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 World Report)   Anatarctic ice core samples show faster melting, and horrible shape-changing aliens being loosed on mankind sooner than we thought   (scienceworldreport.com) divider line 63
    More: Scary, core sample, Antarctic Peninsula, ice core samples, Antarctica, sea ice, climate change, melts, Nature Geoscience  
•       •       •

1773 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-15 12:00:01 PM
globalwarmingsiren.com

Thank you professor Eric Stieg.  All is fine. Keep calm and carry on.
 
2013-04-15 12:05:05 PM
So much for that "upper bound of normal," eh? Like I said, it's too late. We're stuck mitigating, not preventing, the damage, because obfuscating assholes protected the interests of the rich.
 
2013-04-15 12:11:55 PM

FormlessOne: So much for that "upper bound of normal," eh? Like I said, it's too late. We're stuck mitigating, not preventing, the damage, because obfuscating assholes protected the interests of the rich.


Sigh.
 
2013-04-15 12:16:09 PM
Holy shiat! The first ever article listed on FARK about Antarctica that does not have a "The Thing" reference.  I was here when i...oh...wait
 
2013-04-15 12:17:21 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh


Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
 
2013-04-15 12:29:04 PM

FormlessOne: So much for that "upper bound of normal," eh? Like I said, it's too late. We're stuck mitigating, not preventing, the damage, because obfuscating assholes protected the interests of the rich.


No matter what we do, I don't think we really understand just how much thermal ballast is in play here. If we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the damage may well be already done. We could be seeing the effects of the industrial revolution only now.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't clean up our act, just saying that we're kinda farked either way.
.
 
2013-04-15 12:31:00 PM
They'll be no match for our squadrons of hot brunettes with flamethrowers.
 
2013-04-15 12:47:37 PM
and yet no overall increase in oaceanic levels............ where is all this coastal flooding we were told about?
 
2013-04-15 12:56:25 PM

shifter_: and yet no overall increase in oaceanic levels............ where is all this coastal flooding we were told about?


Yeah, where?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/global-warming-catastrop he -island-nation-swallowed-whole-sea-185245448.html
 
2013-04-15 01:01:16 PM

shifter_: and yet no overall increase in oaceanic levels.


"Facts" and "reality" are for LIBERALS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_ se a_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png
 
2013-04-15 01:13:15 PM
It's snowing where I live so climate change is fake.
 
2013-04-15 01:15:08 PM
maybe if they stopped taking samples out of the middle it the ice sheets wouldn't melt so fast
 
2013-04-15 01:20:36 PM
Listened to an NPR segment regarding "climate change" and they were discussing the weather pattern shifts, especially jet stream patterns. An interesting take on it was how it would effect air travel, and navigating around normal routes. Longer flight times, more fuel spent, cost increases, etc.
Just one thing to think about. I think no one will care about any warming unless it hits their wallet hard.
 
2013-04-15 01:23:44 PM

nekom: FormlessOne: So much for that "upper bound of normal," eh? Like I said, it's too late. We're stuck mitigating, not preventing, the damage, because obfuscating assholes protected the interests of the rich.

No matter what we do, I don't think we really understand just how much thermal ballast is in play here. If we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the damage may well be already done. We could be seeing the effects of the industrial revolution only now.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't clean up our act, just saying that we're kinda farked either way.
.


I disagree, we have 10,000 years of R & D on sustainable living and even know how to draw carbon out of the atmosphere, we'll just have to learn to eat less meat.

/cries at this knowledge
//my dog may not be able to eat steak for long or we are farked
 
2013-04-15 01:29:24 PM
TFA:Most people were aware that the Antarctic sea ice was melting--they just didn't realize how fast

lol wut?

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu
 
2013-04-15 02:17:51 PM

Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.


Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.
 
2013-04-15 02:21:55 PM
Anatarctic?

That's reterarded.
 
2013-04-15 02:33:55 PM
Just send in the Colonial Marines, well be fine.
 
2013-04-15 02:36:52 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:Most people were aware that the Antarctic sea ice was melting--they just didn't realize how fast

lol wut?

[arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu image 850x690]


Yeah, that was kind of weird. I would argue that most people don't realize it at all, as mass balance is a bit harder to convey to the general public than something much more visible such as extent, as your graph portrays. It's even worse with something like melt intensity (as TFA talks about) as it's even less direct.
 
2013-04-15 02:37:37 PM

Pinner: I think no one will care about any warming unless it hits their wallet hard.


Exactly the point I was trying to make a decade ago. I`m glad you have caught up. It doesn`t matter who is right, it matters what is reported in the media and more importantly how it affects an average persons wallet. That will change public opinion which will change policy.

The converse of this is that if the effects of any warming are not enough to hit people in the wallets then nothing will get done no matter what scare stories people tell.

I look in the media where things like this are said...

Yet do the findings really give evidence for global warming? A University of Washington professor and Earth and space sciences is skeptical. Eric Steig believes that the current melting trends aren't anything unusual--at least when looking on a shorter timescale. "If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we would also find the glaciers retreating much as they are today," said Steig

I have highlighted what the average person will pull from the quote, which is that a university of Washington professor says the antarctic is not melting any quicker than it did in the 1940s or even the 1830s...

So, carry on being sure you are right but failing to convince the media. Win the battle but lose the war...

Now someone will come along with a graph or a citation or a peer reviewed paper showing how right they are and how wrong the quote I posted is and how much they miss the point.
 
2013-04-15 02:48:42 PM
Well I personally can't wait!!! A rise of 6 Metres will mean I'll have beach front!!! Woot!
 
2013-04-15 02:56:17 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.


Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.
 
2013-04-15 02:56:42 PM

NostroZ: [globalwarmingsiren.com image 416x300]

Thank you professor Eric Stieg.  All is fine. Keep calm and carry on.


Eric Steig (he's sensitive about the ei ;)) was referring specifically to the regional climate situation in West Antarctica. The photos you posted don't show West Antarctica. I can tell you he's well aware of the impact of anthropogenic warming elsewhere on the planet.
 
2013-04-15 02:59:19 PM

dready zim: Pinner: I think no one will care about any warming unless it hits their wallet hard.

Exactly the point I was trying to make a decade ago. I`m glad you have caught up. It doesn`t matter who is right, it matters what is reported in the media and more importantly how it affects an average persons wallet. That will change public opinion which will change policy.

The converse of this is that if the effects of any warming are not enough to hit people in the wallets then nothing will get done no matter what scare stories people tell.

I look in the media where things like this are said...

Yet do the findings really give evidence for global warming? A University of Washington professor and Earth and space sciences is skeptical. Eric Steig believes that the current melting trends aren't anything unusual--at least when looking on a shorter timescale. "If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we would also find the glaciers retreating much as they are today," said Steig

I have highlighted what the average person will pull from the quote, which is that a university of Washington professor says the antarctic is not melting any quicker than it did in the 1940s or even the 1830s...

So, carry on being sure you are right but failing to convince the media. Win the battle but lose the war...

Now someone will come along with a graph or a citation or a peer reviewed paper showing how right they are and how wrong the quote I posted is and how much they miss the point.


I'm sure he will appreciate your extrapolation of his words about one specific area to the whole world.
 
2013-04-15 03:02:14 PM

dready zim: Pinner: I think no one will care about any warming unless it hits their wallet hard.

Exactly the point I was trying to make a decade ago. I`m glad you have caught up. It doesn`t matter who is right, it matters what is reported in the media and more importantly how it affects an average persons wallet. That will change public opinion which will change policy.

The converse of this is that if the effects of any warming are not enough to hit people in the wallets then nothing will get done no matter what scare stories people tell.

I look in the media where things like this are said...

Yet do the findings really give evidence for global warming? A University of Washington professor and Earth and space sciences is skeptical. Eric Steig believes that the current melting trends aren't anything unusual--at least when looking on a shorter timescale. "If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we would also find the glaciers retreating much as they are today," said Steig

I have highlighted what the average person will pull from the quote, which is that a university of Washington professor says the antarctic is not melting any quicker than it did in the 1940s or even the 1830s...

So, carry on being sure you are right but failing to convince the media. Win the battle but lose the war...

Now someone will come along with a graph or a citation or a peer reviewed paper showing how right they are and how wrong the quote I posted is and how much they miss the point.



You bring up a good point, but be aware that if you are assuming very superficial perception of news articles by "the average person", it would be unlikely that they would focus on this one paragraph in the first place instead of the general gist of the article. Considering the headline and the main point of the article, I don't think you can make the case, at least from TFA, of "failing to convince the media".
 
2013-04-15 03:06:04 PM

Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.


Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.
 
2013-04-15 03:10:07 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.

Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.


You sure do play a nice fiddle.
 
2013-04-15 03:11:02 PM

dillengest: NostroZ: [globalwarmingsiren.com image 416x300]

Thank you professor Eric Stieg.  All is fine. Keep calm and carry on.

Eric Steig (he's sensitive about the ei ;)) was referring specifically to the regional climate situation in West Antarctica. The photos you posted don't show West Antarctica. I can tell you he's well aware of the impact of anthropogenic warming elsewhere on the planet.


Does he think the world has been warming since 1998? Does he have evidence for warming being anthropogenic? If not, perhaps he should take a chill pill and STFU.
 
2013-04-15 03:13:50 PM

Damnhippyfreak: dready zim: Pinner: I think no one will care about any warming unless it hits their wallet hard.

Exactly the point I was trying to make a decade ago. I`m glad you have caught up. It doesn`t matter who is right, it matters what is reported in the media and more importantly how it affects an average persons wallet. That will change public opinion which will change policy.

The converse of this is that if the effects of any warming are not enough to hit people in the wallets then nothing will get done no matter what scare stories people tell.

I look in the media where things like this are said...

Yet do the findings really give evidence for global warming? A University of Washington professor and Earth and space sciences is skeptical. Eric Steig believes that the current melting trends aren't anything unusual--at least when looking on a shorter timescale. "If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we would also find the glaciers retreating much as they are today," said Steig

I have highlighted what the average person will pull from the quote, which is that a university of Washington professor says the antarctic is not melting any quicker than it did in the 1940s or even the 1830s...

So, carry on being sure you are right but failing to convince the media. Win the battle but lose the war...

Now someone will come along with a graph or a citation or a peer reviewed paper showing how right they are and how wrong the quote I posted is and how much they miss the point.


You bring up a good point, but be aware that if you are assuming very superficial perception of news articles by "the average person", it would be unlikely that they would focus on this one paragraph in the first place instead of the general gist of the article. Considering the headline and the main point of the article, I don't think you can make the case, at least from TFA, of "fai ...


I was (I thought) making a general point about the way the topic is discussed. Concerning TFA, I would think a superficial person (And, yes I am assuming very superficial perception by the average or below average people who make up more than half of the population) would skim the article and pull out the synopsis at the end where TFA says "Yet do the findings really give evidence for global warming?" and implies not...
 
2013-04-15 03:14:47 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.

Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.

You sure do play a nice fiddle.


Is there a version of Godwin's law for those who liken to the guy downstairs himself? Perhaps there ought to be.
 
2013-04-15 03:19:14 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
stuff

Warning: avoid getting into discussion with user "Hippy Freak". He will seem reasonable to begin with, but as soon as his arguments are defeated, he will resort to lying, for example about the content of the citations you provide. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317
 
2013-04-15 03:19:25 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Quantum Apostrophe: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.

Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.

You sure do play a nice fiddle.

Is there a version of Godwin's law for those who liken to the guy downstairs himself? Perhaps there ought to be.


QA is a known troll, offer to 3D print him anything or mention that atoms have an age or mention space even slightly and watch him explode. It`s quite funny in a laugh at him not with him sort of way.
 
2013-04-15 03:22:27 PM
img826.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-15 03:24:50 PM

dready zim: THE GREAT NAME: Quantum Apostrophe: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.

Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.

You sure do play a nice fiddle.

Is there a version of Godwin's law for those who liken to the guy downstairs himself? Perhaps there ought to be.

QA is a known troll, offer to 3D print him anything or mention that atoms have an age or mention space even slightly and watch him explode. It`s quite funny in a laugh at him not with him sort of way.


Oh jolly good. Let's see what he comes out with on this thread.
 
2013-04-15 03:49:59 PM

Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.


Still relying on name calling, i see. carry on.
 
2013-04-15 03:58:53 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.

Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.


Proof? We don't have time for proof! The sheeplike masses must be stampeded into accepting rule by the GW elites.
 
2013-04-15 04:19:06 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:
stuff

Warning: avoid getting into discussion with user "Hippy Freak". He will seem reasonable to begin with, but as soon as his arguments are defeated, he will resort to lying, for example about the content of the citations you provide. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


Yet again, ignoring the reasoning behind a statement does not somehow make it a lie on my part. You're still welcome to address the point you're bring up (or any other) in a rational manner. One's rationality is reflected in how one actually chooses to argue - let's see what you choose to do.
 
2013-04-15 04:22:39 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.

Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.

Proof? We don't have time for proof! The sheeplike masses must be stampeded into accepting rule by the GW elites.


Why should we bother? The already existing mountains of empirical evidence and the professional opinions of nearly every relevant expert already meet with you shutting your eyes and plugging your ears and chanting "It's all a conspiracy and a hoax" to yourselves.

Tell me now, when you've been presented with all the evidence, and steadfastly continue to choose your ideology over the empirical data and scientific conclusions, why should we do anything other than mock you? You've already declared that for all intents and purposes that there is no evidence whatsover that can convince you, so why should we bother doing anything but laugh at you?
 
2013-04-15 04:26:26 PM

dready zim: I was (I thought) making a general point about the way the topic is discussed. Concerning TFA, I would think a superficial person (And, yes I am assuming very superficial perception by the average or below average people who make up more than half of the population) would skim the article and pull out the synopsis at the end where TFA says "Yet do the findings really give evidence for global warming?" and implies not...



And yet, everything else besides that one paragraph and even the headline you quoted leans the other way. If we want to make a general statement, we should be careful that we aren't filtering information according to our own leanings. I mean, even what you think is a "synopsis at the end" isn't. Don't forget the article goes on to say:

That's not to say that the melting isn't unprecedented on a larger timescale, though. What happens to the ice sheet in the coming decades will depend greatly on what happens throughout the rest of the world, but it is likely that more melting will occur.

Again, if we're assuming that the 'average person' is just skimming articles like this, I don't think we can make the assumption that they will focus on just one paragraph and somehow ignore the rest.

That aside, I think the original point you were trying to make holds, even though TFA isn't necessarily the best example.
 
2013-04-15 04:28:37 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:
stuff

Warning: avoid getting into discussion with user "Hippy Freak". He will seem reasonable to begin with, but as soon as his arguments are defeated, he will resort to lying, for example about the content of the citations you provide. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317

Yet again, ignoring the reasoning behind a statement does not somehow make it a lie on my part. You're still welcome to address the point you're bring up (or any other) in a rational manner. One's rationality is reflected in how one actually chooses to argue - let's see what you choose to do.


The world contains facts, and your personal  choice of a line of reasoning does not change that. Whatever point you think you want to make, the citation I provided supported my claim directly and very clearly. You know, you don't get to just pick and choose which aspects of the real world you are willing to admit into your fantasy world.

I choose to continue to notify other uses of Fark about your lying episode. Many of them are busy people, and might be appreciative of the heads up, so they don't end up wasting their time in discussion with a fantasising liar.
 
2013-04-15 04:35:57 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:
stuff

Warning: avoid getting into discussion with user "Hippy Freak". He will seem reasonable to begin with, but as soon as his arguments are defeated, he will resort to lying, for example about the content of the citations you provide. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317

Yet again, ignoring the reasoning behind a statement does not somehow make it a lie on my part. You're still welcome to address the point you're bring up (or any other) in a rational manner. One's rationality is reflected in how one actually chooses to argue - let's see what you choose to do.

The world contains facts, and your personal  choice of a line of reasoning does not change that. Whatever point you think you want to make, the citation I provided supported my claim directly and very clearly. You know, you don't get to just pick and choose which aspects of the real world you are willing to admit into your fantasy world.

I choose to continue to notify other uses of Fark about your lying episode. Many of them are busy people, and might be appreciative of the heads up, so they don't end up wasting their time in discussion with a fantasising liar.



Again, just saying such does not make it true, and citing the opinion of others does not necessarily make it true either - something that you may not have realized. I'm sorry, but your choice not to present reasoning behind your assertion does not lend it much weight.

That aside, you're welcome to argue that or any other point with me if you can do so in a rational manner.
 
2013-04-15 04:38:32 PM

KiltedBastich: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.
Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh

Glad to see you finally realize how badly we have farked ourselves.

Keep farking that chicken. Damn, someone oughta call the SPCA.

Ah...false alarm.  You're still as stupid and ignorant as ever.  Carry on.

Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Or that it isn't a delayed response to the actual warming, which stopped 15 years ago?

Of course not. You can return to your condescending politically motivated comments now.

Proof? We don't have time for proof! The sheeplike masses must be stampeded into accepting rule by the GW elites.

Why should we bother? The already existing mountains of empirical evidence and the professional opinions of nearly every relevant expert


If you believe this you've been conned. Those high percentage agreement figures you've seen are the percentages of people who agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing co2 is likely to increases temp. That really is settled science and NAME agrees. But it only gives you 1/2 a degree C of warming over 100 years.

The additional claims required for AGW on the order of 5-10 degrees are not widely supported among real scientists in appropriate fields. It's really only green activists, fraudsters and crackpots who do. And their number is dropping.

already meet with you shutting your eyes and plugging your ears and chanting "It's all a conspiracy and a hoax" to yourselves.

Meh.

Tell me now, when you've been presented with all the evidence, and steadfastly continue to choose your ideology over the empirical data and scientific conclusions, why should we do anything other than mock you? You've already declared that for all intents and purposes that there is no evidence whatsover that can convince you, so why should we bother doing anything but laugh at you?

Show me the evidence for large positive feedbacks. Show me the evidence that tamps didn't stop rising 15 years ago. Show me the evidence for an Anthopogenic influence.

You can't, because the people you idolise are nothing more than post-modern charlatans.
 
2013-04-15 04:49:01 PM

Damnhippyfreak: And yet, everything else besides that one paragraph and even the headline you quoted leans the other way. If we want to make a general statement, we should be careful that we aren't filtering information according to our own leanings. I mean, even what you think is a "synopsis at the end" isn't.


The article does lean the other way. The general gist of the article is that the west antarctic is melting 10 times faster than at any point in the last 1000 years. The bit at the end, most average or below people would assume is a synopsis of the article and get the wrong message, which is sort of my point. Smart people filter, aggregate and examine. Average and lower people just go tl;dr and read the synopsis at the end. If you do that then it appears some professor guy, who is skeptical, says the melting isn`t any more than 1940 or 1830.

I know that is not what the article says but I am demonstrating how some people, even with a pro AGW article would misread it with limited understanding and come to a different conclusion.

If you (the generalised you, meaning proponents of AGW) really care about the issue and want stuff done about it then you`ll have to stop banging on about this chart, that graph such and such model and get the media to get on board because only with the mandate of the average and below average people (who have more voting power than the smart and are led by the media) will you be able to effect the changes you desire and you won`t get that mandate with just science.
 
2013-04-15 05:08:37 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?


Sure. Keep in mind though that the fact that the climate has changed in the past does not mean that the current warming trend is not attributable to anthropogenic processes. The analogy that gets bandied about here is that the fact that natural fires have existed in the past does not mean that someone couldn't set your house on fire.

The outline is that since something like temperature is due to many factors working at once, we need to be able to distinguish between them and their relative contribution in order to be able to infer causality. What we get when we investigate what each factor contributes, we get results like these:

ipcc.ch
FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. [...]

What emerges is that we cannot explain the current warming trend without including anthropogenic factors. Let me know if you want more or more specific information.

On a side note, this sort of information is very readily available. I suggest putting a little effort into reading might go a long way.
 
2013-04-15 05:13:58 PM

dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: And yet, everything else besides that one paragraph and even the headline you quoted leans the other way. If we want to make a general statement, we should be careful that we aren't filtering information according to our own leanings. I mean, even what you think is a "synopsis at the end" isn't.

The article does lean the other way. The general gist of the article is that the west antarctic is melting 10 times faster than at any point in the last 1000 years. The bit at the end, most average or below people would assume is a synopsis of the article and get the wrong message, which is sort of my point. Smart people filter, aggregate and examine. Average and lower people just go tl;dr and read the synopsis at the end. If you do that then it appears some professor guy, who is skeptical, says the melting isn`t any more than 1940 or 1830.

I know that is not what the article says but I am demonstrating how some people, even with a pro AGW article would misread it with limited understanding and come to a different conclusion.

If you (the generalised you, meaning proponents of AGW) really care about the issue and want stuff done about it then you`ll have to stop banging on about this chart, that graph such and such model and get the media to get on board because only with the mandate of the average and below average people (who have more voting power than the smart and are led by the media) will you be able to effect the changes you desire and you won`t get that mandate with just science.



Fair enough, and the last paragraph remains a very good point. I don't know much about communicating science to non-scientists, but all that I can think of is perhaps  appealing more to values - we all want to leave a reasonably good environment for our children, we all have some kind of attachment to the places that we live and wouldn't want them to come to harm. What do you think?
 
2013-04-15 05:18:06 PM

THE GREAT NAME: If you believe this you've been conned. Those high percentage agreement figures you've seen are the percentages of people who agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing co2 is likely to increases temp. That really is settled science and NAME agrees. But it only gives you 1/2 a degree C of warming over 100 years.

The additional claims required for AGW on the order of 5-10 degrees are not widely supported among real scientists in appropriate fields. It's really only green activists, fraudsters and crackpots who do. And their number is dropping.


Yeah, see, that's why science is self-correcting. The revised numbers are still showing dangerous levels of warming. And if you weren't so insistent on cherry-picking reasons why it's all a hoax, you'd understand this. Furthermore, scientific consensus is and always has been decided at the meta-analytic level, by multiple lines of research converging on a shared theoretical understanding, not by this or that correct or incorrect result. You've done nothing whatsoever to address that.

So I repeat, why should I bother to do anything other than mock you for your clear and willful ignorance of the facts and methodology involved? Why should I bother citing the decades of research, the work of the thousands of climate scientists from all over the world, from every sociopolitical background, when you obvious have no interest in anything but advancing your ideology?

THE GREAT NAME: Show me the evidence for large positive feedbacks. Show me the evidence that tamps didn't stop rising 15 years ago. Show me the evidence for an Anthopogenic influence.

You can't, because the people you idolise are nothing more than post-modern charlatans.


You just called an entire scientific discipline charlatans, announced that you have no understanding of how a statistical analysis works, and asked for more evidence of something that has already been provided multiple times by relevant experts, after declaiming that all previous such evidence are hoaxed.

In short, you just announced that for all intents and purposes there is no possible evidence you would believe, no matter what. Why should I not take you at your word, and simply mock you for being stupid?

Just for an example, I'll tell you why temps didn't stop rising 15 years ago. First, because 15 years ago was the 1998 temperature outlier. Outliers skew distributions over short samples. Any Stats 101 professor can explain this to you. So by cherry-picking a graph that starts on 1998, you get the result you want. Try running it without 1998 included and see what you get. Second, variability in complex dynamic systems is such that short-term effects can obscure the actual trend over the short term, but not the long term. There are multiple decade or so long flat spots in the graph of the temperature of the 20th century. That doesn't change the overall long term upward trend. This also is expected and would be explained in any Stats 101 class. It is basic statistics and human understanding of these effects been essentially unchanged since those mathematical concepts were discovered and turned into useful analytic tools in the first place. More importantly, any climatologist worth his degree knows this at such a fundamental level that they never even stop to think about it. Questioning it is like expressing skepticism of algebra because you don't believe that 2+2 = 4.

And I am absolutely certain that this has all been explained to you before, and that you ignored it because it doesn't support your pre-existing conclusions. And that you will dig up some BS talking point to try and dispute these completely factual points, and you will assume that you have somehow "won" the argument and are thus justified in bringing up this BS in the next "argument" or "debate" over these topics that consists of people who have a clue about how the statistical methodology works  /facepalming at your stupid.

So once again, why should I do anything other than mock you?
 
2013-04-15 05:31:14 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Can you prove this effect  is anthropogenic in nature, when it's being going on since before significant co2 emissions?

Sure. Keep in mind though that the fact that the climate has changed in the past does not mean that the current warming trend is not attributable to anthropogenic processes. The analogy that gets bandied about here is that the fact that natural fires have existed in the past does not mean that someone couldn't set your house on fire.

The outline is that since something like temperature is due to many factors working at once, we need to be able to distinguish between them and their relative contribution in order to be able to infer causality. What we get when we investigate what each factor contributes, we get results like these:

[ipcc.ch image 347x377]
FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. [...]

What emerges is that we cannot explain the current warming trend without including anthropogenic factors. Let me know if you want more or more specific information.

On a side note, this sort of information is very readily available. I suggest putting a little effort into reading might go a long way.


I can see you're trying to adopt a pedagogical "teacher-like" tone in order to try and re-frame the dialogue as a kind-of teacher/student situation. Brushing that asside, you appear to be saying
- It is "possible" for recent warming to be anthropogenic even when previous changes were not (obvious+irrelevant)
- There are many factors affecting temps (no shiat)
- You post a picture
- You argue that the proposition you were trying to prove "emerges" from the picture.

But everything in that picture is the result of climate models. For them to constitute proof, the assumptions inside them need to be justifiable in terms of existing science, and they need to have a track record of accurate predictions. Can you demonstrate this, or are you really just trying to fob us off with "proof by posting a picture".
 
2013-04-15 05:40:23 PM
KiltedBastich:

Yeah, see, that's why science is self-correcting.

Self-correcting science would have dropped AGW theory by now, since it has been found not to be correct.

The revised numbers are still showing dangerous levels of warming.

The actual temperature measurements are not. The "science" therefore needs to drop AGW theory and stop making wrong predictions.

And if you weren't so insistent on cherry-picking reasons why it's all a hoax, you'd understand this.

I only need one, you idiot. Do you even know how science works?

Furthermore, scientific consensus is and always has been decided at the meta-analytic level, by multiple lines of research converging on a shared theoretical understanding, not by this or that correct or incorrect result. You've done nothing whatsoever to address that.

Save your post-modern fantasy bullshiat for for your fellow precocious intellectual adolescent friends.

So I repeat, why should I bother to do anything other than mock you for your clear and willful ignorance of the facts and methodology involved? Etc...

Emulating confidence any? Why would you need to puff yourself up if you were willing the argument? Someone should pop you with a pin. Skipped the rest of your comment because boring.
 
2013-04-15 05:51:28 PM

dready zim: QA is a known troll, offer to 3D print him anything or mention that atoms have an age or mention space even slightly and watch him explode. It`s quite funny in a laugh at him not with him sort of way.


How's your Mars condo coming along? Got it all planned out? The private space trip there? The 3D printed kitchen counter?
 
2013-04-15 08:10:35 PM

Damnhippyfreak: dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: And yet, everything else besides that one paragraph and even the headline you quoted leans the other way. If we want to make a general statement, we should be careful that we aren't filtering information according to our own leanings. I mean, even what you think is a "synopsis at the end" isn't.

The article does lean the other way. The general gist of the article is that the west antarctic is melting 10 times faster than at any point in the last 1000 years. The bit at the end, most average or below people would assume is a synopsis of the article and get the wrong message, which is sort of my point. Smart people filter, aggregate and examine. Average and lower people just go tl;dr and read the synopsis at the end. If you do that then it appears some professor guy, who is skeptical, says the melting isn`t any more than 1940 or 1830.

I know that is not what the article says but I am demonstrating how some people, even with a pro AGW article would misread it with limited understanding and come to a different conclusion.

If you (the generalised you, meaning proponents of AGW) really care about the issue and want stuff done about it then you`ll have to stop banging on about this chart, that graph such and such model and get the media to get on board because only with the mandate of the average and below average people (who have more voting power than the smart and are led by the media) will you be able to effect the changes you desire and you won`t get that mandate with just science.


Fair enough, and the last paragraph remains a very good point. I don't know much about communicating science to non-scientists, but all that I can think of is perhaps  appealing more to values - we all want to leave a reasonably good environment for our children, we all have some kind of attachment to the places that we live and wouldn't want them to come to harm. What do you think?


Appealing to values just grates on a good portion of the western world. The only reliable way of changing how people do stuff is to make it cheaper. Or easier. Or maybe cooler but that`s really hard. Going green should be cheaper and easier than not going green. That`s it. I follow the homer theory on people in that they are essentially lazy creatures of habit who won`t change what they do day to day even if the world was ending. Given a choice, they will pick the familiar. So do like the UK did and make *only* energy saver lightbulbs available so people HAD to switch. Some people even hoarded the old style lightbulbs...

Changing buying habits is easier than changing how people see the world and more effective.

Personally I would like to see all packaging being compostable. But that`s just me.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report