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.

(Denver Post)   The first decade of the new millennium showed the most global warming EVAR. Nothing extreme here, move along citizens   (denverpost.com) divider line 352
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6098 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 12:54 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-07-03 12:23:52 PM
And there is global warming on Mars too. Everybody panic!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming. ht ml
 
2013-07-03 12:31:46 PM

EnviroDude: And there is global warming on Mars too. Everybody panic!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming. ht ml


This guy?
http://iceagenow.info/2012/06/astrophysicist-forecasts-19th-ice-age- 75 00-years/

Look, he's given us a definite prediction for NEXT YEAR: "which, he says, will result in a temperature drop in approximately 2014. "

Let's see how that goes.
 
2013-07-03 12:35:52 PM
www.aboutlawsuits.com
 
2013-07-03 12:36:34 PM
"most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.
 
2013-07-03 12:38:06 PM
The only solution is cap and trade. Not just cap.

Because someone has to make money. Ok?
 
2013-07-03 12:50:31 PM
But... but during Obama's environment speech the other day Fox News told me that the rate of global warming was slowing. You mean Fox News might have lied to me?
 
2013-07-03 12:53:44 PM

netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


It maxed out at 34.7 degrees that day.

Celsius, of course.
 
2013-07-03 12:55:59 PM
bradleydibble.authorsxpress.com
 
2013-07-03 12:56:23 PM
No its not.  Uh-uh.
 
2013-07-03 12:57:35 PM

What it's like to be in Las Vegas today:


i44.tinypic.com

 
2013-07-03 12:57:56 PM

netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


I agree brother 100%.

I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.
 
2013-07-03 12:58:22 PM
You can't fool me. There were secret e-mails.
 
2013-07-03 12:58:29 PM
So long and thanks for all the a few of the one fish and an ocean full of inedible jellies.
 
2013-07-03 12:58:48 PM
In b4 context-free graph wars.
 
2013-07-03 12:58:55 PM

netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.
 
2013-07-03 12:59:23 PM
It really sucks that we're in a warming trend. I moved out of Phoenix to get away from the farking heat, not to have it follow me. Salt Lake was supposed to be this nice, cooler version where it got to triple digits about 5 times a year, and by triple digits, I mean maybe 102...

Now it's one month into summer, and instead of 5 total days, we've gotten 7 in a row and aren't even close to the hot season.

Well, at least I don't have to live through a miserable, muggy Phoenix monsoon season where it will be 113 and 50% humidity, but no rain will actually fall in the city. As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.
 
2013-07-03 01:01:42 PM
Clever...for 15 years the rate of warming has been > 0, BUT INFINITESIMAL.

If u dont see the stastical trick u r a fool. I mean, clearlyyy the solution is 100% UN Fascism.
 
2013-07-03 01:02:25 PM
Don't worry, I've learned on Facebook that global warming is [slowing down/cycles/sun spots/a fraud/good for the economy/not even happening at all].
 
2013-07-03 01:02:41 PM
But don't you see if we decide to set 1997/1998 as the baseline it suddenly proves there is no global warming? I've been assured that it does.
 
2013-07-03 01:03:14 PM

netizencain: then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?


Shakes-Rain-Stick say high of very hot, chance of very high hot.
 
2013-07-03 01:06:24 PM

Mikey1969: As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.


I feel the same way about anything above 85.
 
2013-07-03 01:10:52 PM

TheSwissNavy: Clever...for 15 years the rate of warming has been > 0, BUT INFINITESIMAL.

If u dont see the stastical trick u r a fool. I mean, clearlyyy the solution is 100% UN Fascism.


.5 degree C change is not infinitesimal on a global scale particularly if the trend continues...
 
2013-07-03 01:11:06 PM

netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


I absolutely can't tell you the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. But I can tell you why it doesn't matter. In terms of climate data, the temperature of individual days do not matter. What is important is the average temperature over a long period of time. We can reconstruct that from various sources to give us an accurate view of the climate over a very long period of time, along with other important and related data like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. These methods are accurate, they just don't have a day by day resolution.

So why we talk about the day by day stuff like the record high temperatures in Death Valley, or Australia's heat wave isn't because it proves global warming, it's because it is first hand and real time results that are consistent with global warming.
 
2013-07-03 01:11:12 PM

Cyrus the Mediocre: netizencain: then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?

Shakes-Rain-Stick say high of very hot, chance of very high hot.


Or chance of ice age. who knows we can only work from the records we have and that science stuff
 
2013-07-03 01:11:23 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-03 01:11:27 PM
Maybe the earth is warming and maybe it's not, but if it is, it's surely a coincidence that it's happening at the same time that we're pumping a gazillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
 
2013-07-03 01:14:35 PM
Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!
 
2013-07-03 01:14:46 PM

Grungehamster: But don't you see if we decide to set 1997/1998 as the baseline it suddenly proves there is no global warming? I've been assured that it does.


www.woodfortrees.org
 
2013-07-03 01:15:31 PM

thurstonxhowell: Mikey1969: As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.

I feel the same way about anything above 85.


Anything warm enough to get the temp up in the swimming areas is really enough for me, because that's also warm enough that you can get wet even fully clothed(Water fight, something like that), and you don't freeze your ass off... Anything above 95 is above my preferred zone for sure, but I can deal with 100-105 if I have to.
 
2013-07-03 01:16:21 PM

Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.


If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-03 01:16:52 PM
FTA:

...going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade.
Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000
which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990.


Submitter can't read.
 
2013-07-03 01:17:43 PM

not collecting stamps: Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!


0/10. You blew the attempt with the last phrase.
 
2013-07-03 01:19:27 PM
Detailed measurements of the Earth show that its shape is irregular, often related to the shape of a potato.  The Potato Earth.  Global warming is a good thing, here.  Because everyone loves a baked potato.  Keep that heat coming, we need to be able to fry up some bacon for this awesome incoming meal.  mmmmm baked potato....
 
2013-07-03 01:19:42 PM

not collecting stamps: Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!


I think you're being purposely obtuse.  By 'break the planet' people mean 'make the planet unihabitable for animal and plant life', not that the planet itself will crumble.  No one really gives a shiat what happens to this rock if all of us are dead.
 
2013-07-03 01:19:46 PM

DesertDemonWY: Grungehamster: But don't you see if we decide to set 1997/1998 as the baseline it suddenly proves there is no global warming? I've been assured that it does.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


forthesakeofdebate.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-03 01:19:54 PM

Grungehamster: But don't you see if we decide to set 1997/1998 as the baseline it suddenly proves there is no global warming? I've been assured that it does.


It doesn't prove anything, but a good scientist should take into account all information, not just those data points that support his original hypothesis.   Why temperatures have leveled off after 1997/98 despite the increase in CO2 emissions is a valid question, that a lot of scientists aparently want to ignore.  The article, by picking picking comparisons that would mask this phenomenon seems to skirt this issue, so to me, it is more a poltical piece than genuine science.
 
2013-07-03 01:20:44 PM

not collecting stamps: Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!


Pipe down there, spanky. There's grown-up talking here.
 
2013-07-03 01:21:19 PM
If all of the really bad stuff won't happen till I am dead, why should I care now?

/sarcasm
 
2013-07-03 01:23:06 PM

cubic_spleen: Pipe down there, spanky. There's grown-up talking here.


Is he new or have I not been paying attention?
 
2013-07-03 01:24:13 PM
 
2013-07-03 01:24:38 PM

TheSwissNavy: Clever...for 15 years the rate of warming has been > 0, BUT INFINITESIMAL.

If u dont see the stastical trick u r a fool. I mean, clearlyyy the solution is 100% UN Fascism.


It's funny. Those of us who get our science from scientists are suggesting that people try and conserve, reduce pollution, reduce dependance on middle east oil, participate in the profitable green energy industry, try to shift our energy production to greener sources, etc. Stuff like that.

But people who get their science from politicians claim the ridiculous strawman that you have above. We for some reason want to give the UN world domination. It is idiotic ... but you puppets endlessly parrot it.

It is like the other lie that gets parroted - that we want to introduce "economy destroying" measures. Who believes this drivel? Who actually wants to destroy their own economy and what government would actually implement measures like this?

And then there's the Big Bad UN. Most Fark threads the UN is portrayed as a completely ineffective organization that can only send "strongly worded letters". But in AGW threads they are evil masterminds bent on WORLD DOMINATION. Muh huh ha ha ha ha.

Sad.
 
2013-07-03 01:25:12 PM

WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]


Based on the "work" of Willis Eschenbach.

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology. Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science.

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/willis-eschenbach/
 
2013-07-03 01:25:34 PM
Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.
 
2013-07-03 01:25:44 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Why temperatures have leveled off after 1997/98 despite the increase in CO2 emissions is a valid question, that a lot of scientists aparently want to ignore.


Oh yeah? It's interesting that you would know that. You've been closely following climate science journals, then? Checking on the actual research still in progress?

...or did you just parrot that from someone who told you it was true?
 
2013-07-03 01:26:05 PM
Is that the story this week?  So hard to keep up.
 
2013-07-03 01:26:46 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.


Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?
 
2013-07-03 01:27:15 PM

Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.


While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-07-03 01:27:33 PM

not collecting stamps: Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!


Well, I'm sure the planet will be happy that YOU go extinct.
 
2013-07-03 01:28:17 PM

jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?


To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.
 
2013-07-03 01:28:35 PM
temperature != climate
 
2013-07-03 01:30:50 PM

thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.


Many people are dying in lots of parts of the world due to starvation already. Not to sound too cold hearted but are you talking about the acceleration of that process or dying of something else?
 
2013-07-03 01:31:50 PM

Mikey1969: It really sucks that we're in a warming trend. I moved out of Phoenix to get away from the farking heat, not to have it follow me. Salt Lake was supposed to be this nice, cooler version where it got to triple digits about 5 times a year, and by triple digits, I mean maybe 102...

Now it's one month into summer, and instead of 5 total days, we've gotten 7 in a row and aren't even close to the hot season.

Well, at least I don't have to live through a miserable, muggy Phoenix monsoon season where it will be 113 and 50% humidity, but no rain will actually fall in the city. As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.


I could only wish for 50% humidity here in NC. We've had rain, heavy rain, for almost a week now each and every day, and the humidity level is well over 70%, over 90% in the early mornings. You go outside and it's like being hit in the face with a warm, damp washcloth, the air is so moist and sticky.

/the hot months are still ahead of us
//we're nearly 10" over our rainfall allotment already
///for the year...
 
2013-07-03 01:33:44 PM

jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?


Oh well, I guess if your only consideration is "will humanity adapt," I'm sure as a species we will, so will the raccoons and rats and crows and roaches.

But, we'll suffer through mass extinctions of many species, probably many many wars over resources as weather patterns change, famines, disease, revolutions, that sort of stuff. Check out what the CIA has to say about it. I mean, hell, we could just go full-bore nuclear right now and eliminate all emissions, but that would take twenty years if we started now, but that ain't gonna happen until Really Bad Things start happening more frequently, and there are obviously some issues about nuclear.

I have no doubt that humans will continue to exist.
 
2013-07-03 01:34:29 PM

Farking Canuck: It's funny. Those of us who get our science from scientists are suggesting that people try and conserve, reduce pollution, reduce dependance on middle east oil, participate in the profitable green energy industry, try to shift our energy production to greener sources, etc. Stuff like that.

But people who get their science from politicians claim the ridiculous strawman that you have above. We for some reason want to give the UN world domination. It is idiotic ... but you puppets endlessly parrot it.

It is like the other lie that gets parroted - that we want to introduce "economy destroying" measures. Who believes this drivel? Who actually wants to destroy their own economy and what government would actually implement measures like this?

And then there's the Big Bad UN. Most Fark threads the UN is portrayed as a completely ineffective organization that can only send "strongly worded letters". But in AGW threads they are evil masterminds bent on WORLD DOMINATION. Muh huh ha ha ha ha.

Sad.


THIS
 
2013-07-03 01:35:25 PM
You can't trust scientists.  They only got into that business for the lucrative compensation and decadent perks that you can only get in university research.
 
2013-07-03 01:35:40 PM

sure haven't: I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.


Favorited!
 
2013-07-03 01:36:03 PM

Cathedralmaster: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

Based on the "work" of Willis Eschenbach.


Because Willis Eschenbach controls the physics of CO2 heating and you can't find the physics elsewhere.
Here, let's add the IPCC 6 degrees of heating to see what those experts expect:
i.imgur.com
Yes, the IPCC number includes the water-vapor feedback, because most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. But somehow that feedback is going to get much worse than it has been throughout four billion years (yes, there's always been water, even when we had a rock atmosphere).
 
2013-07-03 01:37:14 PM
I enjoy sweating... like every minute of every day in a sauna. It makes me feel alive to have a skin temperature of 104 while maintaining a chilly internal reserve of 94.6 against the insurmountable odds.  That's right Miami heat I said Fark you!
/delirious like R. Pryor
 
2013-07-03 01:37:20 PM
I just wish those selfish climate change deniers would do us all a favor and pray the temperatures back down to normal.
 
2013-07-03 01:37:56 PM
It's too late to panic just try to enjoy the show.
 
2013-07-03 01:38:35 PM
it was 59 in chicago when I woke up today, more like global cooling
 
2013-07-03 01:38:41 PM
I'm COUNTING on global warming. I'm retiring to New Hampshire. Could use a longer growing season...

/stop whining, build nuke power
 
2013-07-03 01:40:36 PM

skinink: What it's like to be in Las Vegas today:
[i44.tinypic.com image 800x340]


Then stop building cities in the desert.

/I'm also looking at you Phoenix
 
2013-07-03 01:41:31 PM

beal99: it was 59 in chicago when I woke up today, more like global cooling


Here in Houston it was a fabulous 65 Monday morning. This morning it was around 75! Shockingly cold considering the 107 temp spike last Saturday. It's gonna be a gorgeous 4th.
 
2013-07-03 01:43:01 PM
I would like to be clear on something.

Assuming "ever", is less extreme than "EVER", how does "EVAR" fit in here? Is it the most extreme? And what about "EVAR"?

I need to figure out which one I should be using for important work emails.
 
2013-07-03 01:43:17 PM

Cathedralmaster: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

Based on the "work" of Willis Eschenbach.

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology. Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science.

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/willis-eschenbach/


Apparently, he can massage facts!


/booo hiss
 
2013-07-03 01:43:30 PM

Kirzania: beal99: it was 59 in chicago when I woke up today, more like global cooling

Here in Houston it was a fabulous 65 Monday morning. This morning it was around 75! Shockingly cold considering the 107 temp spike last Saturday. It's gonna be a gorgeous 4th.


But you'll still be in Houston.
 
2013-07-03 01:45:03 PM

jst3p: Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?


To a degree (pardon the pun), yes. As the deniers like to preach, over and over, the climate has always been changing and we have always adapted.

The issue here is the rate of change. Adapting requires fast action and will costs huge money (much more than avoiding the problem would have). Some coastal cities are already committing billions of dollars to combat rising sea levels and the massive storm surges from deadlier storms. Other cities will not be able to build these defenses due to time or money constraints and they will suffer.

Climates are shifting so fast that species of plants and animals cannot migrate with them ... many are going extinct. If food production shifts north then we run into the problem that there is no soil on the Canadian shield ... it may get warm enough to grow but good luck growing anything there.

The fact is that those that can adapt will ... but the costs will be staggering. Those that cannot will suffer and there will be large losses of life.

I agree with those that believe that we've gone too far to avoid some serious impact. Making changes now may reduce the impact in the long term and likely shorten the duration so there are still good reasons to clean things up. But the deniers have had enough of an impact with their "Do Nothing!" movement that there will be pain.
 
2013-07-03 01:45:28 PM

Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]


That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!
 
2013-07-03 01:45:40 PM

mjohnson71: skinink: What it's like to be in Las Vegas today:
[i44.tinypic.com image 800x340]

Then stop building cities in the desert.

/I'm also looking at you Phoenix


www.inpapasbasement.com
 
2013-07-03 01:45:46 PM
Local weather is not a reliable measure of global warming. And it's called climate change. The warming bit could be totally wrong and it still would suck.
 
2013-07-03 01:46:17 PM

neversubmit: It's too late to panic just try to enjoy the show.


If nobody panics there will be no show.
 
2013-07-03 01:46:20 PM

not collecting stamps: Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!


You probably argue that it's OK for everybody to poop in the public swimming pool. It's misguided and narcissistic to think we can impact the swimming pool. The pool will be fine. After all, animals and fish have been pooping in bodies of water since long before humans came on the scene and we still have water, don't we?

/I know it's a troll but how often do you get to talk about pooping in the swimming pool?
 
2013-07-03 01:46:26 PM
"Who's to say it's not just time for Earth to warm up a bit?"

Well, WHY? Dumbass. Things don't just "happen."

Do you understand the concept of science at all?
 
2013-07-03 01:47:19 PM

Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!


Denialism REQUIRES that the "feelings" of laymen are as valid as those of actual experts.
 
2013-07-03 01:47:42 PM
I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.
 
2013-07-03 01:47:59 PM

MrBallou: not collecting stamps: Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!

You probably argue that it's OK for everybody to poop in the public swimming pool. It's misguided and narcissistic to think we can impact the swimming pool. The pool will be fine. After all, animals and fish have been pooping in bodies of water since long before humans came on the scene and we still have water, don't we?

/I know it's a troll but how often do you get to talk about pooping in the swimming pool?


BabyRuth.jpeg
 
2013-07-03 01:48:05 PM

skinink: What it's like to be in Las Vegas today:


I love hot weather, but this summer has just been ridiculous.
 
2013-07-03 01:50:53 PM

Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.


There are a significant percentage of them that truly believe that we cannot damage god's creation. So we should continue endlessly shiatting on this planet.
 
2013-07-03 01:51:21 PM

Confabulat: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.


What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.
 
2013-07-03 01:52:59 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: And it's called climate change. The warming bit could be totally wrong and it still would suck.


Both terms are valid. "Global warming" is the trend affecting the overall planet. "Climate change" was coined as a response to all of the "LOL, just shoveled 2 feet of global warming off my driveway" comments from people who didn't realize that the global warming trend would not apply uniformly to every location and every day of the year.
 
2013-07-03 01:53:08 PM

netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.
 
2013-07-03 01:53:08 PM
I think subby was trolling with intentionally false headline.
 
2013-07-03 01:54:12 PM
Houston, Tx is in for the nicest 4th of July day that I can ever remember. If this is the result of Global Climate Change I'm for it.

Going out to idle the jeep in driveway all day.
 
2013-07-03 01:54:16 PM

fappomatic: Confabulat: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.


Cool! Can we please see your research and calculations? Because then we can all stop worrying about it. But I am definitely happy that you thought of this, because I'm sure no other climate scientists have ever even considered it.
 
2013-07-03 01:54:26 PM

Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!


The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.
 
2013-07-03 01:56:02 PM

jaybeezey: Houston, Tx is in for the nicest 4th of July day that I can ever remember. If this is the result of Global Climate Change I'm for it.

Going out to idle the jeep in driveway all day.


You might as well, because there is no way we are going to avoid the 2 degree C increase in global temperature that every government agreed would be catastrophic.
 
2013-07-03 01:56:40 PM
Oh, look. Another article clearly biased on climate change. T minus 2 days before a conflicting article comes out to disprove it. There are absolutely 0 people opposed to conserving energy, finding renewable energy, and furthering our research and technology. Climate change could have been about the science, but then politics had to get involved and suddenly it's about evil corporations, paid shills, ignorant people with no scientific knowledge having strong opinions about it and yada yada yada....

/This isn't what "political science" means guys...
//Waiting for natural selection to be reinstated.
 
2013-07-03 01:56:42 PM

ourbigdumbmouth: The only solution is cap and trade. Not just cap.

Because someone has to make money. Ok?


Cap and trade is BS.  If you want to reduce smoking, you raise cigarette taxes.  If you want to reduce gasoline consumption you raise gasoline taxes.  If you want to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions you raise taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions.

Cap and trade is literally out of the Ayn Rand villain playbook.  You grandfather the current emitters by capping them and then grating them emissions based on that cap.  Existing coal burning industries get a big bundle of free emissions based on what they produce and startups based on say Natural Gas are forced to pay extra because they didn't exist.

A straight up CO2 emissions tax of $10 per ton or CO2 would raise about 50 billion in revenue at 2012 emissions levels and encourage a switch to other technologies.
 
2013-07-03 01:57:30 PM

jaybeezey: Houston, Tx is in for the nicest 4th of July day that I can ever remember. If this is the result of Global Climate Change I'm for it.


Houston is forecast to be in the mid-90s with 50% humidity tomorrow. That's "just farking shoot me" weather.

/ Should have been born Canadian.
 
2013-07-03 01:57:38 PM

teenytinycornteeth: I think you're being purposely obtuse.  By 'break the planet' people mean 'make the planet unihabitable for animal and plant life', not that the planet itself will crumble.  No one really gives a shiat what happens to this rock if all of us are dead.


And, it's actually very, very hard to destroy the Earth, but if you want some ideas, here's a handy list of some ways to do it.

Note: they are all very difficult to execute, do not attempt at home.
 
2013-07-03 01:57:49 PM

Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?


Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.
 
2013-07-03 01:58:36 PM

genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

 DEEEEEERRRPPPPPPP.

Yeah, sweetie, there's just a TON of research money devoted to proving global warming. Everywhere I look, I see climatologists in Ferraris, graduate students with gold encrusted diamond suits. It's not that this is what the research shows, except for research conducted bypoil and coal companies.
 
2013-07-03 01:58:37 PM

sure haven't: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

I agree brother 100%.

I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.


No, more like pedantic assholes. Most people have an inherent understanding of the time scales that these statement implicitly apply to and those who care find the scientific data and testable hypotheses used to extend temperature estimates back further interesting and scientifically (ie, formed and tested by collected data) compelling.
 
2013-07-03 01:59:02 PM

genner: The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.


Nope. The only reason people distrust the scientific method is because morons don't like it when someone points out the facts show they are wrong. A scientist who could clearly show global warming wasn't happening would be an instant celebrity and get tons of money from the business interests that already invest money in denier campaigns.
 
2013-07-03 01:59:20 PM
Pfft, everyone knows the climate scientists are in it for the cash and rock star lifestyle.
 
2013-07-03 01:59:51 PM
Science doesn't care if you like it. Science is a biatch like that.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-03 02:00:10 PM

WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]


...Anthony Watts does not accept the basic physics. That's why he makes bullshiat graphs like this one.
 
Bf+
2013-07-03 02:00:52 PM

awalkingecho: In b4 context-free graph wars.

americandigest.org
 
2013-07-03 02:00:53 PM

netizencain: The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you?


Well, no, I can't. Mostly because you asked for reported temperatures; pretty sure no one was keeping track of temperatures in Death Valley back then.

Maybe it's English that baffles people.
 
2013-07-03 02:02:24 PM
This is how I see things based on the current evidence.

-  The climate is rapidly changing
-  It's almost certain it is because of our industrial activity (CO2, and CFCs)
-  We are still IN a minor ice age.  Having ice caps at both poles between ice ages may be unique in the planet's history

One of a few things could happen:
-  The antarctic ice sheet might break off.  This would raise the ocean levels globally by about 20 feet.  That would be very bad.  It would also cause evaporation levels to increase, changing the weather patterns.  That would be very bad.
OR
-  Warming may cause more precipitation.  Increased percipitation in colder places, means more snow.  Which will last.  That will reflect the sun more.  Causing a cooling effect.  This could actually bring on the onset of the next ice age.
OR
-  The long term carbon cycle may be so severely disrupted, that the whole system will overbalance.  The last time this happened, it took a mere 10 thousand years to fix itself.
OR
-  Yellowstone may explode and wipe out most of the life on the planet.  Then we won't be here anymore to care anyway.  That happens on average, every 65 thousand years.  The last time it happened, was a little over 65 thousand years ago.
 
2013-07-03 02:02:39 PM

not collecting stamps: And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!


I see, so it's perfectly acceptable to fark up the planet so it results in the deaths of billions of people? Not that I think that's what's going to happen, but you just explicitly stated that that scenario is fine with you. That may have been a troll but a lot of people say this in reality. The old "we can't destroy the planet, we may die but the world will live on..." Well that's super, but I don't know about you but I want my kids and grandkids to have somewhere to live, and not in Mad Max ways. It's a stupid argument, so everyone needs to stop using it.

We could probably put every nuclear device around where detonating them all at once would cause the most damage. That might kill billions, is that ok just because the world will survive, and life will slowly recover? I don't think so.
 
2013-07-03 02:03:07 PM

IlGreven: ...Anthony Watts does not accept the basic physics.


Anthony Watts was paid $90K in 2012 by the Heartland Institute (a member of ALEC, product of Koch Bros) to spread FUD about climate change.

The people who cite him in this (and every) thread as some expert are willfully lying or ignorant or perhaps both.
 
2013-07-03 02:03:52 PM

HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.


While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.
 
2013-07-03 02:04:52 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: IlGreven: ...Anthony Watts does not accept the basic physics.

Anthony Watts was paid $90K in 2012 by the Heartland Institute (a member of ALEC, product of Koch Bros) to spread FUD about climate change.

The people who cite him in this (and every) thread as some expert are willfully lying or ignorant or perhaps both.


Which is about what I said.  He gets paid to shill Lord Monckton up and down the halls of the internet. And "deniers" worship Lord Bugeye the way they think "warmers" worship Al Gore.
 
2013-07-03 02:06:13 PM

CruJones: HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.


While I believe in evolution, you can't deny that species living and dying are possibly a natural cycle. There's no definitive proof. I mean species have lived and died many times.
 
2013-07-03 02:06:20 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-03 02:07:35 PM

netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


You are the one who seems to be confusing weather with climate. Scientists can, in fact, go to certain areas and infer the average temperature over about a years time. Naturally they can't tell you the temp on 7/1/921, because that's weather, which is a very turbulent model.
 
2013-07-03 02:08:43 PM

CruJones: While I believe in

smoking causing lung cancerclimate change,...There is no definitive proof.  I mean people who never smoked in their lives get lung cancer too so something else must cause it the earth has warmed and cooled many times.

Modified it slightly to reflect the last line of bullshiat the 'no definitive proof' machine was paid to spread around to better illustrate the opinion of those of us who held the 'huh, wonder if this will hold up as they collect data' position about 10 years and thousands of studies ago.
 
2013-07-03 02:09:14 PM

CruJones: HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.


There is no other known mechanism which accounts for the changes we are experiencing. Previous climate changes have mechanisms and occur over times scales that do. There is little doubt among professionals that the excess CO2 in our atmosphere is the cause. Anyone who could account for these changes in some other way would be rich and famous beyond the dreams of any scientist alive.
 
2013-07-03 02:09:32 PM
It's almost like there's something besides just a rate of temperature change present here.  Like some kind of second derivative.   NAAAH.
 
2013-07-03 02:10:45 PM

Oakenshield: [i.imgur.com image 850x572]


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-03 02:10:51 PM

WelldeadLink: [i.imgur.com image 627x474]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/31/friday-funny-the-global-warmin g- escalator-vs-the-rocket/


Actually the actual rate of temp increase has been on the high side of scientific global warming predictions.
 
2013-07-03 02:11:32 PM
Fark it I am moving to Old Crow. Don't follow me.
 
2013-07-03 02:11:56 PM

jst3p: thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.

Many people are dying in lots of parts of the world due to starvation already. Not to sound too cold hearted but are you talking about the acceleration of that process or dying of something else?


Many people in lots of parts of the world have been starving for the last couple hundred thousand years.  To think that... people making bad decisions... can be fixed is stupid.
 
2013-07-03 02:13:03 PM

IlGreven: You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.


That's not true, you can absolutely agree with the message conveyed, and still take issue with the way it was conveyed. I think what he's saying we don't have records for all of history, so why not just say "worst warming in recorded history?" Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.
 
2013-07-03 02:13:09 PM

Farking Canuck: Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.

There are a significant percentage of them that truly believe that we cannot damage god's creation. So we should continue endlessly shiatting on this planet.


That was my father-in-law's argument for a time.
Man is a nuclear engineer with a minor in crystallography.

Religion causes lots of problems for believers and non-believers alike..
 
2013-07-03 02:13:45 PM

berylman: Fark it I am moving to Old Crow. Don't follow me.


At least wait til you've finished off the Jim Beam
 
2013-07-03 02:18:00 PM

WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]


That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?
 
2013-07-03 02:20:38 PM

nmrsnr: IlGreven: You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

That's not true, you can absolutely agree with the message conveyed, and still take issue with the way it was conveyed. I think what he's saying we don't have records for all of history, so why not just say "worst warming in recorded history?" Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.


It's not just about the temperature but it's that this is the fastest rate of change. Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades. That's a very big difference to ecosystems and it also is a big hint that this is man's involvement.
 
2013-07-03 02:20:56 PM

nmrsnr: IlGreven: You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

That's not true, you can absolutely agree with the message conveyed, and still take issue with the way it was conveyed. I think what he's saying we don't have records for all of history, so why not just say "worst warming in recorded history?" Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.


Every time anyone has ever argued that point, they've used the "were you there?" argument.  Ken Ham has made that a central point of his creationism teaching...forgetting that he himself wasn't there when Jesus lived, and neither was anyone who wrote a book in the Bible.  It's a dishonest argument that presumes that only the time during which we're alive is relevant...except with climate change, when everything outside the past 200 years is relevant...except when scientists can explain what happened with climate for everything up to the past 200 years, then they're just in on the conspiracy.

My point? Don't use a historically anti-science argument if you're not arguing for the anti-science side. Thank you.
 
2013-07-03 02:21:59 PM
All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.
 
2013-07-03 02:22:04 PM

TheMysticS: Farking Canuck: Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.

There are a significant percentage of them that truly believe that we cannot damage god's creation. So we should continue endlessly shiatting on this planet.

That was my father-in-law's argument for a time.
Man is a nuclear engineer with a minor in crystallography.

Religion causes lots of problems for believers and non-believers alike..


As an atheist, I'd like to point out that there are a number of atheists who jump on board the retarded just-world type beliefs too.  They tend to be libertarians.
 
2013-07-03 02:23:00 PM

Mikey1969: It really sucks that we're in a warming trend. I moved out of Phoenix to get away from the farking heat, not to have it follow me. Salt Lake was supposed to be this nice, cooler version where it got to triple digits about 5 times a year, and by triple digits, I mean maybe 102...

Now it's one month into summer, and instead of 5 total days, we've gotten 7 in a row and aren't even close to the hot season.

Well, at least I don't have to live through a miserable, muggy Phoenix monsoon season where it will be 113 and 50% humidity, but no rain will actually fall in the city. As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.


Maybe you should move out of the farking desert, genius.
 
2013-07-03 02:23:11 PM
Quick!
Go to the bank, withdraw your money and GIVE TO TO SOMEONE IN A SUIT!

It's the only way!
We're running out of TIME!
 
2013-07-03 02:24:18 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.


And keep in mind that the warming you're talking about taking 12,000 years is going to be more than matched in 150 by CH4 and CO2.  Orders of magnitude matter, not just "is there change?"
 
2013-07-03 02:24:57 PM

jaybeezey: Houston, Tx is in for the nicest 4th of July day that I can ever remember. If this is the result of Global Climate Change I'm for it.

Going out to idle the jeep in driveway all day.


Oh, noes! You've made liberal pinko me so darned angry!
 
2013-07-03 02:25:36 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.


Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.
 
2013-07-03 02:27:37 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Quick!
Go to the bank, withdraw your money and GIVE TO TO SOMEONE IN A SUIT!

It's the only way!
We're running out of TIME!


Yes, it's the climate change scientists who are all about the money.
 
2013-07-03 02:28:25 PM

AllUpInYa: berylman: Fark it I am moving to Old Crow. Don't follow me.

At least wait til you've finished off the Jim Beam


Waaah Waaah waaaaaaa


/alternative ending-
//Ba-dum, tisssh
 
2013-07-03 02:29:27 PM

Corvus: HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.


No.
I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.
And so what?

Adapt or die.
Move away from the oceans.
Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Send your money to people in suits.
It's the only way!
 
2013-07-03 02:30:39 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Quick!
Go to the bank, withdraw your money and GIVE TO TO SOMEONE IN A SUIT!

It's the only way!
We're running out of TIME!


Right, scientists spend all day planning up schemes to take your money, where oil companies (the most profitable companies on the planet) only care about your well being.
 
2013-07-03 02:30:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: HotIgneous Intruder: Quick!
Go to the bank, withdraw your money and GIVE TO TO SOMEONE IN A SUIT!

It's the only way!
We're running out of TIME!

Yes, it's the climate change scientists who are all about the money.


These guys genuinely believe that the government would stop funding climate research if global warming had some contrary evidence, you know, rather than increasing funding to figure it out.

For people who call themselves "skeptics" credulity is really the name of the game.
 
2013-07-03 02:31:56 PM

Bendal: Mikey1969: It really sucks that we're in a warming trend. I moved out of Phoenix to get away from the farking heat, not to have it follow me. Salt Lake was supposed to be this nice, cooler version where it got to triple digits about 5 times a year, and by triple digits, I mean maybe 102...

Now it's one month into summer, and instead of 5 total days, we've gotten 7 in a row and aren't even close to the hot season.

Well, at least I don't have to live through a miserable, muggy Phoenix monsoon season where it will be 113 and 50% humidity, but no rain will actually fall in the city. As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.

I could only wish for 50% humidity here in NC. We've had rain, heavy rain, for almost a week now each and every day, and the humidity level is well over 70%, over 90% in the early mornings. You go outside and it's like being hit in the face with a warm, damp washcloth, the air is so moist and sticky.

/the hot months are still ahead of us
//we're nearly 10" over our rainfall allotment already
///for the year...


Same here in SC - this past Sunday night we got 4.5" of rain at my house in 3 hours flat.
 
2013-07-03 02:31:58 PM

Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?


If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

www.drroyspencer.com
 
2013-07-03 02:32:42 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

No.
I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.
And so what?

Adapt or die.
Move away from the oceans.
Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Send your money to people in suits.
It's the only way!


Really?
So now you admit it's happening but your answer is "fark everyone!"

Wow.

Who is asking to "send your money to suits"?

You will be spending more money on trying battle the effects of climate change in the future then if we do something now, so you are the one one wanting to "send your money to suits" not me.
 
2013-07-03 02:32:44 PM

durbnpoisn: One of a few things could happen:
-  The antarctic ice sheet might break off.


Derp.
The Antarctic ice sheet in on land.

You fail.
0/10
 
2013-07-03 02:33:29 PM

odinsposse: genner: The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

Nope. The only reason people distrust the scientific method is because morons don't like it when someone points out the facts show they are wrong. A scientist who could clearly show global warming wasn't happening would be an instant celebrity and get tons of money from the business interests that already invest money in denier campaigns.


They don't have to clearly show anything. Just show up with a degree and go on Fox News and tell people what they want to hear.........oh look that's whats happening already. Now the other side has to prove they aren't doing the same thing or loose to public opinion.
 
2013-07-03 02:33:34 PM
Just to throw some gas on the fire.

May 2nd I got 16 inches of snow (normally does not snow more than 1-2" all month) 10 days later it was 97 but on average it has been a cooler wetter year than last year. The year before that was middle of the road but wetter, and the year before that was warmer and wetter. 2 Billion years ago the surface was lava.

The moral of the story is statistics can be massaged to create any outcome you want.
 
2013-07-03 02:33:46 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: No.
I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.
And so what?


The events you are talking about took that long. I am not talking about when they occurred, I am saying how long.
 
2013-07-03 02:34:01 PM

ikanreed: TheMysticS: Farking Canuck: Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.

There are a significant percentage of them that truly believe that we cannot damage god's creation. So we should continue endlessly shiatting on this planet.

That was my father-in-law's argument for a time.
Man is a nuclear engineer with a minor in crystallography.

Religion causes lots of problems for believers and non-believers alike..

As an atheist, I'd like to point out that there are a number of atheists who jump on board the retarded just-world type beliefs too.  They tend to be libertarians.


Good point.

Oh, and Dad did the change from R to Independent. He's got it covered.

*sigh*
 
2013-07-03 02:34:08 PM

boarch: Maybe you should move out of the farking desert, genius.


Maybe you should learn the farking DEFINITION of desert, genius.

Because Antarctica is a dry polar region with about five percent humidity, no liquid lakes or rivers, it is the driest continent on earth.

The interior of Antarctica is considered the world's driest desert because the extreme cold freezes water vapour out of the air. Annual snowfall on the polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Antarctica_a_desert
 
2013-07-03 02:34:14 PM
man that webpage has a lot of shiat on it.
 
2013-07-03 02:35:30 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: durbnpoisn: One of a few things could happen:
-  The antarctic ice sheet might break off.

Derp.
The Antarctic ice sheet in on land.

You fail.
0/10


No shiat it's on land. It wouldn't do much to sea levels if it wasn't.
 
2013-07-03 02:36:00 PM

TheMysticS: ikanreed: TheMysticS: Farking Canuck: Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.

There are a significant percentage of them that truly believe that we cannot damage god's creation. So we should continue endlessly shiatting on this planet.

That was my father-in-law's argument for a time.
Man is a nuclear engineer with a minor in crystallography.

Religion causes lots of problems for believers and non-believers alike..

As an atheist, I'd like to point out that there are a number of atheists who jump on board the retarded just-world type beliefs too.  They tend to be libertarians.

Good point.

Oh, and Dad did the change from R to Independent. He's got it covered.

*sigh*


Forgot to add Fox news brainwashed.

And I'm beginning to understand Nazi-led Germany better and better

/my first godwin. Popped that cherry!
 
2013-07-03 02:36:24 PM

WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]


Your graph is the derivative of the effect--degrees additional warming per additional 20ppm CO2--so that you can show it going down.  If the graph were showing the warming effect as a function of CO2 concentration, it would continue to slope up to the right, just not as steeply as at the beginning.

Also, why a bar graph?  A simple line would be so much easier on the eye, and is the "honest" way to display something that is supposed to be a function of the variable on the X axis.
 
2013-07-03 02:36:46 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


A- Can you tell me what that chart even is
B - what is the source of that chart.
C - what measurements are they using?

According to your chart it looks like temperatures have stayed which everyone admits is bullshiat.
 
2013-07-03 02:36:56 PM
I have this odd fantasy that Dabney Coleman can just look at a cloud and make it rain. Weird? No answer required
 
2013-07-03 02:38:15 PM
I'd like to see a Vin Diagram on Global Warming denyers and the people that believe the universe is around 6000 thousand years old.
 
2013-07-03 02:38:34 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


I like that there's very specific origins for all those predictive models but then for the so-called "hard data" he just goes "Oh some sattelites and balloons. Which ones?  Don't ask questions! Buy my book!"

Cause here's that same chart from a site with citations.
upload.wikimedia.org

Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker (2003). "Error estimates of version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric temperatures". J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 20: 613-629.Fu, Q., Johanson, C. M., Warren, S. G. & Seidel, D. J. (2004). "Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends". Nature 429: 55−58.Mears, Carl A. and Frank J. Wentz (2005). "The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature". Science Express : published online 11 August 2005.Matthias C. Schabel, Carl A. Mears, Frank J. Wentz (2002). "Stable Long-Term Retrieval of Tropospheric Temperature Time Series from the Microwave Sounding Unit". Proceedings of the International Geophysics and Remote Sensing Symposium III: 1845-1847.
Hey look!  It lines up with the predictions.  Amazing.
 
2013-07-03 02:39:45 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Here you go:

IPCC models use the emission scenarios discussed above to estimate average global temperature increases by the year 2100. Projection: The IPCC 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5° Fahrenheit, with a high probability of 7.2°F.

Reality: We are currently on track for a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other modelers are getting similar results, including a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project consortium confirming the likelihood of a 9ºF rise.


Now answer my questions.
 
2013-07-03 02:40:03 PM
Watch me not care.
 
2013-07-03 02:41:17 PM
I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.
 
2013-07-03 02:41:22 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Here is more:

Projection: The IPCC has always confidently projected that the Arctic ice pack was safe at least until 2050 or well beyond 2100.

Reality: Summer ice is thinning faster than every climate projection, and today scientists predict an ice-free Arctic in years, not decades. Last summer, Arctic sea ice extent plummeted to 1.32 million square miles, the lowest level ever recorded - 50 percent below the long-term 1979 to 2000 average.



The IPCC so far has been mostly wrong on the side of them saying effects would not be so bad.
 
2013-07-03 02:43:28 PM

Farking Canuck: Who actually wants to destroy their own economy and what government would actually implement measures like this?


traceyevelynbeautifulyou.com
 
2013-07-03 02:44:18 PM

Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.


And then there's hyperbole, which is what you're doing.
 
2013-07-03 02:44:41 PM

Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.


Holy shiat this has been debunked so many times. The "Ice age" thing was created by the media the majority of scientist thought it was BS. Just like how climate change deniers now are pretending lots of people are skeptical of climate change where in the scientific community that is not true.
 
2013-07-03 02:45:05 PM

netizencain: I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


same here.  i don't think many people deny that the cont'd destruction of the planet is contributing to global warming, but, at the same time, it has become such a polarizing issue that it's hard to have a conversation about.  you know, kind of like...religion.
 
2013-07-03 02:46:14 PM
You know climate change deniers believing that a) climate change is not happening and B) Climate change is happening but not man made, shows you are full of shiat because those positions contradict each other.
 
2013-07-03 02:46:16 PM

Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.


If you're in favor of limiting corporate and private jet usage where it's environmentally harmful, I think you'll find little opposition except from republicans.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:25 PM

Corvus: You know climate change deniers believing that a) climate change is not happening and B) Climate change is happening but not man made, shows you are full of shiat because those positions contradict each other.


Moving goalposts make the political football game much easier to win.  It's all about winning.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:41 PM
the "media" creates things? Go figure.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:51 PM

stir22: netizencain: I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

same here.  i don't think many people deny that the cont'd destruction of the planet is contributing to global warming, but, at the same time, it has become such a polarizing issue that it's hard to have a conversation about.  you know, kind of like...religion.


Many people in this very thread is saying climate change does not exist and it's not man made. Don't know how you can think many people don't think that.

Yes they might not think it logically. To them it is 100% political belief but that still doesn't mean they don't think it.
 
2013-07-03 02:48:15 PM
A real (and sad) figure (Hamilton and Stampone 2013):

www.public.iastate.edu
 
2013-07-03 02:49:48 PM

ikanreed: Corvus: You know climate change deniers believing that a) climate change is not happening and B) Climate change is happening but not man made, shows you are full of shiat because those positions contradict each other.

Moving goalposts make the political football game much easier to win.  It's all about winning.


It's amazing because they will make BOTH arguments. Also they never argue with someone other denier making a claim that contradicts them if global warming exist or not.

It's proof that they are not looking at the debate logically and to them it's only a partisan political issue that they believe because it's  "their team" or because they want to believe it.
 
2013-07-03 02:50:19 PM
All I know is that it's supposed to hit 110 F in northern CA today. Just like yesterday and the day before...
I'm seriously considering moving to Antarctica.
 
2013-07-03 02:52:55 PM
Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

whowhatwhy.com


Then this showed up 4 months later:

blogontherun.files.wordpress.com

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.
 
2013-07-03 02:53:00 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

No.
I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.
And so what?

Adapt or die.
Move away from the oceans.
Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Send your money to people in suits.
It's the only way!


Yeah, screw our fellow human beings!
 
2013-07-03 02:54:00 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.
 
2013-07-03 02:54:01 PM

Mikey1969: boarch: Maybe you should move out of the farking desert, genius.

Maybe you should learn the farking DEFINITION of desert, genius.

Because Antarctica is a dry polar region with about five percent humidity, no liquid lakes or rivers, it is the driest continent on earth.

The interior of Antarctica is considered the world's driest desert because the extreme cold freezes water vapour out of the air. Annual snowfall on the polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Antarctica_a_desert


You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
 
2013-07-03 02:54:05 PM
I'm a proud participant by helping to accelerate global warming.
 
2013-07-03 02:54:11 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: I'm seriously considering moving to Antarctica.

Norway is easier but not cheaper. You must be adept at dodging random falafels.
 
2013-07-03 02:55:15 PM
The United States government can't track people with expired Visas. How am I supposed to believe that in their infinite wisdom they can track global warming(oh wait its "climate change" now) trends with any degree of accuracy or truth? Didn't the "tree ring" theory debunk years worth of feigned altruism in the English climate science community? How do we know it was colder in 1865 than it is now? Great Great Grandpa's diary entries about his trick knee?
 
2013-07-03 02:55:32 PM

thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.


I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long
 
2013-07-03 02:55:52 PM

thurstonxhowell: HotIgneous Intruder: durbnpoisn: One of a few things could happen:
-  The antarctic ice sheet might break off.

Derp.
The Antarctic ice sheet in on land.

You fail.
0/10

No shiat it's on land. It wouldn't do much to sea levels if it wasn't.


Yeah, seriously, did you think I was implying that it was hanging over the ocean like a shelf?
Point is, if it breaks up, melts, and goes into the oceans, THAT would be a problem.  (I'm agreeing with the 2nd poster, and responding to the 1st)
 
2013-07-03 02:57:22 PM

Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.


It is the refrain of conspiracy theorists everywhere - if there is one tiny part of something they don't understand, that disproves the whole thing. Even if there are a thousand websites that clearly explain it, as long as they avoid going there they can believe whatever they like based on their own ignorance - look at moon landing hoaxers, they know some random fact about there being no wind on the moon, and they see a flag moving, therefore the entire thing is a hoax, never mind that things can move for reasons other than wind, or how the US convinced the USSR to go along with it. Equally the idea that uniquely climate scientists are perpetrating a massive hoax, while the real truth is funded by oil companies just trying to fight this corruption out of the goodness of their hearts, is just so mindbogglingly stupid it beggar's belief there are more than a handful of cranks that will accept it.
 
2013-07-03 02:58:00 PM

CruJones: While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.


Maybe it is time for the Earth to warm up--but we are also dumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere at the same time.  The concentration of CO2 is already significantly higher than it was at any point during the last six glaciation cycles; we have nudged things into an unexplored portion of the parameter space.

Heat waves occur naturally, and the infirm tend to naturally have a higher mortality rate during them, but that doesn't mean you can throw a big fluffy comforter over someone during a heat wave and claim they died of "natural causes".
 
2013-07-03 02:58:16 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Example number 4:

Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end.

Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100.



See most of the IPCC has been wrong be being too conservative.
 
2013-07-03 02:59:55 PM

HaywoodJablonski: thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.

I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long


www.simplyrecipes.com
 
2013-07-03 02:59:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.

And then there's hyperbole, which is what you're doing.


That's not necessarily hyperbolic. It's more like general stupidity.

/and sh*tty trolling
 
2013-07-03 03:01:20 PM

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


You're still awesome though. Nice work
 
2013-07-03 03:01:30 PM
genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.


As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (preferably both) want to hear.  Shovel money to your constituency.  Determining facts and truth are more or less irrelevant.

Do you know how you make your name as a scientist?  Get a guaranteed job for life?  Overturning the orthodoxy.  There is no scientific debate on global warming, it is almost as thoroughly accepted amongst climate scientists as classical mechanics classical E&M (Maxwell's equations) were in the 19th century.  (I say "almost" because while I am aware of polls amongst climate scientists in which 99% accept anthropogenic global warming, and 1% did not respond.  I am unaware of any such polls on classical mechanics in the 19th century and I assume it was 100% accepted.)  Einstein and Bohr made their names by overthrowing the orthodoxy and explaining previously unexplained data with new theories.  So far, there is no unexplained data for climate scientists to use to overthrow global warming and create new theories.  Every measurement, every model refinement, every new understanding of important details like how clouds affect warming has strengthened the case for anthropogenic global warming.

Now excuse me while I get back to my plans for destroying the economy, so I can, er, um,... Ur, no, so my kids, can, um, aw geez, I haven't been thinking far enough ahead to figure that out yet.  Must be my continually breaking out in maniacal laughter.
 
2013-07-03 03:02:59 PM

HaywoodJablonski: thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.

I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long


So do us all a favor and be the 1% of that 80%.

I'm cool with that.
 
2013-07-03 03:03:23 PM
Mother Earth is like RAAWR get the fark off me.
/it would be interesting if DNA replication enzymes evolved to thermophilic levels... doubt it... translation you're farked
 
2013-07-03 03:04:01 PM
Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.
 
2013-07-03 03:04:08 PM

Corvus: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.


The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-03 03:04:24 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...
 
2013-07-03 03:05:29 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Anthony Watts was paid $90K in 2012 by the Heartland Institute (a member of ALEC, product of Koch Bros) to spread FUD about climate change.

The people who cite him in this (and every) thread as some expert are willfully lying or ignorant or perhaps both.


Exhibit A:

DesertDemonWY:
The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]

 
2013-07-03 03:06:10 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

No.
I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.
And so what?

Adapt or die.
Move away from the oceans.
Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Send your money to people in suits.
It's the only way!


Hmmmm. Just realized that last statement is the entire platform of the Republic Party.

Wonder why they don't stay on track. Oh, that's right. Science is for NEEEERRDS!
 
2013-07-03 03:07:23 PM
The arguement continues, but I like to think what's the case scenario.

Deny Global warming/climate change:
We do nothing and the world ends up like Venus 2.0. Or the best case we do nothing and nothing happens.

Accept that climate change is real:
Worst case scenario is nothing happens, but we clean up the environment, better air, water and land. Best case scenario is we clean up the environment and avoid Venus 2.0.

I don't think there is much of a choice.
 
2013-07-03 03:07:48 PM

boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.


I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...
 
2013-07-03 03:08:05 PM
DesertDemonWY:

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]

Hey look it's this lie again, that doesn't site sources.  And it is a lie.  Stop lying, please.
Doesn't it make you feel any shame at all that you go to biased sources, don't check data, and put outright fabrications under your name?  Do you care?
 
2013-07-03 03:08:07 PM
Didn't Nixon create the EPA? He must have been a nerd and a Democr....wait.
 
2013-07-03 03:08:11 PM

SlowMind: genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (preferably both) want to hear.  Shovel money to your constituency.  Determining facts and truth are more or less irrelevant.

Do you know how you make your name as a scientist?  Get a guaranteed job for life?  Overturning the orthodoxy.  There is no scientific debate on global warming, it is almost as thoroughly accepted amongst climate scientists as classical mechanics classical E&M (Maxwell's equations) were in the 19th century.  (I say "almost" because while I am aware of polls amongst climate scientists in which 99% accept anthropogenic global warming, and 1% did not respond.  I am unaware of any such polls on classical mechanics in the 19th century and I assume it was 100% accepted.)  Einstein and Bohr made their names by overthrowing the orthodoxy and explaining previously unexplained data with new theories.  So far, there is no unexplained data for climate scientists to use to overthrow global warming and create new theories.  Every measurement, every model refinement, every new understanding of important details like how clouds affect warming has strengthened the case for anthropogenic global warming.

Now excuse me while I get back to my plans for destroying the economy, so I can, er, um,... Ur, no, so my kids, can, um, aw geez, I haven't been thinking far enough ahead to figure that out yet.  Must be my continually breaking out in maniacal laughter.


Buy a mansion and a yacht?
 
2013-07-03 03:10:13 PM
2001 - 2010?  Obviously, I blame Bush.
However, he inherited a terrible climate from Clinton, so it's not really his fault.
 
2013-07-03 03:10:44 PM
I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?
 
2013-07-03 03:10:47 PM
So... how much longer 'til we crash into the Sun?
 
2013-07-03 03:12:37 PM
Who cares? If we Skeptics turn out to be wrong it's not like we don't have two or three spare Earths lying around to have a second run at things.
 
2013-07-03 03:13:41 PM

Realist29: I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?


Well, it's all we've got once you decided evidence, application of established theory, peer review, and careful study weren't good enough.
 
2013-07-03 03:14:24 PM

Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.

I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...


i.chzbgr.com

It's almost like you probably KNEW that he meant you're an idiot to live in what is commonly known as the hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert") and continue to biatch about the heat but just felt like being a dick about it.
 
2013-07-03 03:17:36 PM

Corvus: Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.


So, the scientists were wrong then - but all of the sudden, they're right about this same issue now?
I would say they lost all credibility when their numbers were off by 100 years.

/I kid. Sort of.
 
2013-07-03 03:17:57 PM

dripping with sarcasm: The arguement continues, but I like to think what's the case scenario.

Deny Global warming/climate change:
We do nothing and the world ends up like Venus 2.0. Or the best case we do nothing and nothing happens.

Accept that climate change is real:
Worst case scenario is nothing happens, but we clean up the environment, better air, water and land. Best case scenario is we clean up the environment and avoid Venus 2.0.

I don't think there is much of a choice.


I like the part where you skipped over how much it will cost.
 
2013-07-03 03:19:59 PM

DoctorWhat: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...


a) It's coming from 4 radiosonde data sets and 2 satellite data sets
b) yes they do:

data.giss.nasa.gov
 
2013-07-03 03:20:14 PM

WelldeadLink: [i.imgur.com image 627x474]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/31/friday-funny-the-global-warmin g- escalator-vs-the-rocket/


DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP

there I just summed up your graph
 
2013-07-03 03:20:29 PM
Ow! That was my feelings!:

I like the part where you skipped over how much it will cost.

As someone who thinks that the potential economic damage of climate change will far far exceed the economic costs of addressing it, I have to agree.  Pretending there aren't costs isn't good.  It makes you seem like a wide-eyed idealist and not someone with a firm grasp of the issue.
 
2013-07-03 03:21:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I like the part where you skipped over how much it will cost.


The cost of delaying action is about a half a trillion dollars per year according to the IEA.
 
2013-07-03 03:23:43 PM

DesertDemonWY: DoctorWhat: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...

a) It's coming from 4 radiosonde data sets and 2 satellite data sets
b) yes they do:

[data.giss.nasa.gov image 643x417]


Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions.  Look at what those datasets measure, versus what they are being compared to.  One of these things is not like the other one, one of these things is not the same.
 
2013-07-03 03:23:48 PM

Confabulat: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.


My grandfather still remembers when there was a huge pile of ice sitting ontop of his house in Michigan. He was pretty happy after it melted though because then he was on beach front lake property.

I guess, at some point, it was really farking cold... so cold that ice covered a large portion of North America as we know it.

I do believe in global warming, I mean, all that ice is gone now so I assume it melted, right?
 
2013-07-03 03:24:30 PM

SlowSlowMind: genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (prefe ...


So the scientists that climate change deniers quote are they challenging orthodoxy or are they just in it for the money?
 
2013-07-03 03:25:11 PM
Perusing this thread, I think it's precious that so many Right Wingers are still clinging to this idea that Global Warming isn't real. It's like when my 6-year old nephew tried to make me "Prove the existence of Oxygen". It would be adorable if these weren't grown-ups.
 
2013-07-03 03:25:26 PM

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


that's awesome, but yeah you should at least get a "by line" or publishing credit.
 
2013-07-03 03:25:42 PM

Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.


You are correct, infidel.
 
2013-07-03 03:26:55 PM
Why can't we just try hard to clean up the planet, create less pollutants and heck, maybe as a side affect the planet is a better place to live on?
 
2013-07-03 03:27:30 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.

I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...

[i.chzbgr.com image 499x374]

It's almost like you probably KNEW that he meant you're an idiot to live in what is commonly known as the hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert") and continue to biatch about the heat but just felt like being a dick about it.


/I lol'd.
//Love huskies.
//expecting comments about how it's a malamute
 
2013-07-03 03:28:03 PM
Yeah yeah yeah .. bla bla bla
 
2013-07-03 03:28:16 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.

I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...

[i.chzbgr.com image 499x374]

It's almost like you probably KNEW that he meant you're an idiot to live in what is commonly known as the hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert") and continue to biatch about the heat but just felt like being a dick about it.


Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.
 
2013-07-03 03:28:29 PM

litespeed74: Why can't we just try hard to clean up the planet, create less pollutants and heck, maybe as a side affect the planet is a better place to live on?


Because that will make a handful of people who produce pollutants slightly LESS rich, and Ayn Rand would say to fark the Kardashev Scale.
 
2013-07-03 03:28:42 PM

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


That is a cool story. Awesome.
 
2013-07-03 03:29:54 PM

litespeed74: Why can't we just try hard to clean up the planet, create less pollutants and heck, maybe as a side affect the planet is a better place to live on?


I think that's actually a false image.  Most pollution that makes it into the atmosphere(not counting methane and CO2, which are pretty harmless other than global warming), doesn't come from centralized energy production.  We have really good catalytic converters.  Going all-nuclear for power generation wouldn't cut US smog much at all(thanks to the clean air act, they are actually pretty low already).
 
2013-07-03 03:33:59 PM
2010 was 3 years ago.  Why are we talking about it now?

The data supporting the slowdown in global warming has been recorded since then, thus the whole "notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull".

I love that the article pretends entirely that years 2011 & 2012 didn't happen.  Wake the fark up you alarmist pieces of shiat.
 
2013-07-03 03:35:40 PM
Lies. All lies. Oh, and CO2 is a cooling gas, not a greenhouse gas. NASA has proven it.
 
2013-07-03 03:36:51 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: fappomatic: Confabulat: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.

Cool! Can we please see your research and calculations? Because then we can all stop worrying about it. But I am definitely happy that you thought of this, because I'm sure no other climate scientists have ever even considered it.



That was a little too easy.

In reality, my stepfather is a retired chemist who spent his entire career with DOE working to improve cleanliness and efficiency of coal gasification. His conclusion? It cannot be completely effective, nor without risk. I'll ask his permission to post the notes from one of his global warming lectures. It is...enlightening.
 
2013-07-03 03:38:16 PM

wolfpaq777: 2010 was 3 years ago.  Why are we talking about it now?

The data supporting the slowdown in global warming has been recorded since then, thus the whole "notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull".

I love that the article pretends entirely that years 2011 & 2012 didn't happen.  Wake the fark up you alarmist pieces of shiat.


Oh, so only being a degree higher than the average of the 90s totally invalidates global warming, since it's cooler than 2010.  Your scientific genius has been demonstrated again, person who probably went to the same college as me but didn't seem to learn anything.
 
2013-07-03 03:39:27 PM

DesertDemonWY: DoctorWhat: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...

a) It's coming from 4 radiosonde data sets and 2 satellite data sets
b) yes they do:

[data.giss.nasa.gov image 643x417]


It's not the data, It's the crappy model that Watts uses that makes your plots a joke.
 
2013-07-03 03:40:01 PM

ikanreed: Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions.


No, Spencer is comparing tropospheric observations with tropospheric predictions.  In a narrow latitude band in the tropics, where the models are known differ from observations more strongly than elsewhere in the world; it is unknown whether this is a problem with the models, the data, or both.  The radiosondes in particular are suspected to have strong systematic biases, but there's evidence that surface temperature in the models is also biased.  (This doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong, actually; it could be due to the fact that they're not initialized with ocean heat observations; that's a separate issue under debate.)  Note that Spencer averaged together a bunch of observational data sets whose trends differ greatly, masking the observational uncertainty; the competing RSS data set has a 3x larger trend than his own UAH data set.  Furthermore, the UAH "tropospheric" measurements are biased low, because they actually include part of the stratosphere, which is cooling (and is predicted to cool by models).
 
2013-07-03 03:42:05 PM

Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.


THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.
 
2013-07-03 03:42:26 PM

wolfpaq777: I love that the article pretends entirely that years 2011 & 2012 didn't happen.


2011 and 2012 are pretty much statistically irrelevant if you're talking about whether there has been a "lull" since 1998.  In fact, the entire period 1998-2013 is only barely statistically relevant to trend detection and attribution.
 
2013-07-03 03:43:03 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.

The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]


Yes I gave you the answers you asked me for. You asked for citations, I gave them to you and now you say you don't care because they showed you wrong. Now are you going to answer my questions or continue to run from then?
 
2013-07-03 03:43:26 PM

Mikey1969: Because Antarctica is a dry polar region with about five percent humidity, no liquid lakes or rivers, it is the driest continent on earth.


It is the driest continent, but it does have a few rivers and lakes:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lakes_of_Antarctica

The longest river is about 32km long, and flows away from the ocean.  Apropos of nothing, 11 people have been born on Antarctica.
 
2013-07-03 03:43:39 PM

ikanreed: Realist29: I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?

Oblivious consructedd viewpoints are the only one which count...amirite?  Bad Science bad! (whips maltese with a fethered whip)
 
2013-07-03 03:43:50 PM

Oakenshield: [i.imgur.com image 850x572]


This is why Fark needs a "Stupid" button.
 
2013-07-03 03:43:53 PM

Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.


The problem is the cold, hard, money sucking center.
So hard to cover up. Nuttin' but chit will stick to it.

And, they picked the wrong whipping boy, CO2 is just so weak.
 
2013-07-03 03:44:07 PM

Ambitwistor: ikanreed: Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions.

No, Spencer is comparing tropospheric observations with tropospheric predictions.  In a narrow latitude band in the tropics, where the models are known differ from observations more strongly than elsewhere in the world; it is unknown whether this is a problem with the models, the data, or both.  The radiosondes in particular are suspected to have strong systematic biases, but there's evidence that surface temperature in the models is also biased.  (This doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong, actually; it could be due to the fact that they're not initialized with ocean heat observations; that's a separate issue under debate.)  Note that Spencer averaged together a bunch of observational data sets whose trends differ greatly, masking the observational uncertainty; the competing RSS data set has a 3x larger trend than his own UAH data set.  Furthermore, the UAH "tropospheric" measurements are biased low, because they actually include part of the stratosphere, which is cooling (and is predicted to cool by models).


I concede my ignorance.  Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on.  There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias.  Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.
 
2013-07-03 03:44:36 PM
Meh, still don't care if there is Global Warming or not.  I don't understand why people get so worked up about it.  ZOMG HOTTEST DECADE EVER and nothing bad happened.  So, again, Meh.
 
2013-07-03 03:44:41 PM

Alunan: Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:


That last incarnation starts with "Which is more likely?" then shows only one scenario.
 
2013-07-03 03:45:27 PM

DesertDemonWY: The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta


I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".
 
2013-07-03 03:46:08 PM

snocone: Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.

The problem is the cold, hard, money sucking center.
So hard to cover up. Nuttin' but chit will stick to it.

And, they picked the wrong whipping boy, CO2 is just so weak.


What is this I don't even
 
2013-07-03 03:46:57 PM
"rainy weather, stormy weather. Ain't we got fun. I'm really soaked, the grass is muddy.  People do slide."

jst3p: If all of the really bad stuff won't happen till I am dead, why should I care now?

/sarcasm


If people would just be honest and admit that the Save The Earth schtick is baloney, and instead call it "Save Our Asses".  We'd probably all be in agreement.

After all, barring this ball of rock being destroyed by something that doesn't even hit before everyone on it dies right before impact due to sudden death via drastic atmospheric changes.  It'll still be around with some form of life on it long after one last person says "watch this" and the human race keels over and becomes one with nature again.
 
2013-07-03 03:46:58 PM

fappomatic: What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.


Or at least there might be more alertness in these discussions.
 
2013-07-03 03:47:42 PM

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Meh, still don't care if there is Global Warming or not.  I don't understand why people get so worked up about it.  ZOMG HOTTEST DECADE EVER and nothing bad happened.  So, again, Meh.


The problem is as temperatures keep rapidly changing it will hurt things like drought, water levels, more dramatic weather events and food productions. So directly temperature increase might not effect you much but indirectly it will affect you a lot.
 
2013-07-03 03:47:49 PM

jst3p: If all of the really bad stuff won't happen till I am dead, why should I care now?

/sarcasm


I honestly didn't know an old post was still in that box.  Oh well, a rainy mangled song for you
 
2013-07-03 03:52:24 PM

HaywoodJablonski: I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long


Just make sure you include the richest 2% who did all the pillaging and polluting of the planet for their own gain in that 80%.
 
2013-07-03 03:52:37 PM

ikanreed: I concede my ignorance.  Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on.  There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias.  Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.


If there's one thing that's certain, it's that Roy Spencer has a history of quick and shoddy analysis.
 
2013-07-03 03:54:59 PM

Corvus: DesertDemonWY: The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".


The guy is an outright liar and a bad person.  I'm not convinced he's a paid shill, but he's definitely intellectually dishonest.  Say one thing, ignore the fact that it's wrong.
 
2013-07-03 03:55:27 PM
Who are you going to trust the skeptics or the people who did this to Rex

www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com
 
2013-07-03 03:55:53 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.

The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]


I like how on your chart "actual" is below all the actual temperature ranges.

That an interesting averaging one that is below the data.

So why are you afraid to answer my questions? I answered yours

Here is once again on temperature:

Projection: The IPCC 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5° Fahrenheit, with a high probability of 7.2°F.

Reality: We are currently on track for a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other modelers are getting similar results, including a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project consortium confirming the likelihood of a 9ºF rise.


The 2007 report UNDERESTIMATE the rise of temperature.

You new chart doesn't even match up with your old chart!!!

Your "actual" line goes BELOW the actual readings.
 
2013-07-03 03:58:10 PM

Corvus: Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

It's not just about the temperature but it's that this is the fastest rate of change. Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades. That's a very big difference to ecosystems and it also is a big hint that this is man's involvement.


Actually, we do have an example of a sudden dump of  a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, which warmed the planet a big, which caused the sea floors and tundra to release all of their stored methane, which warmed the planet a LOT.  It's called the Eocene Extinction Event, and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.
 
2013-07-03 03:58:18 PM

ikanreed: I concede my ignorance.  Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on.  There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias.  Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.


I see you're unfamiliar with Roy Spencer and his previous "accomplishments".  Over the last decade or so, he has repeatedly modified his views and how he derives them in order to continue to claim that Anthropogenic Climate Change is fake.

He's also a Creationist. He's had to resort to "publishing" in non-peer review places, because he couldn't pass peer review. One of his papers that squeaked by peer review was in a geophysical journal, and was so bad that the editor in chief resigned over it.

His credentials on the subject are real, anything from his website is highly suspect, and generally able to be dismissed out of hand.
 
2013-07-03 04:00:25 PM
live-the-solution.com
 
2013-07-03 04:01:22 PM
DId I ever mention how wide my stance is? not serious
 
2013-07-03 04:02:34 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.

THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.


Yeah, an average high of 92.6 in July. Wow. Here's what I'm talking about(This last Week):

June 27  Average: 88  Actual 101
June 28 Average: 88 Actual 105
June 29 Average: 89  Actual 105
June 30 Average: 89  Actual 103
July 1  Average:   89 Actual 104
July 2 Average:    90 Actual 102

See, I moved for the 92.6 average, not the 12-17 degrees above normal.

But thanks for noticing.
 
2013-07-03 04:11:30 PM

Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.

THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.

Yeah, an average high of 92.6 in July. Wow. Here's what I'm talking about(This last Week):

June 27  Average: 88  Actual 101
June 28 Average: 88 Actual 105
June 29 Average: 89  Actual 105
June 30 Average: 89  Actual 103
July 1  Average:   89 Actual 104
July 2 Average:    90 Actual 102

See, I moved for the 92.6 average, not the 12-17 degrees above normal.

But thanks for noticing.


I stand by my graphic.  You knew what the poster was saying "if you're hot, move away from the hot states" but you decided to go off on a rant about Antarctica.  That's called "being obtuse". Have a good holiday.
 
2013-07-03 04:13:29 PM

ikanreed: Corvus: DesertDemonWY: The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".

The guy is an outright liar and a bad person.  I'm not convinced he's a paid shill, but he's definitely intellectually dishonest.  Say one thing, ignore the fact that it's wrong.


This is going to be his next chart. He doesn't need actual data points to make no line. Just draw the line you want an label it "Actual" that sounds good enough!!!

i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-03 04:14:14 PM

Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]


And this is why we're doomed. Thanks for contributing!

Serious answer: 98% of climatologists, that's who.
 
2013-07-03 04:16:18 PM

Kirzania: Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere?


Attribution of climate change isn't done by correlation.  It's done by physics.
 
2013-07-03 04:17:57 PM

TheSwissNavy: Clever...for 15 years the rate of warming has been > 0, BUT INFINITESIMAL.

If u dont see the stastical trick u r a fool. I mean, clearlyyy the solution is 100% UN Fascism.


Or a huge strawman, riiiiiiiiiiite?
 
2013-07-03 04:25:27 PM

Ambitwistor: Kirzania: Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Attribution of climate change isn't done by correlation.  It's done by physics.


And it's also more than "a couple 100 years of data".
 
2013-07-03 04:27:52 PM

flondrix: Corvus: Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

It's not just about the temperature but it's that this is the fastest rate of change. Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades. That's a very big difference to ecosystems and it also is a big hint that this is man's involvement.

Actually, we do have an example of a sudden dump of  a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, which warmed the planet a big, which caused the sea floors and tundra to release all of their stored methane, which warmed the planet a LOT.  It's called the Eocene Extinction Event, and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.


Good point. I should have said:

Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades UNLESS THERE IS SOME MAJOR EVENT.

And yes it usually leads to mass extinctions and other major issues.
 
2013-07-03 04:30:28 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.

THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.

Yeah, an average high of 92.6 in July. Wow. Here's what I'm talking about(This last Week):

June 27  Average: 88  Actual 101
June 28 Average: 88 Actual 105
June 29 Average: 89  Actual 105
June 30 Average: 89  Actual 103
July 1  Average:   89 Actual 104
July 2 Average:    90 Actual 102

See, I moved for the 92.6 average, not the 12-17 degrees above normal.

But thanks for noticing.

I stand by my graphic.  You knew what the poster was saying "if you're hot, move away from the hot states" but you decided to go off on a rant about Antarctica.  That's called "being obtuse". Have a good holiday.


And I told you that your "graphic's" temps were fine. We're far exceeding those, which is what I had a problem with. I wasn't being obtuse, the other poster was being a moron. I merely pointed out his/her failing. "Desert" has nothing to do with heat, and if you are going to continue to promote ignorance, you can't go around calling people obtuse when they try and educate you on the ACTUAL definition of words.

Besides, where am I going to move? The East, where they think everybody in the Southwest still rides horses to their 1 room schools?
 
2013-07-03 04:31:22 PM
Let me paraphrase most of the "skeptics" in the thread:

Well I have no scientific background, have not read any scientific papers on this topic, have spent about 5 minute looking into it from non-scientific sources, and I think I know better than about this topic then the 99% of scientists who say I am wrong and who have studied this their entire lives because it's what I want to believe.
 
2013-07-03 04:32:16 PM

Kirzania: While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?


Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.
 
2013-07-03 04:34:32 PM

Mikey1969: Kirzania: While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.


Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.
 
2013-07-03 04:37:11 PM
I wish there was away to tell the chat bots from human posters.
 
2013-07-03 04:40:21 PM

Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.


"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken
 
2013-07-03 04:43:53 PM

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


That's one of my favorite images out there. Thanks for putting together the argument so succinctly, I have used it to devastating effect in the past.
 
2013-07-03 04:47:21 PM
Is this where Fox News enthusiasts try to convince everyone that all the science is wrong?
 
2013-07-03 04:49:06 PM

candidus: Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken


Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?
 
2013-07-03 04:50:01 PM

candidus: Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken


So tell us how the the world fight against AIDS is all about trying to rule and how you are against that.

*sitting back ready to listen*
 
2013-07-03 04:50:29 PM

Realist29: I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?


Really? You "learned" that from this thread? Because, aside from denier lies, nobody says this.

It is a really simple concept:
- scientists of many different fields do their research
- they independently come up with their conclusions - supported by evidence
- they publish and discuss their results with with other scientists - both in their fields and in other fields
- they discover that all their results point in the same direction - that their research independently supports each other
- when all this independent research from these different scientists points to the same conclusion it is called a consensus

The science is not done by consensus. But when all the independant science points to the same conclusion, like AGW, it is called a consensus.

I'm sure you'll drag out this same strawman next thread ... deniers always do.
 
2013-07-03 04:53:16 PM

Mikey1969: Besides, where am I going to move? The East, where they think everybody in the Southwest still rides horses to their 1 room schools?


Did you guys move the school washrooms indoors now? Awesome.
 
2013-07-03 04:56:04 PM

Farking Canuck: I'm sure you'll drag out this same strawman next thread ... deniers always do.


They still bring out the same talking points that have been refuted every thread. They believe repeating something enough makes it true.

I always ask a couple questions:

Show me when climate change has happened so quickly with out some major event being the cause.

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

Guess what answers I get? None, or the same debunked talking points they have been repeating for years.

I used to have a link to a site that had all the talking points debunked do I could just cut and paste. I guess I need to find that again.
 
2013-07-03 04:58:50 PM

Corvus: Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?


I have read some unflattering things about Salk's behavior once he had a working vaccine--not desire to rule per se, but a lot of self-advancing butt-kissing and failure to credit his co-workers.

I can certainly see someone trying to cure a disease solely to promote themselves, but I suspect that in most cases a cure is much more likely to come from thankless slogging.
 
2013-07-03 05:02:15 PM

EnviroDude: And there is global warming on Mars too. Everybody panic!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming. ht ml


So he's saying that two out of eight planets agree--the Sun is to blame?

Or he's saying that a three year shrinkage in the Southern Polar Cap during the Southern Summer proves that the last thirty years on Earth don't count?

But if the Sun is warming, wouldn't it be warming in the Winter too? Wouldn't it be warming in the Northern Hemisphere of Mars too? Wouldn't it be warming all year round on the whole? Wouldn't it be warming for everybody, not just two (which might easily be pure coincidence).

The second page of the article which you posted are spent quoting the majority of scientists who disagree that the Sun is warming, or that it s a major factor in either Earth or Martian climate change.

How does the Sun warming disprove the idea that greenhouses gases trap heat? How does it disprove the fact that greenhouse gases trap heat (well known fact--since the 1830s or thereabouts, seeing as the scientist who developed Fourier transforms, a very major scientist connected what he named l'effet de serre (the greenhouse effect) to l'industrie humaine (human activity, not just "industry" in the modern sens) in the late 1820s, as the Industrial Revoluton was making its way across the Channel into Belgium and eventually, France and Germany?

In fact, is it not a mathematical and therefore incontrovertible fact that the input of the Sun's output would have to correspond with the warming (on every planet and body on which the Sun shines) for this to prove that the Sun is playing a minor role in climate change on Earth (and other planets)?

Isn't that the basis of the criticism of all theories and theorists who claim the Sun Done It? Because the solar output has not risen in sync with terrestrial climate change. If you model this change, taking the Sun out of one run, the model matches the observations better, not worse, and if you model climate change taking out the human inputs (GHG emissions, land use change, aerosol emissions, etc.), the model fits the facts worse, not better. In fact, any fool who can see six inches in front of their eyes can see that the models which include human activity (l'industrie humaine) matches the effects observed, while models which are based on the solar activity do not.

The Sun was actually cooler in the 1990s than usual, but we got the hottest year then on record in 1998. We have, despite BS claims that scientists are saying the world is cooling, have had a record year each year since, and have beaten 1998 at least once in 2005, and again in 2012 IIRC.

Every little thing I can raise against your very deeply buried implicit claim that the Sun is causing any warming (AND THE SUN ALONE) and this guy's nutter claims neatly refutes the idea that the Sun is a bigger player in this game than we are.

By the by, I seem to recall the scientists whose work showed some warming on Mars (Southern hemisphere, one or two years) did not claim that this was NOT a contradiction let alone a refutation of climate scence showing anthropogenc inputs to be more significant than solar inputs, but they went out of their way to explain that climate on Mars does not match climate on Earth or work the same way.

Do you know what global warming on Mars looks like? Well, in the summer, at the equator, the ground temperature can reach a balmy 60 or 65F. That is to say, the atmosphere warms in the Summer. To a distance of about 10 inches above the ground. During the heat of Summer. On the Equator. Where dark rock is exposed to the feeble rays of the Sun.

Dark rock, in fact, was proposed as the reason for Martian warming in the Southern hemisphere when I was reading these so-called Mars Warming articles. You see, the atmosphere at the time (a three year period, natch) that these same measurements that Dr. A-hole-whatzit is crowng about, was unusually clear, as it sometimes is by Nature's ever-changing course untrimmed, and this meant that dust did not obscure the darker lava flows and what not. Hence, warming. At last to an altitude of ten inches above the relatively hot black top of Mars.

And here's another thing to chew on--the Polar caps of Mars are composed mostly of CO2, a greenhouse gas, and water (H2O), another greenhouse gas of note. When they melt, they warm the Martian atmosphere, which s very cold and thin, by much more than the same percentage of change in GHG could do on Earth. The Martian atmosphere is already 98% or 99% Carbon Dioxide, which means that it is ALL greenhouse gas. Adding more has a different effect on Mars--it actually thickens the atmosphere appreciably, whereas on Earth, CO2 accounts for a tiny amount of air relative to the inert, non-greenhouse gases, Nitrogen and Oxygen, which make up all but a tiny percent of our atmosphere.

In short, it is pure coincidence that Mars and Earth sometimes warm together (as pointed out in the article YOU posted by better scientists than the guy you are referencing). 97% of our atmosphere is not GHG, so the effects of the Sun and all other factors that speed or slow warming are different. 97% of our climate scientists agree that the Sun is not the main or even an increasing factor in global warming.

I am not saying that your are quoting a nutter and a crank. But you are quoting a Minority Report composed entirely of Contrarians who ignore the proponderence of the evidence against them, even which this would seem to be overwhelmingly decisive.

Ah, what the Hell, he's a farking crank. A farking crank who is a scientist rather than a farking crank who is a lay person or a paid propagandist (or is he?), but a farking crank for all that.

The thing about climate change is that the charts and graphs are composed of many different superimposed waves representing changing factors, some economic, some ecological. You have to be able to separate the effects of the varous waves to determine what is one of the causes, what is working the other way, and how important each of these positive and negative feedbacks are to the output.

In short, you simply can't say the Sun Did It. This is not a murder mystery, although denialists are making it a murder mystery by resisting political and economic change that can save lives, even turn profits for those who make the changes at the expense of those who stick to the dumber, less efficient old ways, such as burning filthy bunker coal rather than using modern improvements in energy production and collection, such as the new improved sails.

Some of this stubborn folly impacts on us all, some just lightens the bottom line of companies, countries, households.

But the choice between fact-based and faith-based actions is yours and quite frankly, FARK FAITH-BASED ANYTHING.
 
2013-07-03 05:03:02 PM
To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.
 
2013-07-03 05:05:39 PM

Farking Canuck: Mikey1969: Besides, where am I going to move? The East, where they think everybody in the Southwest still rides horses to their 1 room schools?

Did you guys move the school washrooms indoors now? Awesome.


Nah, they don't smell as much when they have all that ventilation. Seriously though, nothing sucks more than an outdoor non-chilled drinking fountain on a hot Az day in August. It's like drinking coffee where someone forgot the grounds.
 
2013-07-03 05:07:53 PM

Corvus: I used to have a link to a site that had all the talking points debunked do I could just cut and paste. I guess I need to find that again.


Like this one? http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
 
2013-07-03 05:09:15 PM
Can I have a t-shirt that says: 2 of 8 planets agree: The Sun is to blame?

I'm rather proud of that one. It may be one of many refutations, but it's cool when you can fit something into ten words or less--especially if you're Brantgoose and do tend to run to sentences, paragraphs, arguments, essays, and potentially, books rather than Tweets.
 
2013-07-03 05:09:46 PM
My favorite Deniers talking points:

Climate Scientists are unaware that the sun heats up the earth.
Climate Scientists don't know that you supposed to normalize data.
Climate Scientists "fudge" the numbers because they normalize the data. (I have had the same person argue both of those. That they are wrong because they normalize data and because they don't)
Since Climate change can happen naturally it's impossible for climate change to be caused by man. (Just like fires can be cause by nature therefore can be caused by man)
Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.
We don't understand fully how climate change works with weather 100% therefor it can't exist. (We understand how climate change works more than thing like gravity. Should we say gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand it?)

These arguments are not logical. They are not making logical arguments.

A logical argument would look like: Here is something else that has more evidence and data to support the change in global temperature...

They don't do this. Why? Because they don't have anything. All they have is FUD not a better hypothesis you are just trying to cloud the issue. Scare tactics of paranoid delusions of  the UN sending UN troops to arrest you for driving your car. (funny how they tell us the UN does nothing except send letter except when they want to scare you.)

If you have better science then SHOW IT. But so far it's all just throwing FUD around.
 
2013-07-03 05:11:12 PM

flondrix: Corvus: Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?

I have read some unflattering things about Salk's behavior once he had a working vaccine--not desire to rule per se, but a lot of self-advancing butt-kissing and failure to credit his co-workers.

I can certainly see someone trying to cure a disease solely to promote themselves, but I suspect that in most cases a cure is much more likely to come from thankless slogging.


And that means it was trying all done for an "urge to rule" how exactly?
 
2013-07-03 05:16:22 PM

LeftCoast_eh: To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.


Average global temperatures. Not the temperatures everywhere on the globe. You understand those two things are different right?
 
2013-07-03 05:24:02 PM
Corvus:

Dude, you need a hobby

/of course, this could be your hobby...if so carry on!
 
2013-07-03 05:27:20 PM

Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.


Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.
 
2013-07-03 05:28:14 PM

Corvus: LeftCoast_eh: To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.

Average global temperatures. Not the temperatures everywhere on the globe. You understand those two things are different right?


Sure, you take the temperatures everywhere on the globe and average them.

And then you adjust them using the current normalization strategy.

But then, that's not what the video talks about, is it? It shows that temperatures have risen (and fallen) several degrees (not tenths of a degree) in the span of fifty years. Several times.
 
2013-07-03 05:40:18 PM

Mikey1969: Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.


Yes but they are not caused by magic, they are caused by things like the sun or by volcanic eruptions. It does not just happen by itself some factor causes them to happen.
 
2013-07-03 05:45:35 PM

Corvus: Mikey1969: Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.

Yes but they are not caused by magic, they are caused by things like the sun or by volcanic eruptions. It does not just happen by itself some factor causes them to happen.


Not to play devil's advocate but, technically volcanic activity COOLS the Earth (from the inside out)
 
2013-07-03 05:46:55 PM

LeftCoast_eh: Corvus: LeftCoast_eh: To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.

Average global temperatures. Not the temperatures everywhere on the globe. You understand those two things are different right?

Sure, you take the temperatures everywhere on the globe and average them.

And then you adjust them using the current normalization strategy.

But then, that's not what the video talks about, is it? It shows that temperatures have risen (and fallen) several degrees (not tenths of a degree) in the span of fifty years. Several times.


Well it just keeps running an ad on me so I can't get it to that mark and am not going to sit through it for 40mins.
 
2013-07-03 05:54:52 PM

SquiggsIN: Corvus: Mikey1969: Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.

Yes but they are not caused by magic, they are caused by things like the sun or by volcanic eruptions. It does not just happen by itself some factor causes them to happen.

Not to play devil's advocate but, technically volcanic activity COOLS the Earth (from the inside out)

 www.wired.com

I did not say only heating now did I? I was talking about heating and cooling cycles.
 
2013-07-03 05:57:13 PM

SquiggsIN: Corvus: Mikey1969: Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.

Yes but they are not caused by magic, they are caused by things like the sun or by volcanic eruptions. It does not just happen by itself some factor causes them to happen.

Not to play devil's advocate but, technically volcanic activity COOLS the Earth (from the inside out)


And now you weren't being a devils advocate that is one takes the other side even if they don't believe it. You were being more of a pedantic ass bringing up a point that had nothing to do with the points being actually discussed (about temperature changes not global warming) because you wanted to show off something you learned.
 
2013-07-03 05:58:42 PM
Corvus: LeftCoast_eh: But then, that's not what the video talks about, is it? It shows that temperatures have risen (and fallen) several degrees (not tenths of a degree) in the span of fifty years. Several times.

Well it just keeps running an ad on me so I can't get it to that mark and am not going to sit through it for 40mins.


I can't get it to play either, but there is a transcript available.  Search down for "Peter K. Swart".  I don't see anything in there about several degrees temperature change being measured in a 50-year time span.  I do see something about precipitation changes in that time span.  But you have to be careful about what conclusions you draw.  You can get big changes at a single site if, for example, it's near the boundary of a precipitation band or jet stream whose location shifts slightly.  It doesn't by itself imply a large global change. Swart has found regional spatial patterns in paleoclimate records before, but I don't know about that far back (11 kya), or that fast.
 
2013-07-03 06:09:22 PM

jaybeezey: Houston, Tx is in for the nicest 4th of July day that I can ever remember. If this is the result of Global Climate Change I'm for it.

Going out to idle the jeep in driveway all day.


This attitude (troll? maybe, but a lot of actual humans believe this) is why I hate humans. I'm glad we're going to completely fark up our planet so we can't get off this rock and destroy more of the universe. We're are in the process, right now, of proving we are not worthy. Well played!
 
2013-07-03 06:20:27 PM

sure haven't: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

I agree brother 100%.

I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.


Dear self-styled Luddite Religious Fanatic Retards,

I am back after losing a long post to one of those pesky "features" that are included in toolbars when you neglect to click yes or no in the well-hidden tick box when adding or updating useful software.

I will be briefer this time. I agree whole-heartedly that humans do not really understand scale--time scale or spattial scale--not to mention logic, probability, relevance, and so forth. So many abstractions our brains are poorly designed to understand and employ.

But the relevant time scale for an argument about anthropogenic inputs to the climate system is human scale. We have only had thermometers for a couple or three centuries. An Italian invented the first mercury column thermometer while studying air pressure, if I recall correctly. He observed that heat makes mercury expand and cold makes it contract. Of course, we now know that "cold" does not exist. It is merely the absence of heat.

We have not been able to study climate science scientifically for more than a few centuries for lack of facts, ideas, instruments, and institutions, such as the scientific method, so all our hard data must needs be modern. Fortunately, the problem is not much older than the data.

Prior to 1800, the human populaton of the Earth was less than one billion. For most of that time, humans were a few thousands or millions of ape-like creatures that used about 2,000 Calories each obtained from food and drink.

The mastery of fire dates back to about 800,000 years ago probably, although the oldest evidence is much younger (hearths tend to get destroyed, it is only recently that somebody thought to distinguish between lightning strikes--which happen on hill tops preferentally, from human fires which happen on bottom lands where there is water and food).

We have been farking with the world on a global scale since we mastered the use and abuse of fire for land-clearing, hunting, creating clear lines of sight for arrows and rocks, etc.

We have begun to understand the world and to study it with exactitude only since the adoption of the scientific method, and boy, has it made a big difference. But human brains have yet to catch up to reason. We reason poorly if at all. We are prone to wishful thinking which Steve Colbert has called truthiness and which others call faith-based thinking.

In short, I agree whole-heartedly with the observation that humans just don't get it, but have to point out that your fallacy is a failure to do just what you are implicitly accusing scientists and those of us in the fact-based community of doing, namely not grasping the role of time scale.

And some joker has already given a suspicously quick and precise answer to the question of what the temperature was in Phoenix, Arizona, well before Europeans arrived and helped build it.

Well, it's probably not exact, so it's not "right" but it is in the range of most probable answers, so if the joker were serious and were humble enough to include some indication of probability (misunderstood) and confidence level (also misunderstood), he might be right.

But a scientist wouldn't have an opinion under he applied the scientific method, gathered data, inferred an answer from the data, and published it, so his peers could pick it apart with logic and glee, two things which are more compatible than you think.
Give my regards to your longsuffering wives,

Sincerely,

Evilutionist Commie Gay Bastard Atheist Hoaxer

P.S. The proper time scale to discuss Anthropogenic-anything is human. The proper time to debate the reality and importance of Anthropogenc climate change is yesterday, which is to say, from about 1975 to 1995. The debate is over except for those who use unfair and unscientific rhetoric to prolong the inevitable political bullshiatting and to delay the inevitable lawsuits and attempts to thwart lawsuits which follow when an industry such as Big Tobacco or Big Tar tries to cover its fat butttocks from its victims and their advocates.

The old Cold Warriors who bullshiated us on nuclear power and nuclear war have retired from science but they have not retired from politics and bullshiating. Not by a long shot. When they weren't busy fighting Commie Peaceniks and Commie Traitor Scientists and Commie Greens and Commie Churches and Commie Unions and Schooteachers, who said nukes were not healthy for children or other living things, they moved on to anti-science positions on asbestos in your lungs, smoke and tar in your lungs, acid rain, climate change, ozone depletion, and so forth.

Who is hoaxer and who is hoaxed? Hard to say. But if you watch The Last Man on Earth (liberal Vincent Price) and The Omega Man (conservative Charlton Heston), you will see some light. They're based on the same short story by a French writer, but they could not be more politically opposite.

The Vincent Price character is racked with self-doubt and grief and is earnestly trying to correct his error and make his peace with conscience and humanity.

The Right Wing Nut Cold Warrior played by Chuck is not racked with anything. It's all the fault of those damn Commie Hippies. Also, black girls, you can fark 'em but you can't marry 'em. At the end of the movie, the Paranoid SOB (Chuck) is crucified (literally) for his sins as well as the sins of the bad Zombie-like Commie Hippies. Which proves that you shouldn't fark 'em either.

Did he ever find the Antidote? Yes, I guess he did. He made it out of his own flesh and blood (using the Boy as lab rat, IIRC). Like God the Father and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, three-in-one magic snake oil.

Amen.

I like Vincent Price better than Charlton Heston, but that doesn't change any of the facts which face us, despite a massive pseudo-fact- manufacturing industry slipping their Grocer's Thumb on the Scales of Truth and Probability.

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, continues to exist. --Philip K. Dick
 
2013-07-03 06:32:30 PM
Hmmm, the video plays for me without ads.

Basically they found stalagmites underwater in a cave in the Bahamas which had bands of Sahara dust in them. The bands correspond with higher global temperatures, and the width of the bands indicates a short time period. They think that giant dust storms blew in from the Sahara, dumped iron rich dust (which accumulated in the stalagmite, which at that time was above the water level), and also altered global temperature. Since we are in a drought period in Africa, they seem to think that we might be entering the same cycle again.
 
2013-07-03 06:37:22 PM

Handsome B. Wonderful: Watch me not care.


When your children suffer for your not caring, I hope they blame you.
 
2013-07-03 06:52:15 PM

Realist29: The United States government can't track people with expired Visas. How am I supposed to believe that in their infinite wisdom they can track global warming(oh wait its "climate change" now) trends with any degree of accuracy or truth? Didn't the "tree ring" theory debunk years worth of feigned altruism in the English climate science community? How do we know it was colder in 1865 than it is now? Great Great Grandpa's diary entries about his trick knee?


You sound like a scientist. So I can't trust you.
 
2013-07-03 07:02:27 PM

Evil High Priest: Handsome B. Wonderful: Watch me not care.

When your children suffer for your not caring, I hope they blame you.


What specific alterations in human activity do you suggest to stop the looming disaster?
Be specific, not general.
And, "Giving all our money to people in suits!" isn't an answer.
 
2013-07-03 07:03:03 PM

SlowMind: genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (prefe ...


So many words.. And I can guarantee you, they will not sway one denier "brain". It's frustrating that they won't learn "words".
 
2013-07-03 07:04:45 PM

LeftCoast_eh: Hmmm, the video plays for me without ads.

Basically they found stalagmites underwater in a cave in the Bahamas which had bands of Sahara dust in them. The bands correspond with higher global temperatures, and the width of the bands indicates a short time period. They think that giant dust storms blew in from the Sahara, dumped iron rich dust (which accumulated in the stalagmite, which at that time was above the water level), and also altered global temperature. Since we are in a drought period in Africa, they seem to think that we might be entering the same cycle again.


The dust blows happened when the water that is now in the oceans was tied up in glaciers and the sea levels were much lower, like 250 to 450 feet lower. The US continental shelves were the beaches. And yes, it will happen again. And we'll be the dust that blows and gets emplaced in the caves.
 
2013-07-03 07:05:37 PM

flondrix: Alunan: Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

That last incarnation starts with "Which is more likely?" then shows only one scenario.


Well it was a US Senator...
 
2013-07-03 07:10:24 PM

Corvus: Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.


This is sheer lunacy on a par with religious delusion.
Hey, you know that big hot thing in the sky? The Sun.
It adds energy, 24 hours a day, to the big open thermodynamic system that is the Earth!
Wow!

The more you know!
 
2013-07-03 07:24:30 PM

J. Frank Parnell: HaywoodJablonski: I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long

Just make sure you include the richest 2% who did all the pillaging and polluting of the planet for their own gain in that 80%.


Unfortunately, they are the most likely to survive. So we are breeding for short sighted, evil behavior. Swell.
 
2013-07-03 07:27:08 PM

flondrix: and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.


They are traditionalists, bless their hearts.
 
2013-07-03 07:37:44 PM

Corvus: Farking Canuck: I'm sure you'll drag out this same strawman next thread ... deniers always do.

They still bring out the same talking points that have been refuted every thread. They believe repeating something enough makes it true.

I always ask a couple questions:

Show me when climate change has happened so quickly with out some major event being the cause.

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

Guess what answers I get? None, or the same debunked talking points they have been repeating for years.

I used to have a link to a site that had all the talking points debunked do I could just cut and paste. I guess I need to find that again.


This is nice. The tack I have found effective is to ask point blank, What evidence, exactly, would be enough to sway your opinion. (crickets)
 
2013-07-03 07:40:30 PM

CruJones: HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.


Yes, I can deny exactly that, and there is a mountain of evidence in support of me denying that.
 
2013-07-03 07:43:38 PM

Corvus: Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.


I like how they jump from this one to, "Well, it's too late to do anything about it now anyway."
 
2013-07-03 08:28:29 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

This is sheer lunacy on a par with religious delusion.
Hey, you know that big hot thing in the sky? The Sun.
It adds energy, 24 hours a day, to the big open thermodynamic system that is the Earth!
Wow!

The more you know!


You're right, there are no other sources of heat or greenhouse gases that can  possibly contribute. None at all. We don't burn coal, or oil, or methane at all.
 
2013-07-03 08:33:05 PM

This is simply pathetic.  Most global warming EVER?    Here's what the last decade looked like:


notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com

That's a slight downward trend, on global satellite readings, the only ones not subject to myriad failures due to siting, failure to comply with specifications, and alteration of data.   It's handy to talk about temperature since we started satellite measurements in 1979, because we can compare with uncorrupted data -- unlike before the advent of satellite data.   So, in the last decade, we have cooled -- and this is the MOST WARMING EVAR?  Really?  So are the warmer alarmists now saying it has been brutally cooling since 1850?   They're not even trying any more...  Just a simple denial of reality in a very loud voice, and then the hope that there are enough clueless tools to spread their BS as gospel.  Looking around Fark, it seems they might well be correct.

 
2013-07-03 08:41:21 PM

GeneralJim: This is simply pathetic.  Most global warming EVER?    Here's what the last decade looked like:
[notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com image 549x337]
That's a slight downward trend, on global satellite readings, the only ones not subject to myriad failures due to siting, failure to comply with specifications, and alteration of data.   It's handy to talk about temperature since we started satellite measurements in 1979, because we can compare with uncorrupted data -- unlike before the advent of satellite data.   So, in the last decade, we have cooled -- and this is the MOST WARMING EVAR?  Really?  So are the warmer alarmists now saying it has been brutally cooling since 1850?   They're not even trying any more...  Just a simple denial of reality in a very loud voice, and then the hope that there are enough clueless tools to spread their BS as gospel.  Looking around Fark, it seems they might well be correct.


Wait, why do you have so much confidence that the satellite data is uncorruptible, and so little in all the other (you know, instrumental) data (setting aside your bullshiat characterizations of that data)?

Do you think satellites are magical angels sent by space Jesus to accurately measure our temperature?
 
2013-07-03 08:48:27 PM

Farking Canuck: Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.

There are a significant percentage of them that truly believe that we cannot damage god's creation. So we should continue endlessly shiatting on this planet.

The debate on this would be a lot better if the warmer alarmists debated something OTHER than what they imagine their opponents think.  Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example.  And again, even within the realm of remote viewing of others' thoughts, I have not heard ANYONE say that we "cannot damage God's creation."  So, what does "significant percentage" mean to you?    0.002%?   Actually, I think I'll wait until I hear that argument for the first time before I even estimate percentages.   How about you wait until someone makes an argument before you attack it?

Let's see if you like it the other way...
"Honestly, science-denying warmer alarmists believe science works by taking votes of scientists."   "Yes, a very significant percentage of them think that carbon dioxide is a serious poison, and will kill all life on Earth.  Also, they believe that the planet will be in flames by 2100 if we don't immediately fund China and India, whose pollution -- not to mention farts -- are composed of sweet, sweet flower fragrance.  And the alarmist idea that running one SUV for a year will raise the temperature of the planet by 5.0 K is just the dumbest thing ever."

And, from a previous thread, your gloating about your misplaced certainty of the red states burning is the same as a wish for that. Man up and admit it.

 
2013-07-03 09:00:49 PM

GeneralJim: Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example


Says the guy who cites anything but science.
 
2013-07-03 09:01:32 PM
Also, right on time, 300 comments in and about 45 minutes after the thread is effectively dead, we get the walls of green text.
 
2013-07-03 09:46:32 PM
I amazes me that in only a little over 100 years of burning petroleum, we've done this incredible irreversible damage.

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/main-sources-energy-usa-betw ee n-1776-2012.html
 
2013-07-03 10:27:15 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: I amazes me that in only a little over 100 years of burning petroleum, we've done this incredible irreversible damage.

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/main-sources-energy-usa-betw ee n-1776-2012.html


Did you know that petroleum isn't the only fossil fuel?
 
2013-07-03 10:32:42 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: I amazes me that in only a little over 100 years of burning petroleum, we've done this incredible irreversible damage.

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/main-sources-energy-usa-betw ee n-1776-2012.html


It amazes me that we landed a man on the moon and brought him home safely, within 10 years of promising to do so.
 
2013-07-03 10:49:29 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: The dust blows happened when the water that is now in the oceans was tied up in glaciers and the sea levels were much lower, like 250 to 450 feet lower. The US continental shelves were the beaches. And yes, it will happen again. And we'll be the dust that blows and gets emplaced in the caves.


I see. So the thousands of scientists around the world with mountains of evidence supporting AGW are all wrong or corrupt.

But these guys come up with a tenuous theory about blowing sand and you're all over it like it is a fact literally carved in stone.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. So much dishonesty ... so many lies.
 
2013-07-03 11:23:56 PM

Corvus:

According to your chart it looks like temperatures have stayed which everyone admits is bullshiat.

I'm curious -- is this active ignorance or denial?  Unlike so many warmers claim, I cannot read your thoughts.  (I only read GOOD books.)

How can you simply deny that the warming has stopped?   Where are you getting your talking points?

Even the major perps in this admit that warming stopped -- the MET Office, associated with the Hadley CRU, says:


Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?


And here's data from warmer alarmist sources:


i0.wp.com
pbs.twimg.com
i1.wp.com

Here's the problem -- you're trying to get science from the U.N.   Their whole "global warming" scam is unraveling before their eyes.   And their traditional response, as what they have said in the past proves to be false, is to say "It's way worse than we thought" and "we don't have as much time to act as we thought."   They are simply trying to panic people into taking stupid actions without thinking.  The "unprecedented warming" they talk about has actually been a cooling.  Yes, the planet has actually cooled during the time in question.  Clearly, you are entitled to your own opinion, irrespective of its ignorance.  However, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.   And the facts about temperature in the last decade are as follows:


stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-03 11:26:46 PM
Thread's dead so here come the green lies ...
 
2013-07-03 11:29:01 PM

ikanreed:

I like that there's very specific origins for all those predictive models but then for the so-called "hard data" he just goes "Oh some sattelites and balloons. Which ones? Don't ask questions! Buy my book!"

Cause here's that same chart from a site with citations.

Oh, come on now, you're just embarrassing yourself, whether you know it or not.  Your reference is NOT a comparison of models with measured temperatures -- it is a comparison of several different temperature measurement methodologies.   There is not a prediction in the lot.   Try harder.
 
2013-07-03 11:34:57 PM

Farking Canuck: Thread's dead so here come the green lies ...


He was busy doing his research on the Shroud of Turin, and he only just now noticed this thread. He's saner than the rest of us you know; he's been tested.
 
2013-07-04 01:07:10 AM

ikanreed:

Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions. Look at what those datasets measure, versus what they are being compared to. One of these things is not like the other one, one of these things is not the same.

So farking what?   It looks the same when compared to the same lower troposphere readings:



wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
James Hansen's Prediction in 1988


media.resourceinvestor.com
IPCC Predictions in 1990

curryja.files.wordpress.com
IPCC 2007 Predictions
A 100-year prediction, breaking out of 95% certainty within six years?



4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-04 01:48:01 AM
img571.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-04 01:54:23 AM

Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen?


You can't take something as complex as the earth's climate and reduce it to one variable.
 
2013-07-04 02:02:47 AM

machodonkeywrestler:

It's not the data, It's the crappy model that Watts uses that makes your plots a joke.

Watts uses the MEASURED DATA.   The crappy models on that "plot" are from the IPCC.
 
2013-07-04 02:15:23 AM

Corvus:

I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".

Four specific examples? A bad prediction of ice extent loss, a bad prediction of ice extent loss, a bad prediction of ice extent loss, and a bad prediction of ice extent loss. It looks like four copies of the same thing. Do you understand what you are "proving" with your "evidence?"   While the IPCC was grossly OVER-estimating the warming of the planet as a whole, at the same time, even with the help of cooler-than-they-expected temperatures, they grossly under-estimated the ice extent loss.  So, they suck at predicting temperature, and always have, and now have been shown to suck even worse at predicting ice extent losses -- so we should believe them about temperature?   Why?
 
2013-07-04 02:26:20 AM

Corvus:

Let me paraphrase most of the "skeptics" in the thread:

Well I have no scientific background, have not read any scientific papers on this topic, have spent about 5 minute looking into it from non-scientific sources, and I think I know better than about this topic then the 99% of scientists who say I am wrong and who have studied this their entire lives because it's what I want to believe.

Let me paraphrase most of the warmer alarmists in the thread:

"Well, I have no scientific background, but if I stand with this group of political hacks in lab coats, maybe a girl will think I'm smart, and go out with me.   I'll just ignore the fact that their predictions have failed miserably, that carbon dioxide levels have been shown to FOLLOW temperature, and that a couple people have changed the major data sets to support their hypothesis."

 
2013-07-04 02:35:25 AM

Corvus:

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Is it even possible for you to say something that isn't wrong?   How about fluctuations of that giant honking continuous fusion explosion some 94 million miles away?  Let's see if there is any correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature....

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

No, no chance these two are related -- it's just a coincidence.


Well, certainly carbon dioxide correlates BETTER with temperature, since we just KNOW carbon dioxide levels are a thermostat. Here, see what I mean:

tucsoncitizen.com
Oh, crap.
 
2013-07-04 02:44:28 AM

Corvus:

Show me when climate change has happened so quickly with out some major event being the cause.

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

It would help if you weren't standing there babbling with your fingers in your ears....

The temperature warmed more quickly in the early 18th century than at any time in the 20th.


The fact that this warming is part of a 1600-year cycle, the warming part of which started over a century BEFORE the industrial revolution.


i43.tinypic.com

Warmer alarmists ONLY look at temperature starting with the green line
At that point, warming had been going on for over a century.
 
2013-07-04 02:49:27 AM

Corvus:

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

antoniriera.files.wordpress.com

What anthropomorphic climate change might look like

/ ... and it's "than," FFS.
 
2013-07-04 02:52:29 AM

flondrix:

Corvus: Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?

I have read some unflattering things about Salk's behavior once he had a working vaccine--not desire to rule per se, but a lot of self-advancing butt-kissing and failure to credit his co-workers.

I can certainly see someone trying to cure a disease solely to promote themselves, but I suspect that in most cases a cure is much more likely to come from thankless slogging.

True enough, but even then, this is a poor example.  The "disease" is not real.  So, a snake-oil salesman would be lots closer than Salk...
 
2013-07-04 02:58:26 AM

Corvus:

My favorite Deniers talking points:

Climate Scientists are unaware that the sun heats up the earth.
Climate Scientists don't know that you supposed to normalize data.
Climate Scientists "fudge" the numbers because they normalize the data. (I have had the same person argue both of those. That they are wrong because they normalize data and because they don't)
Since Climate change can happen naturally it's impossible for climate change to be caused by man. (Just like fires can be cause by nature therefore can be caused by man)
Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.
We don't understand fully how climate change works with weather 100% therefor it can't exist. (We understand how climate change works more than thing like gravity. Should we say gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand it?)

These arguments are not logical. They are not making logical arguments.

Well, then, thank God I've never made any of them. This is a huge thing in this debate.  Why don't you warmer alarmists stick to making YOUR arguments, and let others make theirs?  This is devlolving into who can make the stupidest argument for their opponents' side - but, other than ironically, it seems only the warmer alarmists are playing that game.

 
2013-07-04 03:10:15 AM

GeneralJim: Is it even possible for you to say something that isn't wrong?   How about fluctuations of that giant honking continuous fusion explosion some 94 million miles away?  Let's see if there is any correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature....
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

No, no chance these two are related -- it's just a coincidence.



Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

from here:  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

also, they note that the graph GeneralJim presents is from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, whose data have subsequently been corrected (see same link for explanation). This is not the first time that GeneralJim has just lazily parroted a talking point without apparently caring about the quality of the data, or acknowledging any subsequent work in the area. He just repeats whatever his puppet masters tell him to say, you know, because he cares deeply about science.

GeneralJim: The debate on this would be a lot better if the warmer alarmists debated something OTHER than what they imagine their opponents think.  Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example.


Yeah, good job there, puppet boy.
 
2013-07-04 03:15:11 AM
I repeat, if the sun's output were increasing AND we simultaneously increase the greenhouse effect, it will have more of an effect that the sun alone would have.  And since agriculture is based on a dependable climate, that would be bad.
 
2013-07-04 04:06:03 AM

Corvus:

They don't do this. Why? Because they don't have anything. All they have is FUD not a better hypothesis you are just trying to cloud the issue.

This is what a large percentage of scientifically illiterate people believe.  In reality, it is not necessary to have a "better hypothesis" to falsify another one.  For example, the hypothesis that carbon dioxide level changes are the major controller of planetary temperature is falsified several different ways.  One of those ways is that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and therefore cannot be controlling it.  That falsifies AGW, even without a replacement hypothesis.

This is a little bit complex for the scientifically illiterate, so allow me to present another example.  Let's say that you have a hypothesis that shooting a runner in the head with a .45 slug will help their performance.   A test with a hundred runners results in 100 corpses being unable to complete the race, let alone improve their times.  You do NOT need to have a "better" hypothetical method to improve running performance to DISPROVE the .45 slug to the head hypothesis.  The experiment has falsified it.

 
2013-07-04 04:12:54 AM

Evil High Priest:

Unfortunately, they are the most likely to survive. So we are breeding for short sighted, evil behavior. Swell.
At least you can take solace in the fact that your team is winning...
 
2013-07-04 04:15:01 AM

Evil High Priest:

This is nice. The tack I have found effective is to ask point blank, What evidence, exactly, would be enough to sway your opinion. (crickets)
Okay then, what evidence, exactly, would be enough to convince you that "anthropogenic global warming" is an issue not worthy of any worry?
 
2013-07-04 04:17:15 AM

HighZoolander:

CruJones: HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.

Yes, I can deny exactly that, and there is a mountain of evidence in support of me denying that.

Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, just what "mountain" of evidence do you believe makes it impossible that what we are seeing is a natural cycle?
 
2013-07-04 04:30:36 AM

HighZoolander:

Wait, why do you have so much confidence that the satellite data is uncorruptible, and so little in all the other (you know, instrumental) data (setting aside your bullshiat characterizations of that data)?
Well, for one simple thing, the satellite data was not processed by a secret program, and then had the original data turn up missing. That's a start. When the original data is not available, it's not science. Second, if you look at the instrument sites, only 11% of the sites meet the USHCN standards for reliable reporting. In case your math skills equal your science skills, that means that 89% of the stations are not reliable. When you build a data set on 89% unreliable data, the data set is not reliable. Third, data sets have been manipulated to support the AGW hypothesis. That leaves the satellites as the best reporting method. They also have the benefit of reading the entire planet equally, without the unequal distribution of weather stations playing into the equation.

Do you think satellites are magical angels sent by space Jesus to accurately measure our temperature?
No, but I think you need some serious assistance from a licensed mental health care professional.
 
2013-07-04 04:34:13 AM

cameroncrazy1984:

GeneralJim: Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example

Says the guy who cites anything but science.

It's really cool that you guys think I'm enough of a threat to your shilling that you need to organize a campaign of lies against me.
So, how about you offer some examples of me citing anything BUT science and logic?  I'll wait.
 
2013-07-04 04:40:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984:

Also, right on time, 300 comments in and about 45 minutes after the thread is effectively dead, we get the walls of green text.

Oh, look, another anti-science post on post timing.   "Look, he has a life off of Fark!   He must be a shill."

And, seriously? You are saying the thread was dead about seven hours in? So, do you sit at your keyboard 24/7 without sleep, waiting to pounce on the next chance to earn some money by taking a dump on a thread? Hmmm... Actually, that WOULD go a long way towards explaining your behavior, and the quality (or lack thereof) of your posts.

 
2013-07-04 04:52:38 AM
HighZoolander:
Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):
Nice.  The graph I put up showed sunspot count.  What does yours show?   Certainly NOT sunspot count.  That's not honest.

And, are you really ignorant enough to think that the physics of the situation would have solar activity be the major controller of planetary temperature, and suddenly switch to something else? Really?
 
2013-07-04 04:54:41 AM

HighZoolander:

also, they note that the graph GeneralJim presents is from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, whose data have subsequently been corrected (see same link for explanation). This is not the first time that GeneralJim has just lazily parroted a talking point without apparently caring about the quality of the data, or acknowledging any subsequent work in the area. He just repeats whatever his puppet masters tell him to say, you know, because he cares deeply about science.
So, a REAL scientist would take the time to create totally fraudulent data, eh?   I'll keep that in mind.
 
2013-07-04 08:54:45 AM
Wow ... 17 out of the last 19 posts are from the green whack-job.

Must be short on cash this month. Gotta get the bullshiat count up to pad the next paycheck.
 
2013-07-04 09:39:19 AM

Farking Canuck:

Wow ... 17 out of the last 19 posts are from the green whack-job.

Must be short on cash this month. Gotta get the bullshiat count up to pad the next paycheck.

Pfft.  The only way I could make money with Fark would be if I could sue jackasses for libel/slander for crap like this.

/ currently entertaining offers, though...
 
2013-07-04 12:02:51 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Wait, why do you have so much confidence that the satellite data is uncorruptible, and so little in all the other (you know, instrumental) data (setting aside your bullshiat characterizations of that data)?Well, for one simple thing, the satellite data was not processed by a secret program, and then had the original data turn up missing. That's a start. When the original data is not available, it's not science. Second, if you look at the instrument sites, only 11% of the sites meet the USHCN standards for reliable reporting. In case your math skills equal your science skills, that means that 89% of the stations are not reliable. When you build a data set on 89% unreliable data, the data set is not reliable. Third, data sets have been manipulated to support the AGW hypothesis. That leaves the satellites as the best reporting method. They also have the benefit of reading the entire planet equally, without the unequal distribution of weather stations playing into the equation.

Do you think satellites are magical angels sent by space Jesus to accurately measure our temperature?No, but I think you need some serious assistance from a licensed mental health care professional.


Wow, so it must really blow your mind (and your story out of the water) that the satellite measurements and ground measurements match so closely:

www.skepticalscience.com

source (with explanation):  http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012-us-temp-record-fox-denial.html
(it's a fun read in its own right - as it exposes Watts and Spencer as lying, hypocritical tools. GeneralJim seems far too eager to follow their example.)
 
2013-07-04 12:22:29 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):Nice.  The graph I put up showed sunspot count.  What does yours show?   Certainly NOT sunspot count.  That's not honest.

And, are you really ignorant enough to think that the physics of the situation would have solar activity be the major controller of planetary temperature, and suddenly switch to something else? Really?


So you think physics rules out sudden changes in what drives climate? So an asteroid strike, major volcanic explosion, or (geologically) sudden influx of a greenhouse gas couldn't possibly change the climate, because physics? WTF are you smoking?


GeneralJim: Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, just what "mountain" of evidence do you believe makes it impossible that what we are seeing is a natural cycle?


Seriously? You're not aware of any evidence that people refer to to claim that the warming is anthropogenic? Whether or not you agree with the interpretation of said data, you don't even know that it exists? That's some real fine SCIENCE* there Lou.

www.skepticalscience.com
source:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint- o n-Climate-Change.html

also:
skepticalscience.com

*In this context, SCIENCE strictly means that GeneralJim has his head so far up his own ass that he thinks it's where it should be.
 
2013-07-04 10:13:38 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: also, they note that the graph GeneralJim presents is from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, whose data have subsequently been corrected (see same link for explanation). This is not the first time that GeneralJim has just lazily parroted a talking point without apparently caring about the quality of the data, or acknowledging any subsequent work in the area. He just repeats whatever his puppet masters tell him to say, you know, because he cares deeply about science.So, a REAL scientist would take the time to create totally fraudulent data, eh?   I'll keep that in mind.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Heh. This misguided attempt at a comeback is a peek into what sort of logic someone working backwards from a conclusion looks like. Someone points out the argument GeneralJim is making is based on bad data, therefore a seemingly meaningful retort for him is to say that that the person is instead advocating for fraudulently creating data. What he's probably not appreciating is that this leap of logic only works if GeneralJim is working from the premise that the conclusion is a done deal and one is trying to find 'evidence' that supports it - since HighZoolander has pointed out that the data he is using isn't all that good, according to GeneralJim this means HighZoolander must be instead advocating for creating data to fit said foregone conclusion.

It's an attempt at a retort that says a lot more about the speaker than the intended recipient.
 
2013-07-04 10:34:05 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):Nice.  The graph I put up showed sunspot count.  What does yours show?   Certainly NOT sunspot count.  That's not honest.



LOL. I thought the previous bit I commented on showed a somewhat irrational style of argumentation. This really tops it. Note that contrary to what GeneralJim is saying here, the graphs he put up do not show sunspot count, but instead sunspot cycle length:

GeneralJim: Corvus: Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.
Is it even possible for you to say something that isn't wrong?   How about fluctuations of that giant honking continuous fusion explosion some 94 million miles away?  Let's see if there is any correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature....
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
No, no chance these two are related -- it's just a coincidence.
Well, certainly carbon dioxide correlates BETTER with temperature, since we just KNOW carbon dioxide levels are a thermostat. Here, see what I mean:

tucsoncitizen.com

Oh, crap.



It takes a rare unawareness to misrepresent your very own posts while calling the other person dishonest.

Of course, there's the other issue that the data he's presenting is erroneous and out of date. The corrected and more up-to-date data looks like this:

i43.tinypic.com

With a notable divergence later on. This has been pointed out to GeneralJim on several occasions. We'll leave it to the reader as to what this says about how he's approaching this topic.
 
2013-07-04 10:36:50 PM

GeneralJim: cameroncrazy1984: Also, right on time, 300 comments in and about 45 minutes after the thread is effectively dead, we get the walls of green text.
Oh, look, another anti-science post on post timing.   "Look, he has a life off of Fark!   He must be a shill."

And, seriously? You are saying the thread was dead about seven hours in? So, do you sit at your keyboard 24/7 without sleep, waiting to pounce on the next chance to earn some money by taking a dump on a thread? Hmmm... Actually, that WOULD go a long way towards explaining your behavior, and the quality (or lack thereof) of your posts.



The contention that the cameroncrazy1984's post is somehow "anti-science" is truly baffling - such a misrepresentation is far more damning of GeneralJim than any allegations of posting habits.
 
2013-07-04 10:49:38 PM

GeneralJim: cameroncrazy1984: GeneralJim: Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example

Says the guy who cites anything but science.
It's really cool that you guys think I'm enough of a threat to your shilling that you need to organize a campaign of lies against me.
So, how about you offer some examples of me citing anything BUT science and logic?  I'll wait.



Well, if he is asking for examples, here's one where I caught GeneralJim is outright lying, which would probably fall outside of "science and logic". Or perhaps when he cites misattributed quotes in support of conspiracy theories.

However, if one reads what GeneralJim is saying literally, one can be charitable and note that most of the time he simplydoesn't bother to cite anything at all.
 
2013-07-04 11:17:18 PM

GeneralJim: Corvus: They don't do this. Why? Because they don't have anything. All they have is FUD not a better hypothesis you are just trying to cloud the issue.
This is what a large percentage of scientifically illiterate people believe.  In reality, it is not necessary to have a "better hypothesis" to falsify another one.  For example, the hypothesis that carbon dioxide level changes are the major controller of planetary temperature is falsified several different ways.  One of those ways is that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and therefore cannot be controlling it. That falsifies AGW, even without a replacement hypothesis.


Of course, the bit in bold isn't true, and has been shown to him many times. Besides the fact that one can only say that for the Vostok ice core record that only the initial rise in CO2 concentration followed temperature, such patterns are not universal:

img.fark.net
From Shakun et al. 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

In the addition, the logic that's he's using is as nonsensical as claiming that chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them. That temperature can affect CO2 concentration does not somehow exclude the opposite - that CO2 concentration can affect temperature.


GeneralJim: This is a little bit complex for the scientifically illiterate, so allow me to present another example.  Let's say that you have a hypothesis that shooting a runner in the head with a .45 slug will help their performance.   A test with a hundred runners results in 100 corpses being unable to complete the race, let alone improve their times.  You do NOT need to have a "better" hypothetical method to improve running performance to DISPROVE the .45 slug to the head hypothesis.  The experiment has falsified it.


While this is mostly a good principle (besides the notable omission of how a zero hypothesis works), and GeneralJim deserves credit for pointing it out, note that this only works for very simple situations and single experiments like the example provided. The real world and the actual process of science is a bit more messy. It is exceedingly rare that one experiment will provide solid refutation of a given explanation, especially when a complex system, such as climate, is involved. What you instead find in the actual process of scientific inquiry is competing, alternative hypotheses, with bodies of evidence built up over time eventually leading to one being accepted. It's a subtle point, but it's good to know for people who don't have much experience in actual science (such as GeneralJim).
 
2013-07-04 11:21:58 PM

GeneralJim: Corvus: My favorite Deniers talking points:

Climate Scientists are unaware that the sun heats up the earth.
Climate Scientists don't know that you supposed to normalize data.
Climate Scientists "fudge" the numbers because they normalize the data. (I have had the same person argue both of those. That they are wrong because they normalize data and because they don't)
Since Climate change can happen naturally it's impossible for climate change to be caused by man. (Just like fires can be cause by nature therefore can be caused by man)
Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.
We don't understand fully how climate change works with weather 100% therefor it can't exist. (We understand how climate change works more than thing like gravity. Should we say gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand it?)

These arguments are not logical. They are not making logical arguments.Well, then, thank God I've never made any of them. This is a huge thing in this debate.  Why don't you warmer alarmists stick to making YOUR arguments, and let others make theirs?

This is devlolving into who can make the stupidest argument for their opponents' side - but, other than ironically, it seems only the warmer alarmists are playing that game.


Uh-huh. From a thread a couple of days ago:

GeneralJim: The ONLY way to look at it is to start somewhere between 1850 and 1880 until the present.
 
2013-07-04 11:30:21 PM

GeneralJim: ikanreed: I like that there's very specific origins for all those predictive models but then for the so-called "hard data" he just goes "Oh some sattelites and balloons. Which ones? Don't ask questions! Buy my book!"

Cause here's that same chart from a site with citations.
Oh, come on now, you're just embarrassing yourself, whether you know it or not.  Your reference is NOT a comparison of models with measured temperatures -- it is a comparison of several different temperature measurement methodologies.   There is not a prediction in the lot.   Try harder.


You may have missed the point. The person to whom you were responding to was in turn responding to someone who was posting the results of predictive models.

GeneralJim: Corvus: According to your chart it looks like temperatures have stayed which everyone admits is bullshiat.
I'm curious -- is this active ignorance or denial?  Unlike so many warmers claim, I cannot read your thoughts.  (I only read GOOD books.)
How can you simply deny that the warming has stopped?   Where are you getting your talking points?Even the major perps in this admit that warming stopped -- the MET Office, associated with the Hadley CRU, says:
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
And here's data from warmer alarmist sources:
[i0.wp.com image 645x420]
[pbs.twimg.com image 599x391]
[i1.wp.com image 645x420]
Here's the problem -- you're trying to get science from the U.N.   Their whole "global warming" scam is unraveling before their eyes.   And their traditional response, as what they have said in the past proves to be false, is to say "It's way worse than we thought" and "we don't have as much time to act as we thought."   They are simply trying to panic people into taking stupid actions without thinking.  The "unprecedented warming" they talk about has actually been a cooling.  Yes, the planet has actually cooled during the time in question.  Clearly, you are entitled to your own opinion, irrespective of its ignorance.  However, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.   And the facts about temperature in the last decade are as follows:
[stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 715x532]



You are very well aware of the fact that shorter-term variability can be misleading. It's the reason why this graphic is so compelling:

i39.tinypic.com

Or, if you find that to be unconvincing, you could always listen to this guy:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate

 
2013-07-05 12:27:19 AM

Damnhippyfreak: Or, if you find that to be unconvincing, you could always listen to this guy:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate


I'm somehow sure that GeneralJim could call that guy an anti-science liar without a trace of irony or awareness.
 
Displayed 352 of 352 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report