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.

(Daily Mail)   Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years, climate scientists told to STFU and GBTW   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 236
    More: Obvious, temperatures, GBTW, Earth, climate scientist, STFU, Union of Concerned Scientists, denialism, Climategate  
•       •       •

4782 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Sep 2013 at 4:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-19 11:36:49 PM  
Let's just get this out of the way.

www.icsusa.org

www.icsusa.org
 
2013-09-20 12:13:58 AM  
Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes?
 
2013-09-20 12:26:16 AM  
farm4.staticflickr.com
"The climate is always changing."
 
2013-09-20 01:10:59 AM  
I've been told I can purchase Climate Forgiveness and live the rest of my life protected in a hermetically sealed, unchanging climate.. As long as I continue to buy my carbon credits...
 
2013-09-20 01:40:38 AM  

fusillade762: Let's just get this out of the way.

[www.icsusa.org image 677x461]

[www.icsusa.org image 676x461]


both thank you and lol

but dont you include data with longer time periods?
100 years?
200 years?
1000 years?
10,000 years?

I am sold. again. mostly because of the increase in ocean acidity.
fark the weather and rising water. I am worried about clams, lobsters and shrimps
 
2013-09-20 01:44:34 AM  
It would be interesting to see the actual study to see how and where they measured, also to see if they were measuring temperatures averages throughout the year or at a set point or range of points for a consistent part of the year for each.  If the summers have been getting hotter year over year, but the winters colder, it could show no change in a year over year average, but it would still be clear evidence of climate change and cause for concern.
 
2013-09-20 02:10:40 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It would be interesting to see the actual study to see how and where they measured, also to see if they were measuring temperatures averages throughout the year or at a set point or range of points for a consistent part of the year for each.  If the summers have been getting hotter year over year, but the winters colder, it could show no change in a year over year average, but it would still be clear evidence of climate change and cause for concern.


there are tons of information out there on this topic.
interesting stuff is HOW the measuring has changed over time, how different locations are used for different cities over time. Example: Midway, Ohare and Megs Field.

There are some wonderful data series from Central Park in NYC.

I read about THIS a few years ago.
http://www.analogsf.com/0911/altview_11.shtml  lead to  http://surfacestations.org/
Some interesting information about the DATA being collected. Nothing more, nothing less.
If your data is crap, your results are crap.

Ending with a pier reviewed journal paper
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

in a real journal, not some self published crap

/sigh, I am a data geek.


Still want more?
look into Two mile time machine, amazing book on the ice cores, counting the layers of ice, analysing what's IN the ice, etc etc etc . tons of fun.

The look at stuff about estimating using tree rings, old timber, and the hundreds of other proxies.
Pollen,sedimentation rates, coral, the list goes on and on.

gah
 
2013-09-20 02:16:55 AM  
CO2 doom-sellers take all the momentum away from true environmentalism and conservation. With all the awful ways corporations and governments disfigure, scar and pollute the Earth with poisons, they must figure the only way they can continue unabated is to make everyone feel guilty for exhaling.
 
2013-09-20 03:21:48 AM  

Triumph: CO2 doom-sellers take all the momentum away from true environmentalism and conservation. With all the awful ways corporations and governments disfigure, scar and pollute the Earth with poisons, they must figure the only way they can continue unabated is to make everyone feel guilty for exhaling.


Exhaling is a carbon neutral process, so no. Burning fossil fuels is not.
 
2013-09-20 04:14:19 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It would be interesting to see the actual study to see how and where they measured, also to see if they were measuring temperatures averages throughout the year or at a set point or range of points for a consistent part of the year for each.  If the summers have been getting hotter year over year, but the winters colder, it could show no change in a year over year average, but it would still be clear evidence of climate change and cause for concern.


Oh wait, you're serious?   Let me laugh even harder.  This is a Daily Fail article.

And personally I don't give a flying fark.  I just want to know if it will rain tomorrow.  In a couple of months I'll just want to know if it will snow.

Because I like rain and snow, that's why.
 
2013-09-20 04:14:21 AM  
It was pretty farking hot for a long farking time here in Japan.

And, I mean, we're no strangers to hot here. But this year was like extra hot. The whole pack of cayenne pepper hot. Sofia Vergara hot. Drink a gallon of water for breakfast hot.

I'm saying it was hot.
 
2013-09-20 04:16:28 AM  
You stupid deniers I swear. We're all baking like potato chips and will be underwater in another 2 years. Al Gorlioni, who also invented the internet, told me so.
 
2013-09-20 04:17:06 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It would be interesting to see the actual study to see how and where they measured, also to see if they were measuring temperatures averages throughout the year or at a set point or range of points for a consistent part of the year for each.  If the summers have been getting hotter year over year, but the winters colder, it could show no change in a year over year average, but it would still be clear evidence of climate change and cause for concern.


Tute, the Earth is not 6,000 years old.
 
2013-09-20 04:18:00 AM  
Ah, so THIS is what my idiot coworker was rambling on about today.
 
2013-09-20 04:19:34 AM  
I won't be changing my opinion about GW based on a Daily Fail article. Lemme guess, the "article" is more implication, innuendo and insinuation than it is who, what, when, where and why. Tory claptrap.
 
2013-09-20 04:24:19 AM  

I love how they talk about the fact that it doesn't show a trend to look at just fifteen years.   Don't get me wrong, that's true, it doesn't.  But, in the same papers, they almost always say "the hottest year on record," or "the hottest year ever."  What's funny about that, for the challenged, is that you need to be looking at a short time -- in terms of climate -- for 1998 to be the "hottest year ever."


i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-20 04:27:18 AM  
Wowowowow.
Wait.

FTFA:
"The report is expected to say the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951 - and put this down to natural variations such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and the cooling effects of volcanoes."

So, there's been a non-null warming rate, yet the temperatures have remained the same?

"But scientists are under pressure to explain why the warming has not exceeded 1998 levels although the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest on record. "
Er, not really. I think just explaining that sentence would be a journalist's job. Maybe they could hire one, at the DM.

Looking for scientific info on a DM link? Better chance with The Onion.

/I got it but the headline is shamefully misleading.
 
2013-09-20 04:27:32 AM  

panfried: I've been told I can purchase Climate Forgiveness and live the rest of my life protected in a hermetically sealed, unchanging climate.. As long as I continue to buy my carbon credits...


Out of my way! I need to purchase my carbon credits!
 
2013-09-20 04:29:47 AM  
Not clicked yet, is it David Rose?
 
2013-09-20 04:32:04 AM  
A few things...the rate of warming has, in fact, been slower over the last fifteen years. It is still warming however, and this time next year, after the 1998 data point is not part of the fifteen year trend will show a different result. Also, this speaks to surface warming only. Current studies have shown deep ocean warming does not follow this trend. Further, the concern is not about the science at all. It is about what message will be sent out by those who oppose counter measures to warming.

At the end of the day, the last decade (2000-2010) was the hottest on record and this decade, so far, is surpassing it.
 
2013-09-20 04:34:39 AM  

fusillade762: Let's just get this out of the way.

[www.icsusa.org image 677x461]

[www.icsusa.org image 676x461]


Let's add two more:

The Earth's heat content is still rising even as surface temperatures fluctuate on shorter scales (Nuccitelli et al. (2012)).

www.skepticalscience.com


Average of all five data sets (GISS,  NCDC, HadCRU,  UAH, and  RSS) with the effects of  ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed(Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-09-20 04:35:38 AM  

You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: Not clicked yet, is it David Rose?


FTA: By Tamara Cohen, Political Correspondent

Damn. Well, there had to be a first time the Mail's reporting on climate change contained any suprises.
 
2013-09-20 04:38:03 AM  

Triumph: CO2 doom-sellers take all the momentum away from true environmentalism and conservation. With all the awful ways corporations and governments disfigure, scar and pollute the Earth with poisons, they must figure the only way they can continue unabated is to make everyone feel guilty for exhaling.


The genesis of all of the global wharrgarrbl was the Kyoto accords, which were specifically designed to hobble American and European manufacturing so that Asian industries (which would not be subject to the same levels of carbon restrictions) could take over market share.
 
2013-09-20 04:40:49 AM  
FTFA:
The last IPCC 'assessment report' was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

Wow, that is embarrassing. I mean, I could understand perhaps the notion that the glaciers atop the Himalayas might melt, but the mountains themselves....
Then again, it is Chicken Little we are talking about here.
 
2013-09-20 04:43:14 AM  
I am in Florida and it's only 78 degrees at this second. It has gone down 10 degrees in just 12 hours. So clearly the Earth is cooling.
 
2013-09-20 04:44:29 AM  

GeneralJim: I love how they talk about the fact that it doesn't show a trend to look at just fifteen years.   Don't get me wrong, that's true, it doesn't.  But, in the same papers, they almost always say "the hottest year on record," or "the hottest year ever."  What's funny about that, for the challenged, is that you need to be looking at a short time -- in terms of climate -- for 1998 to be the "hottest year ever."
[i39.tinypic.com image 850x448]


Let's zoom in a little (from this interesting article on a recently published reconstruction of Holocene temperatures):
 www.realclimate.org

But yes, I'm sure things were hotter, say, 12 billion years ago in the fiery first seconds after the Big Bang. Or whatever.
 
2013-09-20 04:47:02 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: It was pretty farking hot for a long farking time here in Japan.

And, I mean, we're no strangers to hot here. But this year was like extra hot. The whole pack of cayenne pepper hot. Sofia Vergara hot. Drink a gallon of water for breakfast hot.

I'm saying it was hot.


Are you sure it's not just the radiation?

What's interesting is when I mentioned drought where i live a while back someone cited that as evidence of climate change.  Well now we're deluged with more water than we can handle.  Climate change again, I suppose.

While many people are quick to mock those who say "Global warming?  Are you kidding, it was freezing today." those same people are also very quick to blame any extreme weather conditions on climate change.

Sometimes shiat just happens.

I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?
 
2013-09-20 04:47:26 AM  
fusillade762

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-09-20 04:49:31 AM  

HotWingAgenda: Triumph: CO2 doom-sellers take all the momentum away from true environmentalism and conservation. With all the awful ways corporations and governments disfigure, scar and pollute the Earth with poisons, they must figure the only way they can continue unabated is to make everyone feel guilty for exhaling.

The genesis of all of the global wharrgarrbl was the Kyoto accords, which were specifically designed to hobble American and European manufacturing so that Asian industries (which would not be subject to the same levels of carbon restrictions) could take over market share.


OMG and they were signed in KYOTO!! No wonder! And Japan is in ASIA! Even though Japan would be subject to all the same restrictions as other developed countries. Um, ok, SOME Asian industries.

And the other countries signed them because they secretly wanted to be ruled by the Chinese! Because... um... Germany is TIRED of market share. Or something.
 
2013-09-20 04:49:55 AM  

Odin's Other Eye: GeneralJim: I love how they talk about the fact that it doesn't show a trend to look at just fifteen years.   Don't get me wrong, that's true, it doesn't.  But, in the same papers, they almost always say "the hottest year on record," or "the hottest year ever."  What's funny about that, for the challenged, is that you need to be looking at a short time -- in terms of climate -- for 1998 to be the "hottest year ever."
[i39.tinypic.com image 850x448]

Let's zoom in a little (from this interesting article on a recently published reconstruction of Holocene temperatures):
 [www.realclimate.org image 850x659]

But yes, I'm sure things were hotter, say, 12 billion years ago in the fiery first seconds after the Big Bang. Or whatever.


Oh look at that, General Green Text is wrong again on climate science. I am so shocked right now.
 
2013-09-20 04:51:17 AM  

gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?


Look, just because you ignore the fact that something like 97% of climate scientists and around that same number of peer-reviewed studies prove that man-made global warming is real, doesn't mean the science doesn't exist.
 
2013-09-20 04:52:59 AM  

gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?


Where would you like to start?  There are many good primers on the basics that include citations to published papers.

Here's a list

Here's another

Here's NASA's page
 
2013-09-20 04:56:05 AM  

Baryogenesis: gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?

Where would you like to start?  There are many good primers on the basics that include citations to published papers.

Here's a list

Here's another

Here's NASA's page


Published papers never include misleading information. Or lies. You can believe any published study.
 
2013-09-20 04:57:54 AM  
Hey, at least you're not blaming it on the latest scapegoat which is fracking.
 
2013-09-20 04:58:00 AM  

lordargent: fusillade762

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 829x493]


Pretty sure the problem with that is that the 'present' is not the present:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

hot-topic.co.nz
 
2013-09-20 04:58:47 AM  

diaphoresis: Baryogenesis: gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?

Where would you like to start?  There are many good primers on the basics that include citations to published papers.

Here's a list

Here's another

Here's NASA's page

Published papers never include misleading information. Or lies. You can believe any published study.


You've got to be kidding.
 
2013-09-20 04:59:21 AM  

Baryogenesis: gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?

Where would you like to start?  There are many good primers on the basics that include citations to published papers.

Here's a list

Here's another

Here's NASA's page


So those links prove anytime we get a hard rain it's "climate change"?


I think you missed the point completely.

I suppose the New Madrid earthquake was also caused by "climate change"
 
2013-09-20 05:00:10 AM  
See!? It was around 80 degrees here Tuesday and 74ish Wednesday! Global Warming is a hoax!!!

/the previously stated viewpoint does not indicate fact nor the post author's actual feelings on climate change, using this as proof of anything transfers liability of looking like a jackass to the user unless used for sarcasm and/or irony. Not applicable in Atlantis or where void by warranty.
 
2013-09-20 05:01:38 AM  

gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?


Higher retained heat in the atmosphere results primarily, from our perspective, in an increase in convection-driven processes like precipitation cycles and the shifting of air and oceanic currents.  Albeit, if it hits the point where the ocean currents shift dramatically we're basically living in a Roland Emmerich movie with fewer explosions, what we're talking about now is a couple of degrees of anomaly, which will "just" shift some currently-temperate regions to arid in the high convection zones and probably convert some regions form more even rainfall to a dry season/flash-flood situation.

For reference, those temperate zones are where we grow most of our food, they rely on rainfall being fairly spread out over the year, and there's not a lot of factor of safety on how much food we can grow versus the world's population.

There you go, that's the middle-school summary for you, since you seem to be stuck on the kindergarden level that's the next upgrade point.
 
2013-09-20 05:03:24 AM  
FTFA:
Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC said yesterday: 'This is the culmination of four years' work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted.'

Summary for Policymakers:

The sky is still not falling.
 
2013-09-20 05:07:13 AM  
I see yet another Peter Hadfield YouTube video, showing once again how the media like to trumpet up scientific "findings", and that you should read the actual papers to get the true information.

And the fact that the Daily Fail has trumpeted the "no warming for 15 years" canard for at least 5 years...
 
2013-09-20 05:14:08 AM  

IlGreven: I see yet another Peter Hadfield YouTube video, showing once again how the media like to trumpet up scientific "findings", and that you should read the actual papers to get the true information.

And the fact that the Daily Fail has trumpeted the "no warming for 15 years" canard for at least 5 years...


No, it always goes back to 1998. So 5 years ago it was "no warming for 10 years", 4 years ago it was "no warming for 11 years", etc. Obviously the reason to pick 1998 as the start point for the entire of modern climate history is purely scientific, and not cherry picking an abnormally warm year, honest.
 
2013-09-20 05:14:28 AM  
I just read "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

Interesting to say the least.

img207.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-20 05:14:58 AM  

Jim_Callahan: gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?

Higher retained heat in the atmosphere results primarily, from our perspective, in an increase in convection-driven processes like precipitation cycles and the shifting of air and oceanic currents.  Albeit, if it hits the point where the ocean currents shift dramatically we're basically living in a Roland Emmerich movie with fewer explosions, what we're talking about now is a couple of degrees of anomaly, which will "just" shift some currently-temperate regions to arid in the high convection zones and probably convert some regions form more even rainfall to a dry season/flash-flood situation.

For reference, those temperate zones are where we grow most of our food, they rely on rainfall being fairly spread out over the year, and there's not a lot of factor of safety on how much food we can grow versus the world's population.

There you go, that's the middle-school summary for you, since you seem to be stuck on the kindergarden level that's the next upgrade point.


Sorry that's not a good explanation and I have no idea who Roland Emmerich  is.

Iczer: See!? It was around 80 degrees here Tuesday and 74ish Wednesday! Global Warming is a hoax!!!


This is what I'm talking about.  You mock that kind of reaction, but at the same time ANY extreme weather is considered proof of climate change.

If it's drought - it's climate change.  If it's a deluge - it's climate change.  Any deviation from the norm is considered evidence of climate change as if floods and tornadoes and hurricanes never happened before.

You can't have it both ways.  Either you mock the people who say it was really cold today so global warming is BS or you stop saying a flood is proof of climate change.  You can't do both and remain credible.
 
2013-09-20 05:15:22 AM  
Each and every one of us Farker will be dead by the time shiat really starts to hit the fan. So really, no worries. Seriously, fark those future people. They have it coming.
 
2013-09-20 05:17:51 AM  

gfid: Baryogenesis: gfid: I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?

Where would you like to start?  There are many good primers on the basics that include citations to published papers.

Here's a list

Here's another

Here's NASA's page

So those links prove anytime we get a hard rain it's "climate change"?


I think you missed the point completely.

I suppose the New Madrid earthquake was also caused by "climate change"


No one specific event can be attributed to climate change.  However, warmer global temperatures make extreme events more likely.   Here's a handy dandy guide

More generally, I wouldn't get so caught up in a handful of people misinterpreting what global warming means for extreme weather as if that nullifies the evidence for said warming.
 
2013-09-20 05:19:05 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-20 05:21:09 AM  

gfid: AverageAmericanGuy: It was pretty farking hot for a long farking time here in Japan.

And, I mean, we're no strangers to hot here. But this year was like extra hot. The whole pack of cayenne pepper hot. Sofia Vergara hot. Drink a gallon of water for breakfast hot.

I'm saying it was hot.

Are you sure it's not just the radiation?

What's interesting is when I mentioned drought where i live a while back someone cited that as evidence of climate change.  Well now we're deluged with more water than we can handle.  Climate change again, I suppose.

While many people are quick to mock those who say "Global warming?  Are you kidding, it was freezing today." those same people are also very quick to blame any extreme weather conditions on climate change.

Sometimes shiat just happens.

I'm not a climate change denier, but can we have some science behind it?


...see, this is like saying: "Scientists say that human beings are proof of evolution, but they also say that duck-billed platypi are proof of evolution.  While many people are quick to mock those that say "Evolution? Where's my crocoduck?" those same people are also very quick to blame any weird being on evolution. Sometimes shiat just happens. I'm not a creationist, but can we have some science behind it?"

If you don't see the problem, here it is:  You've couched a "proof" to which no information can be acceptable to you.  You can just say "Oh, well that's just shiat happening".  It's just like "Therefore God", except that we do have explanations, and we are giving them to you, but you're saying they're not good enough.  What would it take to convince you that these weather patterns are the result of climate change and not just some "mysterious random anomaly" that may or may not be a deity?

In short, I'm not a fan of people who make this "I'm not a denier, but I'm a denier" argument.  And yes, if you directly deny that something was caused by climate change without proof, you are a denier...you're just being evasive as to not be painted a Watts-Monckton-worshipping nutjob.  Well, you don't have to be beholden to Watts Up With That to be a denier.
 
2013-09-20 05:26:41 AM  
Turn on the news. Record breaking fires, floods, hurricanes, and general WTF is happening globally on a continuing basis.
 
2013-09-20 05:28:34 AM  

IlGreven: In short, I'm not a fan of people who make this "I'm not a denier, but I'm a denier" argument. And yes, if you directly deny that something was caused by climate change without proof, you are a denier...you're just being evasive as to not be painted a Watts-Monckton-worshipping nutjob. Well, you don't have to be beholden to Watts Up With That to be a denier.


So you can link the tropical storms hitting Mexico on both their east and west coasts directly to climate change?

Do tell.

I'm not denying climate change.  I'm just asking you for scientific evidence of its consequences.

Like I said just as someone who says it was colder than normal today so global warming is a myth is a fool so is someone who says that there was a drought or a really bad flood is proof of climate change is a fool.

Gawddammit you people are thick.
 
Displayed 50 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report