_v5.5.png">Yes, it's gone up a little.  No it is not smooth.


Whats so special about spess that temperature proxies measured there are infinitely more reliable than bits of mercury inside tubes, ice cores, tree rings, coral rings, pollen, and sedimentary deposits?
2013-03-22 02:33:44 PM
1 votes:

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.


DENIER!

Send him and his family to the Re-Education Camp!
2013-03-22 02:18:39 PM
1 votes:

dognose4: The ONLY reliable world wide temperature graph is based on satellite measurement.. and we only have data back to 1979


I'm sure that your PHD in geophysics give you the authority to make such a blanket statement.
2013-03-22 02:18:21 PM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


Are you limiting analysis to four years in an effort to mock climate change denialists, or are you being willfully dishonest?
2013-03-22 02:16:14 PM
1 votes:
I am not any sort of global warming denier, but here's where that graph was:

imgs.xkcd.com
2013-03-22 01:40:34 PM
1 votes:

TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:



scienceblogs.com

Reality:
models.weatherbell.com
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report