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

(Google)   The newest cause of Global Warming? Earthquakes   ( google.com) divider line
    More: Weird, global warming, earthquakes, hydrates, crystalline structures, oceanography, sulfur dioxide, greenhouse gases, Nature Geoscience  
•       •       •

1101 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Jul 2013 at 12:47 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-29 01:08:39 PM  
Headline marked weird.  Underground methane suspected, extremely not weird.  Check article, subby proves to just be ignorant of well-known factors.  Life goes on.
 
2013-07-29 01:29:52 PM  
And global warming can cause earthquakes, so it's all part of the Circle of Life and Doom, Life an Doooooooom!

Methane clathrates are a small factor in natural greenhouse gas emissions at the moment. The one mentioned in the article was only equivalent to ten tanker ships worth, which is piddling. However, as the article notes, there's a LOT of the stuff in the depths, especially in the Arctic where it can be more easily destablized because the Arctic is changing fast and because it is relatively shallow, and we don't know how much of a hair trigger is involved. In the past, methane bursts are believed to have played a role in sudden natural climate change events, including perhaps one or more of the greatest mass extinctions.

No one knows whether the methane leaks found off Siberia are new (which could be very bad news) or have been ongoing since the last ice age (which would still be small comfort because it does not preclude disaster).

It could happen to us. It has happened before.

Another interesting theory involving methane bubbles is that they may explain the disappearance of some ships. When a large amount of gas is released into water, it becomes less dense. If there is enough, a ship could drop like a stone due to lost buoyancy. Poof! Straight down, no holes in the hull. A small seaslide could release enough gas to sink one or more ships in a normally safe strait.

Nobody has proven this in a specific case as far as I know, but it is sound physics, and there are places where methane clathrate deposits are known to exist which are also the sites of mysterious disappearances.

So there's that.

Given the amount of BS we are prepared to take in the name of fighting terrorism (which is very low risk, somewhat high cost), we should be logically willing to take a hit to fight climate change, which is very risky and ultra-high cost if we do nothing to reduce our impact on the climate.

Small things count in large amounts. The ozone layer which protects us, our crops and all life on the surface from ultraviolet death would be only the thickness of one to three dimes if it were reduced to a real layer of the thickness of ground level air. Reading J.B.S. Haldane on the way to work, I find him saying that the amount of CO2 in 50 cubic yards of air is about one ounce. That's not a lot, but without this key greenhouse gas, most of the Earth would be covered in ice--water may weigh a heck of a lot more than CO2, but it is a fickle friend which easily precipitates from the air as rain, snow, hail, etc. It would not be enough to keep the Earth stable and cosy for humans or other living things, except maybe bacteria, deep sea fish, and stuff like that.
 
2013-07-29 01:34:35 PM  
The newest cause of Global Warming? Earthquakes farts

Corrected
 
2013-07-29 01:36:08 PM  
The idea that released natural sources of methane could contribute to GHGs is nothing new. These guys have just discovered some evidence to support the idea of earthquake triggered releases.

Just a bit more evidence from scientists on to the pile. Nothing new to see here.

//Today's prediction for the arrival of green threadshiat is: ~10 PM EDT.
 
2013-07-29 01:46:58 PM  

brantgoose: Methane clathrates are a small factor in natural greenhouse gas emissions at the moment. The one mentioned in the article was only equivalent to ten tanker ships worth, which is piddling. However, as the article notes, there's a LOT of the stuff in the depths, especially in the Arctic where it can be more easily destablized because the Arctic is changing fast and because it is relatively shallow, and we don't know how much of a hair trigger is involved. In the past, methane bursts are believed to have played a role in sudden natural climate change events, including perhaps one or more of the greatest mass extinctions.


Have you read "Mother of Storms" by John Barnes?
A century's worth of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere in a matter of weeks as Arctic clathrate beds collapse in a chain reaction. Ocean surfaces warm up so much that the hurricane formation zone in the Pacific is large enough for the storms to follow the steering currents and circulate all the way around the ocean.
It becomes a permanent feature.

Lots of other crazy stuff in the book, but the weather-related material is somewhat alarming.
 
2013-07-29 01:48:48 PM  
No problem. Just tax the Earthquakes in California, but don't tax the ones in China or India, even though those quakes are much worse.
 
2013-07-29 02:20:54 PM  

limboslam: No problem. Just tax the Earthquakes in California, but don't tax the ones in China or India, even though those quakes are much worse.


Do you understand that accepting the science studying GW is not the same as accepting proposed solutions to GW? That is, if someone proposes a solution that is financially unsound then you can reject that without buying into the ridiculous "scientists are corrupt scam-artists" fiction that idiots are regularly pushing.

Most people who want to do something about AGW do not support "economy destroying measures". The insistence that anything that could reduce greenhouse gas production will cost exorbitant money is a political strawman to push the "do nothing" agenda.

The fact is that the short term impacts will be things like: reduction of pollution in our cities, reduction of dependance on middle east oil, new industrial opportunities in green industries (a growing field), etc. It is win-win for everyone (except the petroleum industry and their puppets). And, of course, the long term benefits will hopefully be to blunt and/or shorten the negative impacts of AGW.
 
2013-07-29 02:52:06 PM  
Aren't graphs mandatory in a global warming thread?
earthquake.usgs.gov
 
2013-07-29 02:56:11 PM  

WelldeadLink: Aren't graphs mandatory in a global warming thread?
[earthquake.usgs.gov image 347x205]


biojournalism.com
 
2013-07-29 03:14:02 PM  
There are probably many causes of Climate change... however if you say anything other than it's essentially caused by Republicans your are shouted down as a right-wing whack job.  Thanks to all you dumb-farks that made a scientific issue a political one.
 
2013-07-29 03:49:30 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: There are probably many causes of Climate change... however if you say anything other than it's essentially caused by Republicans your are shouted down as a right-wing whack job.  Thanks to all you dumb-farks that made a scientific issue a political one.


That's funny ... because that's exactly what isn't happening in this thread.

How's that persecution complex coming along? Seems to be growing fast. You must feed it a lot.
 
2013-07-29 04:23:15 PM  
Volcanic activity can also cause global cooling if enough dust is thrown into the upper atmosphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps#Effect_on_climate_and_conte m porary_life  for an example
 
2013-07-29 04:34:22 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: There are probably many causes of Climate change... however if you say anything other than it's essentially caused by Republicans your are shouted down as a right-wing whack job.  Thanks to all you dumb-farks that made a scientific issue a political one.


Nah.
If you say stuff like what you say, you are a whack job.
 
2013-07-29 04:42:15 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: There are probably many causes of Climate change... however if you say anything other than it's essentially caused by Republicans your are shouted down as a right-wing whack job.  Thanks to all you dumb-farks that made a scientific issue a political one.


You have it backwards. They made a political issue seem like a scientific one.
 
2013-07-29 06:47:14 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: There are probably many causes of Climate change... however if you say anything other than it's essentially caused by Republicans your are shouted down as a right-wing whack job.  Thanks to all you dumb-farks that made a scientific issue a political one.


Can you sell me some pot?
 
2013-07-29 07:59:30 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: There are probably many causes of Climate change... however if you say anything other than it's essentially caused by Republicans your are shouted down as a right-wing whack job.  Thanks to all you dumb-farks that made a scientific issue a political one.


That's accurate.  There are many causes of climate change.  It's not just CO2 and other man made greenhouse gasses.  The issue is that over the past 100 year or so and especially the past 40 man made influences are the dominant cause of warming.

Actually, what will get you shouted down is when you try to severely downplay man's role in global warming and climate change.  That's usually the strategy people use when they bring up other factors involved in global warming.  Yes, there are other factors, but it's man made greenhouses gasses that are dominating the warming.  That's invariably the part that gets left out.  Those other factors have a much smaller effect.
 
2013-07-29 08:33:49 PM  

Baryogenesis: Yes, there are other factors, but it's man made greenhouses gasses that are dominating the warming


What dominating greenhouse gas warming?

models.weatherbell.com


www.esrl.noaa.gov
 
2013-07-29 08:51:37 PM  
Wait a minute.  I thought boobs caused earthquakes which are now linked to global warming.  If I have this correct pass me the SPF 125.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/women-blame-earthquakes- ir an-cleric
 
2013-07-29 08:52:42 PM  
Headline needed "spins wheel" meme.
 
2013-07-29 09:25:42 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Baryogenesis: Yes, there are other factors, but it's man made greenhouses gasses that are dominating the warming

What dominating greenhouse gas warming?

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


[www.esrl.noaa.gov image 792x612]


www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-07-29 10:19:19 PM  
I remember the one that caused the Indonesian floods jutted up the sea floor by a couple of meters for a long stretch. If you increase the distance from the mass of the plate to the core of the earth then you'll slow down the spin just slightly.

The increased time in the sun combined with greenhouse effects could raise temperatures more than a straight greenhouse model for change.
 
2013-07-29 10:19:38 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Baryogenesis: Yes, there are other factors, but it's man made greenhouses gasses that are dominating the warming

What dominating greenhouse gas warming?

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


[www.esrl.noaa.gov image 792x612]


Pouring the derp on a little heavy here aren't you?? You didn't use the normal intense stupidity of showing the 12 year flat spot and claiming it is a climate trend. You went with 4.5 years of data which is about an order of magnitude more idiotic.

How bad at science do you have to be to post that amount of data and actually think it says anything about global climate trends???
 
2013-07-30 01:25:56 AM  

Farking Canuck: limboslam: No problem. Just tax the Earthquakes in California, but don't tax the ones in China or India, even though those quakes are much worse.

Do you understand that accepting the science studying GW is not the same as accepting proposed solutions to GW? That is, if someone proposes a solution that is financially unsound then you can reject that without buying into the ridiculous "scientists are corrupt scam-artists" fiction that idiots are regularly pushing.

Most people who want to do something about AGW do not support "economy destroying measures". The insistence that anything that could reduce greenhouse gas production will cost exorbitant money is a political strawman to push the "do nothing" agenda.

The fact is that the short term impacts will be things like: reduction of pollution in our cities, reduction of dependance on middle east oil, new industrial opportunities in green industries (a growing field), etc. It is win-win for everyone (except the petroleum industry and their puppets). And, of course, the long term benefits will hopefully be to blunt and/or shorten the negative impacts of AGW.


What's sad is that the petroleum industry could position themselves for more massive profits if they're willing to adapt to new technologies. Instead they seem to be investing in denial to maintain their status quo.
 
2013-07-30 01:35:18 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: www.skepticalscience.net


Dude, nobody is arguing it NEVER warmed. To pretend that graph is germane is tantamount to presuming that because it has continued to warm after a cooling period in the past, it will necessarily do so in the future.

That's not science. That's bias. We DON'T KNOW what the future temperatures will be. We only know that there hasn't been any warming in about 15 years. When is enough? 20 years? 30? 50? When will you finally drop the charade? What will it take, the ice caps meeting at the equator?
 
2013-07-30 02:04:53 AM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: www.skepticalscience.net

Dude, nobody is arguing it NEVER warmed. To pretend that graph is germane is tantamount to presuming that because it has continued to warm after a cooling period in the past, it will necessarily do so in the future.

That's not science. That's bias. We DON'T KNOW what the future temperatures will be. We only know that there hasn't been any warming in about 15 years. When is enough? 20 years? 30? 50? When will you finally drop the charade? What will it take, the ice caps meeting at the equator?


So how is it that you consistently fail to understand that there are still factors causing warming, and that if there were not, the current factors causing a cooling effect would, you know, cool the planet, not hold the temperature steady.

/more than one thing happens at once - it's called reality
 
2013-07-30 02:56:42 AM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: www.skepticalscience.net

Dude, nobody is arguing it NEVER warmed. To pretend that graph is germane is tantamount to presuming that because it has continued to warm after a cooling period in the past, it will necessarily do so in the future.

That's not science. That's bias. We DON'T KNOW what the future temperatures will be. We only know that there hasn't been any warming in about 15 years. When is enough? 20 years? 30? 50? When will you finally drop the charade? What will it take, the ice caps meeting at the equator?



First off, note that laying a trend over extant data does not make any presumption about future data. It is instead  you who has explicitly made such a presumption here. You can't meaningfully posit in one sentence that "we DON'T KNOW what the future temperatures will be" and then go on to assume that the spurious cooling trends you tend to highlight will continue. Heed your own warning.

That aside, there's one really big way in which the framework you're relying on is fundamentally flawed.

First, and arguably the more important one is that is that trying to make inferences from overall trends, without any consideration of the multiple underlying processes simultaneously at work over different scales can be misleading. Simply put, as correlation is not causation, lack of correlation is not lack of causation.  The attribution of anthropogenic climate change is based on decomposing and understanding of the underlying processes, not just eyeballing a simplistic trend on a graph.

What this means is that you fail to appreciate the actual physical context in which temperature data actually exists. This is the root of all thecriticisms that have been leveled at you: surface temperature does not include ocean heat content, your choice of data set has beensuperseded by one that has increased spatial coverage, shorter-term trends (like the ones you rely on) are conflated with the effects of ENSO, solar and volcanic activity.

In short, you've been attempting to handle this data without any understanding of what it actually means in a physical context.
 
2013-07-30 06:41:16 AM  

HighZoolander: So how is it that you consistently fail to understand that there are still factors causing warming, and that if there were not, the current factors causing a cooling effect would, you know, cool the planet, not hold the temperature steady.


So, if it were not cooling, it would be warming. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
 
2013-07-30 06:52:07 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: The attribution of anthropogenic climate change is based on decomposing and understanding of the underlying processes, not just eyeballing a simplistic trend on a graph.


Yes, because the effect of all processes are known, and all acting processes are already recognized, amirite?

After all, that's why the actual temperatures crashed through the bottom of the IPCC 95% CI...because it's all known. Amirite?

Sorry, Chicken Pinatubo, I know it is hard to swallow the fact that temperatures aren't going up, and so you have to move the goalposts so far of into pseudoscience that what you are measuring doesn't even have units any more.

Next up - the anthropogenic global climate transmogrification, up 15 Jonathan Edwards units from last year, a clear increase in the global transmogrifying.

So ridiculous.
 
2013-07-30 08:10:24 AM  
www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-07-30 08:47:22 AM  

Farking Canuck: How bad at science do you have to be to post that amount of data and actually think it says anything about global climate trends???


As bad as you!

www.paulmacrae.com
/the only winning move was to not play :(
 
2013-07-30 09:36:50 AM  

Feepit: Farking Canuck: How bad at science do you have to be to post that amount of data and actually think it says anything about global climate trends???

As bad as you!

[www.paulmacrae.com image 400x195]
/the only winning move was to not play :(


And how bad at science do you have to be to post a graph with no source and no scale on the y-axis?

Regurgitating propaganda is not science.
 
2013-07-30 09:41:50 AM  

Farking Canuck: And how bad at science do you have to be to post a graph with no source and no scale on the y-axis?


Many graphs don't have a hard scale on the y-axis.

It really depends on what the graph is being used to illustrate.

/assumes you aren't a scientist, as you evidently believe all graphs must look identical
 
2013-07-30 10:56:56 AM  

Feepit: Farking Canuck: And how bad at science do you have to be to post a graph with no source and no scale on the y-axis?

Many graphs don't have a hard scale on the y-axis.

It really depends on what the graph is being used to illustrate.

/assumes you aren't a scientist, as you evidently believe all graphs must look identical


LOL ... knows you aren't a scientist as you didn't even address the point about not attributing your source. Data without a source is no better than propaganda (or is just propaganda as in this case).

As for your hand-waving excuse about unlabeled axis ... bullshiat. You want to do some power-point presentation to non-technical people or a blog post mis-representing science then unlabeled graphs are fine. You want to argue the science then present some real data and not some denier talking-point graphic.
 
2013-07-30 11:00:59 AM  

Feepit: Farking Canuck: And how bad at science do you have to be to post a graph with no source and no scale on the y-axis?

Many graphs don't have a hard scale on the y-axis.

It really depends on what the graph is being used to illustrate.

/assumes you aren't a scientist, as you evidently believe all graphs must look identical


General theory graphs, maybe, but the graph you posted was very specific and needs a y axis. I like where the x axis terminates, almost as if the graph is hiding something.
 
2013-07-30 11:20:32 AM  

Feepit: Farking Canuck: How bad at science do you have to be to post that amount of data and actually think it says anything about global climate trends???

As bad as you!


www.paulmacrae.com
/the only winning move was to not play :(

I'm greatly amused at the criticism of the graph:
1.  And how bad at science do you have to be to post a graph with no source and no scale on the y-axis?
2. General theory graphs, maybe, but the graph you posted was very specific and needs a y axis. I like where the x axis terminates, almost as if the graph is hiding something.

The graph is from the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC is "bad at science" and "is hiding something". Thanks for playing.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-com e- from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
 
2013-07-30 11:41:32 AM  

WelldeadLink: The graph is from the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC is "bad at science" and "is hiding something". Thanks for playing.


You don't get it do you? The point was that you are presenting it as an argument without attribution and without a y-axis scale.

The issue is not about what the graph says ... it is the fact that you think that you think you can throw up any unattributed, unlabeled crap and think that you are making a valid scientific argument. Very sad.

Did you even read the blog post you linked to? It was all about the issues with this graph ... the exact same issues that I brought up. The author is attempting to locate the original source - there is even a discussion on the idea that it appears to be hand drawn.

Your link does not help your case ... it supports my position that there are issues with using this graph.
 
2013-07-30 11:44:08 AM  

WelldeadLink: I'm greatly amused at the criticism of the graph:
1.  And how bad at science do you have to be to post a graph with no source and no scale on the y-axis?
2. General theory graphs, maybe, but the graph you posted was very specific and needs a y axis. I like where the x axis terminates, almost as if the graph is hiding something.

The graph is from the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC is "bad at science" and "is hiding something". Thanks for playing.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-com e- from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/


To be fair, we are dealing with graph illiterate monkeys who 1.) don't know that they can source a graphic by looking at its URL and 2.) think that this graph is being very specific about "SOMETHING" when really it is just showing that there was a warming period, a cooling period, and another warming period.

It's a general graph, not a specific graph.
 
2013-07-30 11:45:58 AM  

Farking Canuck: The issue is not about what the graph says ... it is the fact that you think that you think you can throw up any unattributed, unlabeled crap and think that you are making a valid scientific argument. Very sad.


You, again, are illiterate. I wasn't making a valid scientific criticism of anything. I was mocking your mockery of someone else who posted a graph of a shorter time period than your graph by posting a graph of a longer time period than your graph.
 
2013-07-30 12:34:32 PM  

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: So how is it that you consistently fail to understand that there are still factors causing warming, and that if there were not, the current factors causing a cooling effect would, you know, cool the planet, not hold the temperature steady.

So, if it were not cooling, it would be warming. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.


I'm not sure you get it yet. There are currently both warming and cooling factors having an effect at the same time. That is why the recent temperature trend appears flat - "warm" and "cool" are working in opposite directions. The cooling factors are short term, while the warming factor looks like it will be very long term, since we aren't going to stop/reduce fossil fuel burning any time soon. So the overall temperature may stay flat for a while longer, but then will continue going up.
 
2013-07-30 01:08:08 PM  

Feepit: Farking Canuck: The issue is not about what the graph says ... it is the fact that you think that you think you can throw up any unattributed, unlabeled crap and think that you are making a valid scientific argument. Very sad.

You, again, are illiterate. I wasn't making a valid scientific criticism of anything. I was mocking your mockery of someone else who posted a graph of a shorter time period than your graph by posting a graph of a longer time period than your graph.


And if I post an unlabeled and uncited graph showing temperatures back to the dawn of time does that mock your position? Is this just a race to see who can make pretty pictures going the furthest back in time??

I criticized DesertDemonWY's graph showing 4.5 years of data because it has been clearly demonstrated that climate trends need between 20 and 30 years of data before a long term trend can be determined. Over this length of time short term trends are averaged out and the actual long term trend can be seen.

People like DesertDemonWY and Sevenizgud do not seem to understand this simple statistics concept and I was pointing it out. My criticism is valid.

I didn't actually post any graphs myself so your posting of a longer term graph was somewhat non-sequitur and irrelevant. But I did point out how useless that particular graph is for a scientific conversation as it lacks critical features that are needed in science ... like references to sources and labeled axis.

One final note ... pointing out that the graph is hot-linked from a denier blog is not actually a proper citation. Following that link back does not give any more background on the source of the data, the methods of data collection/analysis or any other relevant information that can be used to ascertain the validity and/or relevance of the graph. You could have at least linked to the page where the graphic is used so I could read the blog entry on it.

As an aside: Why does it seem that everything deniers post comes from blogs? It is as if they can't link to scientific papers without undermining their whole position.
 
2013-07-30 01:29:06 PM  

WelldeadLink: Feepit: Farking Canuck: How bad at science do you have to be to post that amount of data and actually think it says anything about global climate trends???

As bad as you!


/the only winning move was to not play :(

I'm greatly amused at the criticism of the graph:
1.  And how bad at science do you have to be to post a graph with no source and no scale on the y-axis?
2. General theory graphs, maybe, but the graph you posted was very specific and needs a y axis. I like where the x axis terminates, almost as if the graph is hiding something.

The graph is from the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC is "bad at science" and "is hiding something". Thanks for playing.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-com e- from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

You

are trying to show something specific with this graph, genius.
 
2013-07-30 02:06:26 PM  

Farking Canuck: And if I post an unlabeled and uncited graph showing temperatures back to the dawn of time does that mock your position? Is this just a race to see who can make pretty pictures going the furthest back in time??


What position would you be mocking?

The graph was labeled. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but nevertheless in a manner that conveyed the general times in which various warming and cooling periods occurred.

That sounds like a fun race!

Farking Canuck: I criticized DesertDemonWY's graph showing 4.5 years of data because it has been clearly demonstrated that climate trends need between 20 and 30 years of data before a long term trend can be determined. Over this length of time short term trends are averaged out and the actual long term trend can be seen.


Both of you made claims about something or other, so perhaps you should provide some sort of evidence or citation or whatnot that demonstrates why your window of time is more reflective of the situation rather than merely insist you are right. Then we can all have a nice game of making wild criticisms about the citations.

Farking Canuck: didn't actually post any graphs myself so your posting of a longer term graph was somewhat non-sequitur and irrelevant.


I don't see the problem.
 
2013-07-30 02:49:13 PM  
Feepit:
Farking Canuck: I criticized DesertDemonWY's graph showing 4.5 years of data because it has been clearly demonstrated that climate trends need between 20 and 30 years of data before a long term trend can be determined. Over this length of time short term trends are averaged out and the actual long term trend can be seen.

Both of you made claims about something or other, so perhaps you should provide some sort of evidence or citation or whatnot that demonstrates why your window of time is more reflective of the situation rather than merely insist you are right. Then we can all have a nice game of making wild criticisms about the citations.


I thought it was common knowledge to anyone who has been following climate science. The "17 years" number was calculated to be the bare minimum amount of temperature data needed to get a statistically significant signal to noise ratio for temperature trends (1). This is why most honest people tend to use 20 to 30 years of data (safety margin above the bare minimum).

So, as I pointed out, 4.5 years is well below the bare minimum for anyone who is honestly trying to determine climate trends. Small samples like this are common from deniers though.

(1)Santer, B. D., et al. (2011), Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D22105
 
2013-07-30 03:32:25 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: The attribution of anthropogenic climate change is based on decomposing and understanding of the underlying processes, not just eyeballing a simplistic trend on a graph.

Yes, because the effect of all processes are known, and all acting processes are already recognized, amirite?


people.virginia.edu

The question should be whether all major processes are known, and whether such is sufficient to make useful predictions.


SevenizGud: After all, that's why the actual temperatures crashed through the bottom of the IPCC 95% CI...because it's all known. Amirite?


This is an outright falsehood on your part.


SevenizGud: Sorry, Chicken Pinatubo, I know it is hard to swallow the fact that temperatures aren't going up, and so you have to move the goalposts so far of into pseudoscience that what you are measuring doesn't even have units any more.

Next up - the anthropogenic global climate transmogrification, up 15 Jonathan Edwards units from last year, a clear increase in the global transmogrifying.

So ridiculous.


The nonsensical allegation of a lack of units aside, it is not me who routinely ignores criticisms brought up - note that you've didn't quote nor respond to the main criticism I leveled at your argument.  I contend it is is you who finds it hard to swallow that the spurious trends you rely on and the inferences you attempt to make from them have little meaning. I'm not the one who has to hide whenever such is pointed out and proven.
 
2013-07-30 04:13:49 PM  

Farking Canuck: I thought it was common knowledge to anyone who has been following climate science.


I am pretty sure many of the people here don't even read the article before posting about it. Assume nothing!

Also, that was a very dry article, but still a better read than some of the stuff that passes for a best seller these days.
 
2013-07-30 09:17:33 PM  

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: The graph is from the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC is "bad at science" and "is hiding something". Thanks for playing.

You don't get it do you? The point was that you are presenting it as an argument without attribution and without a y-axis scale.

The issue is not about what the graph says ... it is the fact that you think that you think you can throw up any unattributed, unlabeled crap and think that you are making a valid scientific argument. Very sad.


Nope, I put up the graph only because people were claiming that it wasn't scientific... but the IPCC presented it as science, with exactly the problems which were pointed out here.
 
2013-07-30 11:04:42 PM  

WelldeadLink: Nope, I put up the graph only because people were claiming that it wasn't scientific... but the IPCC presented it as science, with exactly the problems which were pointed out here.


Ahhh ... you're one of those. "It's all a conspiracy so let's do nothing!!"
 
2013-07-30 11:18:10 PM  

WelldeadLink: Nope, I put up the graph only because people were claiming that it wasn't scientific... but the IPCC presented it as science, with exactly the problems which were pointed out here.


Except that graph explains a known localized phenomenon (Medieval Warming) and effects with known forcings (Little Ice Age). That fact that you and others don't seem to know that is quite telling.  I'm pretty sure however, the IPCC is well aware of this because they base their findings in, you know, science.  So, why don't you produce the actual document from the IPCC talking about that graph and see the context that it's in?  Instead of a copy/pasta from a denalist blog.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report