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.

(BusinessWeek)   NOAA's CO-WHOAAAAAAAA reading downgraded to CO-NOOOOO   (businessweek.com) divider line 62
    More: Followup, carbon dioxide, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Geochemistry, Mauna Loa, sea levels, carbon emissions, fossil fuels  
•       •       •

4406 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 May 2013 at 9:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 09:13:52 AM
This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.
 
2013-05-13 09:16:02 AM
Well, thank god global warming has been averted.
 
2013-05-13 09:28:06 AM
Cool. Anybody got some hairspray with CFC's, and a poorly tuned internal combustion engine? I need to celebrate in style.
 
2013-05-13 09:35:49 AM
i.imgur.com

This lowering of CO2 in the US was accomplished by greed. Not by regulation.
 
2013-05-13 09:38:27 AM
I, for one, am enjoying flooding one year followed by droughts the next.
 
2013-05-13 09:39:57 AM

Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.



yea, and politicians and your butt boy rush loudmouth have all the answers.   and of course, FOX News is THE source for scientific Minds.

well done.  you've just shown that you have another think coming.
 
2013-05-13 09:40:44 AM

verbaltoxin: I, for one, am enjoying flooding one year followed by droughts the next.



yea,  watching the weather go every which way but loose is a real treat.   lol
 
2013-05-13 09:41:29 AM
Comon' America, all you have to do is Believe that Global climate change is not real.   that will make it so!!

Believe!
 
2013-05-13 09:42:29 AM
400.03 parts per million...has now been revised down to 399.89 ppm

ok, nevermind, all is well.  time to fire up some new factories and power stations
 
2013-05-13 09:46:24 AM

Linux_Yes: Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.


yea, and politicians and your butt boy rush loudmouth have all the answers.   and of course, FOX News is THE source for scientific Minds.

well done.  you've just shown that you have another think coming.


Apparently sarcasm doesn't make it through very well in this format.
 
2013-05-13 09:49:18 AM

Hollie Maea: Linux_Yes: Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.


yea, and politicians and your butt boy rush loudmouth have all the answers.   and of course, FOX News is THE source for scientific Minds.

well done.  you've just shown that you have another think coming.

Apparently sarcasm doesn't make it through very well in this format.


I don't think your comment was the problem...
 
2013-05-13 09:56:40 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: 400.03 parts per million...has now been revised down to 399.89 ppm

ok, nevermind, all is well.  time to fire up some new factories and power stations


I'm going to go burn a tire.
 
2013-05-13 09:59:22 AM

Hollie Maea: Linux_Yes: Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.


yea, and politicians and your butt boy rush loudmouth have all the answers.   and of course, FOX News is THE source for scientific Minds.

well done.  you've just shown that you have another think coming.

Apparently sarcasm doesn't make it through very well in this format.


Sarcasm? On Fark? You don't say!
 
2013-05-13 10:01:34 AM
If there is a threshold for a warming cascade effect, I doubt that it will be a round number.
 
2013-05-13 10:11:45 AM

enry: Dead for Tax Reasons: 400.03 parts per million...has now been revised down to 399.89 ppm

ok, nevermind, all is well.  time to fire up some new factories and power stations

I'm going to go burn a tire.


cool, i'll dump the 55gal drum of used motor oil i have in the garage down the storm drain
 
2013-05-13 10:14:38 AM
So we don't have to wait until next spring to celebrate 400 again, we can do it in two weeks also? Yay!
 
2013-05-13 10:16:56 AM

Hollie Maea: Linux_Yes: Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.


yea, and politicians and your butt boy rush loudmouth have all the answers.   and of course, FOX News is THE source for scientific Minds.

well done.  you've just shown that you have another think coming.

Apparently sarcasm doesn't make it through very well in this format.


In AGW threads, Poe's Law trumps sarcasm.
 
2013-05-13 10:21:35 AM
No need for anyone to get his or her panties in a bunch. I'm betting on: Give it time to pick up that final tenth or two.
 
2013-05-13 10:23:49 AM

LazarusLong42: In AGW threads, Poe's Law trumps sarcasm.


That's true.  I just figured by now everyone either had me farkied as "Obnoxious overzealous evangelical environmentalist" or just had me ignored.
 
2013-05-13 10:26:18 AM

Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.


This proves that climate scientists are monkeying with the numbers.
 
2013-05-13 10:29:17 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: enry: Dead for Tax Reasons: 400.03 parts per million...has now been revised down to 399.89 ppm

ok, nevermind, all is well.  time to fire up some new factories and power stations

I'm going to go burn a tire.

cool, i'll dump the 55gal drum of used motor oil i have in the garage down the storm drain


Pfft, that just kills birds and fish.  How does that increase the amount of CO2?

/burn it!
 
2013-05-13 10:33:52 AM

RedVentrue: Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.

This proves that climate scientists are monkeying with the numbers.


I'm pretty sure the original article dealt exclusively with the statement that this was the first time that the Hawaiian station made a reading over 400ppm. It even provided estimates for when the daily average, the yearly average, and eventually when all readings would would be over 400.

So this article is just Derp. I'm sorry if the Right wing can't read basic English and needs details that were present in the original article repeated with a false indication that they weren't reported before heading.
 
2013-05-13 10:35:37 AM
The notion that industry is going to hamstring themselves to deal with this is delusional, we should start dumping money in to a planet sized parasol project.
 
2013-05-13 10:38:33 AM
The great thing about science is it can admit when it was wrong, and it always will.
 
2013-05-13 10:47:11 AM

madgonad: RedVentrue: Hollie Maea: This proves that climate scientists know nothing, and that we should be sure not to listen to anything they say.

This proves that climate scientists are monkeying with the numbers.

I'm pretty sure the original article dealt exclusively with the statement that this was the first time that the Hawaiian station made a reading over 400ppm. It even provided estimates for when the daily average, the yearly average, and eventually when all readings would would be over 400.

So this article is just Derp. I'm sorry if the Right wing can't read basic English and needs details that were present in the original article repeated with a false indication that they weren't reported before heading.


They changed the time metric to get the 400+ reading by collecting data on a longer scale. Using the original time scale the measure was still under 400. They moved the goal post in order to move up the "landmark" 400ppm date. Why would they do something so stupid? It doesn't make sense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22486153
 
2013-05-13 10:51:31 AM

SVenus: [i.imgur.com image 850x604]

This lowering of CO2 in the US was accomplished by greed. Not by regulation.


I'll just let them know that CAFE standards were a waste of time.
 
2013-05-13 10:55:38 AM

SVenus: [i.imgur.com image 850x604]

This lowering of CO2 in the US was accomplished by greed. Not by regulation.


The free market will solve every problem, because everyone in the market has perfect information, always makes rational decisions, and can easily enter or leave the market, like for healthcare or the private prison industry, both of which are among the least regulated industries you'll ever find.
 
2013-05-13 10:57:52 AM
So the "Scientists" were wrong. More proof that we should continue to burn the JesusJuice that God so graciously placed in Muslim countries for our consumption.

Suck it libbos.
 
2013-05-13 11:00:12 AM

SVenus: [i.imgur.com image 850x604]

This lowering of CO2 in the US was accomplished by greed. Not by regulation.


Not sure if you're being snarky or not, but you do realise that the CO2 reduction was caused by the fact that the farking economy crashed and people stopped consuming so much.

So yeah, it was caused by greed in that the economy crashed due to greed. But this was not the intended effect of the market...
 
2013-05-13 11:28:36 AM
Bears repeating...

farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2013-05-13 11:36:03 AM
i.imgur.com

Everything I know about global warming, I learned from futurama.
 
2013-05-13 11:59:55 AM
FTFA:
...environmentalists, who say carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels are warming the planet and must be reined in before they cause irreversible changes...

Yeah, here is the irreversibility that's happened over the last 15+ years

www.woodfortrees.org

So, NOAA scales back their, OH NOEZ - WE'RE BACON!!!eleventy due to poor sales? I am shocked...just, shocked.

But don't worry, temperatures will start to go up again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaal soon. It is an absolute certainty.
 
2013-05-13 12:00:15 PM
What are y'all squawking about CO2 for?  Subby was referring to carbon monoxide.
 
2013-05-13 12:02:02 PM

Linux_Yes: yea, watching the weather go every which way but loose is a real treat. lol


The only treat better is a claim of "weather weirding" accompanied by no quantification whatsoever.

It's NEVER been this bad!!!!!eleventy
 
2013-05-13 12:04:33 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
But don't worry, temperatures will start to go up again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaal soon. It is an absolute certainty.


Welcome to Summer.
 
2013-05-13 12:06:20 PM
I broke the dam.
 
2013-05-13 12:12:30 PM
Fake story. Sensationalism. Scientists are bound to get it right sometimes.. just not this time.

/CNN - we cover the story from all angles
//just so we can eventually get 1 fact right
 
2013-05-13 12:15:06 PM

SevenizGud: But don't worry, temperatures will start to go up again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaal soon. It is an absolute certainty.


Did you hear they "adjusted" their data again? Guess which way
 
2013-05-13 12:22:50 PM

DesertDemonWY: SevenizGud: But don't worry, temperatures will start to go up again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaal soon. It is an absolute certainty.

Did you hear they "adjusted" their data again? Guess which way


Well, you're all for correcting data when you have no idea what you're talking about and think it will expose global warming for a sham - or was it someone else who suggested removing data from thermometers next to air conditioning vents?
 
2013-05-13 12:38:13 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
...environmentalists, who say carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels are warming the planet and must be reined in before they cause irreversible changes...

Yeah, here is the irreversibility that's happened over the last 15+ years

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

So, NOAA scales back their, OH NOEZ - WE'RE BACON!!!eleventy due to poor sales? I am shocked...just, shocked.

But don't worry, temperatures will start to go up again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaal soon. It is an absolute certainty.



This song and dance again? Might as well get all the responses out of the way, and in a fashion that is easily reproducible.

1. You're cherry-picking - over 15 years you're still going to capture predominantly shorter-term variability due to shorter-term processes.

www.skepticalscience.net

2. You're using an outdated data set -HadCRUT4 has more spatial coverage (although high variability means that this trend is probably not statistically significant):

www.woodfortrees.org


3. Regression to the mean - 1997/1998 was a very strong El Nino year, with very high temperatures (see below). By choosing to ignore data prior to that relatively extreme period, and choosing a relatively short period of time, you risk finding a spurious trend as over time, variability returns to something similar to longer-term averages.

www.woodfortrees.org

4. Such 'pauses' of similar or longer length have occurred in the past.Such 'pauses', due to shorter-term processes are not uncommon (see graphs for point 1 and 3) therefore they are not necessarily indicative of climate change slowing or stopping.

5. If you don't accept any of the above, you can be proven wrong by your own methods. Why would just using 5 years then be just as good as 15?

www.woodfortrees.org


6. You're aware of the problems, and are simply arguing dishonestly:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic] Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes? [/socratic] Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation. I urge you once again to stand by your own words.

7. Plotting linear trends on graphs says very little. Probably the most important point of all. Just looking at graphs without teasing apart any of the multiple underlying processes that are working simultaneously to affect temperature says very little. One cannot claim that a specific process has stopped by just using a variable that is affected by many others at the same time.
 
2013-05-13 01:02:07 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
...environmentalists, who say carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels are warming the planet and must be reined in before they cause irreversible changes...

Yeah, here is the irreversibility that's happened over the last 15+ years

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

So, NOAA scales back their, OH NOEZ - WE'RE BACON!!!eleventy due to poor sales? I am shocked...just, shocked.

But don't worry, temperatures will start to go up again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaal soon. It is an absolute certainty.


I'm sure someone will be along soon to point out that your're a cherry-picking BSer,

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Temperatures, and mean temperatures, are still a bad variable to look for AGW in though. Comparatively huge-amplitude periodic behavior and the random aspects of weather mean that it takes an unreasonably long time-averaging before an overall trend emerges.

What to look for is once-in-a-century events that are now happening more than once per century, as a relatively small change in the mean will make extremely unlikely events much more likely. Sort of like how in 2005 the Atlantic spawned three category 5 storms in one season for the first time on record. Or how the pacific northwest is currently having the driest winter on record.

But why waste my time? You'll be right back in the very next AGW thread reposting your cherry-picked chart regardless. (Did you notice that if you pick only the last 5 years, earth is warming at an enormous rate?)
 
2013-05-13 01:09:13 PM

DesertDemonWY: SevenizGud: But don't worry, temperatures will start to go up again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaal soon. It is an absolute certainty.

Did you hear they "adjusted" their data again? Guess which way



You gotta be careful not to fall into the same trap that the author of that blog does on a fairly regular basis. Because one is unwilling to consider the given reasons for something does not give more credence to an alternative explanation. Mere suspicion is a poor substitute for reasoning or evidence.

As in other subject areas, 'just asking questions' and running just on suspicions and insinuation doesn't get you very far, especially if you're unwilling to consider the given answers. I mean, if it was otherwise we would all be more aware of what happened with that poor girl and Glenn Beck back in 1990, no?
 
2013-05-13 01:12:22 PM

erik-k: What to look for is once-in-a-century events that are now happening more than once per century

any weather event as an opportunity to espouse the idea that it is related to climate change no matter what the data says.

FTFY
 
2013-05-13 01:15:10 PM

SevenizGud: erik-k: What to look for is once-in-a-century events that are now happening more than once per century any weather event as an opportunity to espouse the idea that it is related to climate change no matter what the data says.

FTFY


You are a liar, a fraud, and you do not understand what Science is or how it works.  Go away.
 
2013-05-13 01:22:46 PM

s2s2s2: The great thing about science is it can admit when it was wrong, and it always will.


NO NO NO don't you see? Isn't it obvious? Scientists are fabricating data to further their godless agenda to destroy capitalism and make Obama King of the Earth FOREVER!!!
 
2013-05-13 02:40:30 PM
Tomorrow's headline: NOAA receives "generous" grant from oil industry to help monitor CO2 levels.
 
2013-05-13 02:52:21 PM

Hollie Maea: You are a liar, a fraud, and you do not understand what Science is or how it works. Go away.


Because nothing says "liar and fraud" more than posting the actual data verbatim from the scientist's own website.

How dare I?
 
2013-05-13 03:29:30 PM

SevenizGud: Hollie Maea: You are a liar, a fraud, and you do not understand what Science is or how it works. Go away.

Because nothing says "liar and fraud" more than posting cherry-picking a small subset of the actual data verbatim from the scientist's own website,making unsupported and misleading inferences from it, while being aware this is wrong.

How dare I?



FTFY, and yes, there's a strong case for you acting  like a "liar and fraud", especially since you irrationally tend to not respond to refutations, such as above.

If you're going to argue in bad faith, that's fine - nobody says you absolutely have to be honest or argue rationally. However, you probably shouldn't be acting all indignant when people call you out on it. You are very aware of your own dishonesty - at least have the courage to own it.
 
2013-05-13 03:37:19 PM
Can someone answer something for me???????????? PLEASE!?!?!?!?!?!

How accurate are any numbers coming from a recording station located on an active volcano that outgasses CO2!?!

I realize they say they adjust the numbers based on this, but come on. Wouldn't the Andes, or even Easter Island be a better place for this measurement taking???
 
2013-05-13 03:40:10 PM
I move that, in the future, all responses to SevenizGud's oft-humiliated Graph of Climatological Meaninglessness merely be links to a previous thread's destruction of said graph, accompanied by pictures of Kristen Bell's Magnificent Buttockal Region.  Fark has a surfeit the former, and a pronounced deficit of the latter.

/ Would accept Jessica Alba as an alternate.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 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