Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Geographic)   What is the cause behind the recent heat wave? Sorry global warming, you can put your hand back down   (news.nationalgeographic.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, American Southwest, highs, effects of global warming, Death Valley, global warming, ice cores, climate change, tree rings  
•       •       •

10633 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2013 at 9:51 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-07-01 11:47:17 PM  
Wait, isn't seven the most likely roll?  That's what craps has taught me.

And while yes, it was hot as fark last week, today was pleasant, and it had been tame until recently.   Plus we're like 15X the average rainfall so far this year.
 
2013-07-02 12:01:55 AM  
It's gotten to the 100's and even the 110's where I'm at, but I can handle it as long as it's dry and windy. The problem is so far the wind has been dead and the humidity is so high that you might as well be swimming when you go outside.

At least air conditioners work miracles when it's humid.
 
2013-07-02 12:09:58 AM  
I don't see the green chart&graph man. Must not be warm enough here for him yet.
 
2013-07-02 12:14:25 AM  

meat0918: "But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures. "

Keep farking that chicken subby


I don't see how they arrive at that conclusion.  Comparing current weather to weather 100-600 years ago is a little misleading as there was an actual increase in global temperatures that appeared to end in the 90s.  I think the question of interest, is why did this happen, even when population growth, industrialization, and emission of greenhouse gases increased at a breathtaking rate during that time?  It appears to contradict the whole anthropomorphic climate change theory but no one seems to even want to acknowledge it may be a possibility.   I know how things work and a lot of these guys are funded by grants. The possibility of anthropomorphic climate change killing us all keeps the people in fear and research money rolling in.

What I see as the biggest threat to humanity is the explosive growth in the human population.  Population cant keep doubling every 30 odd years or so before a tipping point is reached, but I don't see how you can stop it.
 
2013-07-02 12:17:17 AM  

whatshisname: mgshamster: No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.

Which is what the article says:

Can we attribute this particular heat wave to an anthropogenic impact on the climate? The only safe answer is, well, probably not. It's like if I flip one coin and it comes up heads, that doesn't mean the coin is loaded.

But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures.


A hundred years of warming, and we've been using oil for half of that time?  How unusual is a hundred years of warming?

i.imgur.com
Would you believe 15 periods of about 100 years where the temperature increased or decreased by over five degrees?
 
2013-07-02 12:17:18 AM  
It is a known fact that the climate never changed in the last 4 billion years until the Watergate scandal.

/THANKS NIXON!
 
2013-07-02 12:24:00 AM  
You know how I know you didn't read the article?

"But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures."
 
2013-07-02 12:30:17 AM  
If we would look at this issue economically I am pretty sure that doing what we can to mitigate green house gas emissions, for example NO2, to CO, Methane, CO2 and H2O, everything gets easier to get moving.

If we spend 700 Billion to implement already existing technology, and while implementing it, get the benefits of the mass production process and further refinements that will take place during this process, we can reduce our water usage by 90%, decrease our electrical generation greenhouse gas production by 100% and mitigate/balance out 50-70% of our transportation greenhouse gas production, and save the US population 1.3to 1.5 Trillion dollars a year without touching profit margins for the MNC's/government who will be the ones with the capital to fully implement these solutions.

GE has produced a 61% efficient natural gas burning steam turbine. How hard would it be to translate that from Natural gas to Hydrogen gas burning.
I don't know exactly, but Hydrogen has a higher energy output per mole in it's oxidation reaction than natural gas, so it would seem they could get more efficiency out of the boiling water part of the steam turbine, and have better control over increasing output/decreasing output to react to changes in peak load and minimum load points. Plus burning Hydrogen produces water, which can be cooled and then put into the water supply as it is completely purified coming out the end of a exhaust pipe, where the temperature exceeds 100 degrees C.

Entertech has the 7.5 MW towers, which would be the most efficient and least impactful wind turbines in terms of temperature variance, bird strikes, plus they are the least likely to breakdown as they have the least moving parts and are built to withstand the most extreme weather conditions (EF4 tornadoes and Class 3 Hurricanes). Also they can, if conditions are persistently positive in terms of wind, they can be let loose to overproduce at up to 8.5-9.0 MW without damage, so even when the worst storms are storming, they can continue to generate and distribute power.

The companies producing coal, oil and natural gas would themselves save a combined 250 Billion dollars a year in extraction/transportation and other related costs, and the government would save 5-60 billion dollars a year in subsidization costs to the coal, oil and natural gas producers.

The removal of 15000 coal, oil and natural gas train cars from the US rail system daily would then allow the removal of 20,000 semi-trailers off of the roadways, saving Billions in long haul transportation, fuel and maintenance costs for trucks, roads and other infrastructure, plus decreasing the likelyhood of disasterous train derailment scenarios, or the long term environmental damage of coal dust spreading locally or regionally where the majority of the coal trains run through, as some of those areas are very vital to migrations of hundreds of thousands of interelated species etc.

So yes for 10 years there would be an increased 70 Billion dollar investment into Wind, Solar, Superconductive Loop, and Water Recycling technologies, focussed primarily on the sidelines of the existing transportation systems and the top 100 major cities and with in the Central High Plains States where Wind is consistently blowing faster than 10 Miles per hour at around 80-200 ft above ground level, but the end result would be a full on savings at the end of those 10 years for all parties combined (Government, Businesses and Individual Households) of over 13.5 Trillion dollars, or nearly the entirety of the National Debt as it stands today. Also with the proper implementation we would have the backup power equivalent of 14 years, so if the wind didn't blow and the sun didn't shine anymore, those 100 cities and all of the intricately wired rest of the power grid could still operate all of modern electrical devices for 14 years, and fuel modern transportation for nearly 10, before even touching the Strategic Oil Reserve.
 
2013-07-02 12:31:57 AM  

gpuica: You know how I know you didn't read the article?

"But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures."


*sigh*

One of those threads

/if you're not going to add to the conversation or bother reading the thread, why bother posting all?
//Inane in the membrane
 
2013-07-02 12:41:59 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Deep Contact: What heat wave? It's only in the 60's in Western NY.

sounds legit

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


I'm amazed ya'll don't know the cause ...

thepeoplescube.com
 
2013-07-02 01:19:05 AM  

omeganuepsilon: gpuica: You know how I know you didn't read the article?

"But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures."

*sigh*

One of those threads

/if you're not going to add to the conversation or bother reading the thread, why bother posting all?
//Inane in the membrane


Meant to post that hours earlier, but my phone be stoopid. Sorry for taking up 10 seconds of your oh-so-precious time.
 
2013-07-02 01:28:50 AM  
One scientist, when asked if a heatwave in one portion of the world is caused by global warming said, "the only safe answer is probably not". It's a wrap, global warming is a hoax.
 
2013-07-02 01:32:19 AM  
gpuica:

Meant to post that hours earlier, but my phone be stoopid. Sorry for taking up 10 seconds of your oh-so-precious time.

Well, you at least care enough to have an explanation. So, you have that going for you.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:46 AM  

skozlaw: Kevin72: Because weather =\= climate. Unless there's a heatwave, then it's OMG GLOBAL WARMING111! 111!!

For example, you're probably very bad at math. Or maybe just thinking in general.


No, he's merely commenting on the vast amounts of posts that seem to follow this trend.

 If it's warmer than usual out, people start blaming global warming. Other people shrug and just say it happens, that's weather. Global warming people insist that hotter temps = global warming.

 When it's colder than usual out, other people say it's because there's no global warming as a way of poking fun at the folks in the above example. The first group then get indignant and says that just because it's colder than usual doesn't mean global warming isn't happening and launch into long winded explanations about why individual weather patterns aren't counted when talking about global climate changes.

 Either individual weather patterns on a given day are indicative of "global warming" or they aren't. People need to be consistent and stop spouting off an argument of convenience just because it happens to agree with their viewpoint at a given juncture in time. Everyone else tends to notice the inconsistency and it weakens the position.

 This applies even if someone picks a side that is "right". If they are an utterly spectacular failure at understanding and properly explaining *why* they are right.... they won't be, because they won't actually be explaining what is truly happening. Only their "messed-up-half-heard-and-badly-told-version" that includes purple monkey dishwashers.

/people need to stop shouting "Because Science told me so!" the way people shout "Because God told me so!"
//actually, scratch that. Everyone needs to know what they're talking about regardless of what they arguing.
///seen too many functionally illiterate christians too (sigh)
 
2013-07-02 02:49:25 AM  
Thanks, cuzsis. Maybe I should have added "In before" because basically what I was doing was pre-empting the obvious usual, especially because the article was based on the weather/climate distinction.
 
2013-07-02 03:23:13 AM  

cuzsis: //actually, scratch that. Everyone needs to know what they're talking about regardless of what they arguing.


Or at least a little bit and be willing to think and learn.  That's what I formerly loved about fark, a LOT of it was that way.  Less and less as we become just another mega-site.

cuzsis: If they are an utterly spectacular failure at understanding and properly explaining *why* they are right.... they won't be,


This as well.  Whichever side is right, in any given debate, typically both sides will have vehemently retarded jaggovs that happened to pick the right stance. They then pompously display their beliefs and out themselves, and get even more vitriolic and bitter when it's pointed out.

One can make great sport of them on occasion, but it does get old.
 
2013-07-02 05:33:36 AM  
img4.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-02 06:58:23 AM  
Yeah, right, you dumbass monkey-f**kers. If "global warming" can't be proven in every detail and fifty years into the future, and to your scientifically ignorant satisfaction, that means it's intelligent to keep making our energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen. Stupid, greedy, lazy apes deserve to go extinct.
 
2013-07-02 07:13:43 AM  

meat0918: "But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures. "

Keep farking that chicken subby


Anything is consistent with climate change because climate change predicts anything. But you keep clinging to empty tautologies if that's what makes you happy.
 
2013-07-02 07:21:01 AM  

Acravius: If we would look at this issue economically I am pretty sure that doing what we can to mitigate green house gas emissions, for example NO2, to CO, Methane, CO2 and H2O, everything gets easier to get moving.

If we spend 700 Billion to implement already existing technology, and while implementing it, get the benefits of the mass production process and further refinements that will take place during this process,

I'm going to go right ahead and stop you there and mention the broken window fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Please be very careful about people who say "but what we're doing is good because it stimulates the economy", since they are probably just statists who don't like the idea of leaving people's cash alone. There *may* be genuine benefits to the environment that come from movign to renewables, but from an economic POV every penny spent on that stuff is a sunk cost. You just have to decide how much you are willing to spend and try to spend it as efficiently as possible.
 
2013-07-02 07:42:55 AM  

jso2897: Yeah, right, you dumbass monkey-f**kers. If "global warming" can't be proven in every detail and fifty years into the future, and to your scientifically ignorant satisfaction, that means it's intelligent to keep making our energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen. Stupid, greedy, lazy apes deserve to go extinct.


What a ridiculous attemt to move the goalposts. It isn't just that "global warming" hasn't been proven "in every detail". It's that it hasn't been proven at all. Not even slightly. Every estimate has been way off. Here are just a few examples:
- in 2000, leading climatologiest predicted snow a thing of the past in UK:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/29/crus-forecast-winter-snowfall-wi ll-become-a-very-rare-and-exciting-event/">http://wattsupwiththat.com /2009/12/29/crus-forecast-winter-snowfall-wi ll-become-a-very-rare-and-exciting-event/
- Since then, the UK's MET office has overpredicted temps 11 out of 12 years http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/12/met_predictions/">http://www. theregister.co.uk/2013/01/12/met_predictions/
- IPCC did provide error bars on their predictions, to allow for uncertainty. We are already outside of them, see http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was-wrong-england-and-the-ab c-mislead-australians/">http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was -wrong-england-and-the-ab c-mislead-australians/

Remember that many of the predictions coming from supposed experts at the top of climatology were for exponential rises - in other words, not only were the temperatures supposed to keep going up, but actually get faster and faster. Instead we get 16 years of slightly falling temps. Do you really call that a little detail?

Sure, they could go up again in 50 years. Hostory shows (after you throw away Mann's thouroughly-falsified hockey stick graph) that climate fluctuates chaotically on virtually all time scales. So (unless a pattern is found) we have no way to say. But the AGW theory has made it's predictions and they have failed to come true, not in some little detail, but by a godam mile. They are  way outside their own error margins. The game is over, so stop running around with those goal-posts - everybody else has gone home.
 
2013-07-02 07:45:36 AM  

SevenizGud: [img4.imageshack.us image 729x625]


That's a really interesting graph. I notice comething else in it. You see that peak in 1998? Other graphs have it too. Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years. But not we have a year that is hot again, and this time they say we should not ignore it, and instead claim it is consistent with AGW (this is in the article).

Funny how they pick and choose what should be ignored.
 
2013-07-02 07:48:42 AM  
I need a proof reader lol.
 
2013-07-02 07:53:59 AM  
i26.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-02 08:17:38 AM  

Kevin72: phamwaa: Kevin72: [photos-3.dropbox.com image 765x1024]


What Kevin72 at Death Valley might look like. Except 15 pounds heavier than where I'm at today. And temps 50 degrees less than today's.

Nice. Zabriskie Point?
I used to camp at Texas Spring. In January. Before the noon temp started cracking 100.

Yep, Zabriskie. But UNLIKELY for January for the temp to even go 75. Did you mean April? Oh never mind. You meant January so no chance of 100. Actually, January's too cold for me. I last there Spring break, just preceding the FARK Convention 2012 in Las Vegas. High temps only 70-90, so pleasant at night.


I stand corrected. The year I was thinking about, we were there in February. Highs approaching 98.
 
2013-07-02 08:41:33 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years.


More lies.

Scientists say that it is dishonest to choose an outlier point as a starting point to artificially manufacture a downward trend. Actually, this is what statisticians will tell you (no matter what the data set). When trying to plot a trend you use all the data available, including 1998.

But extremely dishonest people will plot all their trend starting at 1998.
 
2013-07-02 08:52:49 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years.

More lies.

Scientists say that it is dishonest to choose an outlier point as a starting point to artificially manufacture a downward trend. Actually, this is what statisticians will tell you (no matter what the data set). When trying to plot a trend you use all the data available, including 1998.

But extremely dishonest people will plot all their trend starting at 1998.


Do you see any graphs truncated at 1998 in this thread?

Actually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

Also you have not addressed my point, which is that TFA wants to tell us this year is "consistent" with AGW (mealy mouthed deniable wording for "supports") but warmist alarmists want very warm years deleted from the data when they are inconvenient. I take it you accept my point?
 
2013-07-02 08:59:10 AM  

skozlaw: karmaceutical: koch like typing detected...

No.

It's perfectly reasonable to anybody who understands probability to know that just because the odds of an outcome improved that doesn't mean they became a certainty. And anything that isn't a certainty can't be stated with certainty, only a level of confidence.

Which is a sort of problem when it comes to convincing imbeciles in regards to climate change. They use the non-reproducibility of chance as "evidence" that climate change isn't occurring because they ignore the confidence interval because they don't understand statistical parameters because they failed out of school in the 8th grade.

The article isn't wrong, but, yes, it will be used by idiots who are bad at math as evidence that climate change is bogus.


That was hot.
 
2013-07-02 09:03:37 AM  
www.demotivationalposters.org
 
2013-07-02 09:17:41 AM  

cuzsis: skozlaw: Kevin72: Because weather =\= climate. Unless there's a heatwave, then it's OMG GLOBAL WARMING111! 111!!

For example, you're probably very bad at math. Or maybe just thinking in general.

No, he's merely commenting on the vast amounts of posts that seem to follow this trend.

 If it's warmer than usual out, people start blaming global warming. Other people shrug and just say it happens, that's weather. Global warming people insist that hotter temps = global warming.

 When it's colder than usual out, other people say it's because there's no global warming as a way of poking fun at the folks in the above example. The first group then get indignant and says that just because it's colder than usual doesn't mean global warming isn't happening and launch into long winded explanations about why individual weather patterns aren't counted when talking about global climate changes.

 Either individual weather patterns on a given day are indicative of "global warming" or they aren't. People need to be consistent and stop spouting off an argument of convenience just because it happens to agree with their viewpoint at a given juncture in time. Everyone else tends to notice the inconsistency and it weakens the position.

 This applies even if someone picks a side that is "right". If they are an utterly spectacular failure at understanding and properly explaining *why* they are right.... they won't be, because they won't actually be explaining what is truly happening. Only their "messed-up-half-heard-and-badly-told-version" that includes purple monkey dishwashers.

/people need to stop shouting "Because Science told me so!" the way people shout "Because God told me so!"
//actually, scratch that. Everyone needs to know what they're talking about regardless of what they arguing.
///seen too many functionally illiterate christians too (sigh)


Climate Change encompasses all types of unusual weather patterns - not simply the warm ones. Unusual blizzards and ice storms are totally consistent with climate change. Anyone that tries to explain these types of events differently than the warmer events has a poor understanding of climate change.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying that a particular event is caused by climate change. I'm saying that climate change creates a myriad of extreme weather events.
 
2013-07-02 09:25:21 AM  
Those of us in the KC area have quite enjoyed a cool wet summer.  After last years immediate jump to 90's and 100's this long stretch of 70's and 80's has been fantastic.
 
2013-07-02 09:29:01 AM  
 
2013-07-02 09:30:35 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years.

More lies.

Scientists say that it is dishonest to choose an outlier point as a starting point to artificially manufacture a downward trend. Actually, this is what statisticians will tell you (no matter what the data set). When trying to plot a trend you use all the data available, including 1998.

But extremely dishonest people will plot all their trend starting at 1998.

Do you see any graphs truncated at 1998 in this thread?

Actually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

Also you have not addressed my point, which is that TFA wants to tell us this year is "consistent" with AGW (mealy mouthed deniable wording for "supports") but warmist alarmists want very warm years deleted from the data when they are inconvenient. I take it you accept my point?


Mealy mouthed? Lol.

"Consistent with" is a phrase used all the time in the sciences. To claim otherwise means you are either very ignorant of the language used in the scientific community, you're a troll, or both.

You probably don't even care, because you're likely just trolling, so this post is for others who are reading and might actually have intellectual curiosity.
 
2013-07-02 09:47:16 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: ctually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.


So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

www.skepticalscience.com

If your anti-science machine had been running back then you would have been screaming "Were cooling now ... the warming is over!". And yet the overall trend was still warming.

In fact, our current little flat spot is completely dwarfed by the cooling period in the 40s and by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your denier rhetoric at all do they??
 
2013-07-02 09:55:20 AM  

cuzsis: No, he's merely commenting on the vast amounts of posts that seem to follow this trend.


Kevin72: Thanks, cuzsis. Maybe I should have added "In before" because basically what I was doing was pre-empting the obvious usual, especially because the article was based on the weather/climate distinction.


Please point to these "vast amounts".  The greater portion of posts in threads regarding the extreme weather, whether warm or cold, are saying, essentially, weather is not the same as climate.  I don't know which fark you've been going to, but it's not the one in this reality.
 
2013-07-02 10:09:15 AM  

Farking Canuck: So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?


If there are any "deniers" about, user Farking Canuck wants to hear from you.

<graph>

Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.

If your anti-science machine had been running back then you would have been screaming "Were cooling now ... the warming is over!". And yet the overall trend was still warming.

Actually James Hansen, high-ranking climatologist from NASA was saying there was catestrophic global colling in action. It was "your lot" who jumped on the small cooling trend and tried to make something big out of it. Sceptics were sceptical, and turned out to be correct.

In fact, our current little flat spot is completely dwarfed by the cooling period in the 40s and by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your denier rhetoric at all do they??

Thanks to your misleading graph, which I have discussed already.

By the way, if you look at the data from before your cherry-picked start date, you'll see a warming trend going back since before any significant human CO2 emissions. It's commonly referred to as the recovery from the little ice age, but that isn't important (it's really just a low-frequency component of underlying natural fluctuations in the climate). What is important is that in order to demonstrate catastrophic AGW, climatists have to show an unprecidentedly rapid exponential rise - not just point at a trend that was underway anyway. The current flat period, so carefully hidden in your misleading plot, strongly refutes this. AGW is dead.
 
2013-07-02 10:10:16 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: ctually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x375]

If your anti-science machine had been running back then you would have been screaming "Were cooling now ... the warming is over!". And yet the overall trend was still warming.

In fact, our current little flat spot is completely dwarfed by the cooling period in the 40s and by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your denier rhetoric at all do they??


No one is denying climate changes, but are contesting its man made or co2 caused. can you explain all the climate changes since the planet formed? Were dinos driving suvs that made teh planet hot? What made it cool to ice age? Then warm back up and do it all over again? Surely you have reached a "consensus" by now right? that = facts in todays world right?
 
2013-07-02 10:42:59 AM  

Joe Blowme: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: ctually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x375]

If your anti-science machine had been running back then you would have been screaming "Were cooling now ... the warming is over!". And yet the overall trend was still warming.

In fact, our current little flat spot is completely dwarfed by the cooling period in the 40s and by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your denier rhetoric at all do they??

No one is denying climate changes, but are contesting its man made or co2 caused. can you explain all the climate changes since the planet formed? Were dinos driving suvs that made teh planet hot? What made it cool to ice age? Then warm back up and do it all over again? Surely you have reached a "consensus" by now right? that = facts in todays world right?



The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.
 
2013-07-02 10:45:58 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.


Love your use of the word "problematic". Climate scientists believe the current amount of warming is "problematic".

Of course ... the anti-science crowd believe they know better. They have their blogs and political think-tanks and let's not forget their gut feelings!!! Screw all the data, forget all that evil book-lernin', the scientists are all corrupt and we need to listen to the good, honest people in the oil industry who helpfully instruct us to "Do Nothing!!!". Just keep polluting so the profits keep rolling in.
 
2013-07-02 10:50:02 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.


He read it on a blog somewhere and it felt right in his gut ... so he's running with it.
 
2013-07-02 10:55:34 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.


This is a big cheat. Nobody is saying that the existence of previous fluctuations invalidates AGW directly. What we are saying is that it invalidates the argument that the 1978-1998 warming period can only be explained anthropogenically. The existance of natural fluctuations make the recent rise unsurprising, and insufficient to support the theory. We're saying you need some other empirical support, and we're still waiting for it.
 
2013-07-02 10:59:25 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: This is a big cheat. Nobody is saying that the existence of previous fluctuations invalidates AGW directly. What we are saying is that it invalidates the argument that the 1978-1998 warming period can only be explained anthropogenically. The existance of natural fluctuations make the recent rise unsurprising, and insufficient to support the theory. We're saying you need some other empirical support, and we're still waiting for it.


There are thousands of papers that present evidence supporting the theory that the current warming is due to AGW. The vast majority of peer reviewed papers in the relevant journals supports this. The fact that you refuse to or are unable to read them is nobody's fault but your own.
 
2013-07-02 11:01:51 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

If there are any "deniers" about, user Farking Canuck wants to hear from you.

<graph>

Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.


Keep in mind that the global instrumental record, which is what that graph is portraying, starts in the mid 1850s or 1880s. It wasn't a choice on the part of whomever made that graph. That aside, note that it is accepted practice to use all the available space when making a plot. Also note that if you're trying to determine what "problematic warming" is by how far the line graphically extends in a plot (instead of the underlying numbers), you may be grossly oversimplifying things.


THE GREAT NAME: If your anti-science machine had been running back then you would have been screaming "Were cooling now ... the warming is over!". And yet the overall trend was still warming.

Actually James Hansen, high-ranking climatologist from NASA was saying there was catestrophic global colling in action. It was "your lot" who jumped on the small cooling trend and tried to make something big out of it. Sceptics were sceptical, and turned out to be correct.


You're going to have to back up the bit in bold in some way given the obvious fact that Hansen wasn't publishing back then, and to my knowledge has not many any claim as to "catestrophic global colling" [sic] at any time.


THE GREAT NAME: In fact, our current little flat spot is completely dwarfed by the cooling period in the 40s and by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your denier rhetoric at all do they??

Thanks to your misleading graph, which I have discussed already.

By the way, if you look at the data from before your cherry-picked start date, you'll see a warming trend going back since before any significant human CO2 emissions. It's commonly referred to as the recovery from the little ice age, but that isn't important (it's really just a low-frequency component of underlying natural fluctuations in the climate). What is important is that in order to demonstrate catastrophic AGW, climatists have to show an unprecidentedly rapid exponential rise - not just point at a trend that was underway anyway. The current flat period, so carefully hidden in your misleading plot, strongly refutes this. AGW is dead.


Just to get it out of the way, anthropogenic climate change does not mean an "exponential rise".

That out of the way, the more important issue is to note that it is very difficult to attribute a specific cause to a change if different processes are working simultaneously and therefore their relative contributions are conflated. What may also help is to note that these different processes are not mutually exclusive - that we are coming out of an ice age does not mean that anthropogenic climate change does not exist, for example. Therefore, an  exploration of the underlying mechanisms and processes is what is required, and is the basis for attribution of anthropogenic climate change.
 
2013-07-02 11:04:51 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.

Love your use of the word "problematic". Climate scientists believe the current amount of warming is "problematic".



Citation please.

Of course ... the anti-science crowd believe they know better. They have their blogs and political think-tanks and let's not forget their gut feelings!!! Screw all the data, ...
Well, I've just seen your data, and it's rubbish. I may not respond to further comments from you, since you seem to be "losing it". I will just stop to say I love science, and if you think you have somehow claimed science for yourself by supporting climatology, you are deluded.
 
2013-07-02 11:09:12 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:

1. Then why does the graph start at 1890? To hide the trend from 1850 to 1890 when there was negligable anthropomorphic CO2 but temps still rose.
2. Oh FFS look it up
3. An exponential rise was the prediction. Stop moving the goal posts.
 
2013-07-02 11:16:56 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: I will just stop to say I love science, and if you think you have somehow claimed science for yourself by supporting climatology, you are deluded.


You love science but you like to pretend that the active scientists in the climate field have not published overwhelmingly in support of AGW. That's just the equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la - it's not true - la la la".
 
2013-07-02 11:20:34 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.

This is a big cheat. Nobody is saying that the existence of previous fluctuations invalidates AGW directly.
What we are saying is that it invalidates the argument that the 1978-1998 warming period can only be explained anthropogenically.


I don't think you're going to find any research that states that said trend is solely due to anthropogenic factors. However, what has been found is that warming trend cannot be explained without anthropogenic factors.


THE GREAT NAME: The existance of natural fluctuations make the recent rise unsurprising, and insufficient to support the theory. We're saying you need some other empirical support, and we're still waiting for it.


The first part is reasonable, and points out the limitations of correlation as opposed to more direct measure of causality. There's only so much you can say from looking at trends without trying to decompose the relative contribution of the underlying processes and mechanisms.

That aside, I respectfully suggest that the information you are waiting for already exists - any of the literature dealing with forcing factors and climate sensitivity is an attempt at causation. Maybe you've seen this old chestnut (from the IPCC AR4) posted here before:

gregladen.com

In short, don't make the mistake of assuming one's state of knowledge (and what is presented in the popular media) is commensurate with that of the extant literature.
 
2013-07-02 11:24:11 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: This is a big cheat. Nobody is saying that the existence of previous fluctuations invalidates AGW directly. What we are saying is that it invalidates the argument that the 1978-1998 warming period can only be explained anthropogenically. The existance of natural fluctuations make the recent rise unsurprising, and insufficient to support the theory. We're saying you need some other empirical support, and we're still waiting for it.

There are thousands of papers that present evidence supporting the theory that the current warming is due to AGW. The vast majority of peer reviewed papers in the relevant journals supports this. The fact that you refuse to or are unable to read them is nobody's fault but your own.



Whoh now. Let's be fair. The reality is that the vast majority of people do not have easy access to scientific literature, never mind sufficient background in order to understand it. While people do have a certain responsibility to educate themselves, extending this as far as directly reviewing the scientific literature is a very large if not prohibitive burden for most.
 
2013-07-02 11:41:04 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

1. Then why does the graph start at 1890? To hide the trend from 1850 to 1890 when there was negligable anthropomorphic CO2 but temps still rose.


I'm not sure what the reason is. It may be due to wanting all the records to be complete in the plot. However, I suggest making up a reason for it and assuming it to be true, as you have done, isn't the wisest course, especially since anthropogenic CO2 concentrations remained quite low well until the mid 20th century.


THE GREAT NAME: 2. Oh FFS look it up


I'm sorry, but it was your claim, besides the fact that it is very difficult for me to prove a negative. Again, James Hansen was born in 1941 and probably wasn't making claims about cooling during the 40's and 50's, and hasn't made any claims to that effect since.


THE GREAT NAME: 3. An exponential rise was the prediction. Stop moving the goal posts.


I'm sorry, but this isn't the claim. Never has been. Maybe what would help would be to note that "accelerating" isn't the same as "exponential". In addition, to be fair, there's lots of misguided people out there prone to hyperbole. I'm sure there are people out there claiming such, but you really ought to distinguish between scientific knowledge versus the diversity of opinions you find in the public discourse.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:22 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Whoh now. Let's be fair. The reality is that the vast majority of people do not have easy access to scientific literature, never mind sufficient background in order to understand it. While people do have a certain responsibility to educate themselves, extending this as far as directly reviewing the scientific literature is a very large if not prohibitive burden for most.


He is claiming that this evidence doesn't exist. My point was that AGW has dominated the climate science field for decades.This is not some obscure topic that you can claim "I've not heard of this ... can you point me to a paper on it?".

I am not going to dig up a list of thousands of papers that I know he will never read.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report