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.

(NBC News)   Latest dire global warming prediction: Cities will become uncomfortable, with helpful picture of the bottom of the ocean   (nbcnews.com) divider line 114
    More: Interesting, Bottom of the Ocean, global warming, oceans, predictions, human culture, doomsday scenarios, greenhouse gases, climate  
•       •       •

1391 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Oct 2013 at 5:34 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
das
2013-10-09 06:00:17 PM
Dimmycrats gearing up for an election, I see.
 
2013-10-09 06:21:07 PM
So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...
 
2013-10-09 06:32:09 PM
Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze
 
2013-10-09 06:35:07 PM

styckx: Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze


Yes, cities like New Orleans, Houston, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. are all amused.
 
2013-10-09 06:37:26 PM
Good. I hate being cold. Personally, I'm looking forward to growing oranges in February in Barrie, Ontario.
 
2013-10-09 06:43:48 PM

bighairyguy: styckx: Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze

Yes, cities like New Orleans, Houston, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. are all amused.


I'll give you New Orleans and Charleston, but have you ever felt high humidity in Pheonix? I hiked in 120 degree weather outside of the city this summer, and am in complete agreement that NJ in the summer is worse.

/its a dry heat
 
2013-10-09 07:18:07 PM
I remember when Ted Danson predicted the death of the oceans and shortly afterward us in ten years. In 1988. So this must be hell, which explains why it's getting hotter.
 
2013-10-09 07:21:49 PM
"dire"
"devastating"
"stark future"
"Life unravels"


YOU ARE NOT HELPING!
 
2013-10-09 07:31:44 PM
"On average, the tropics will experience unprecedented climate change 16 years earlier than the rest of the world, starting as early as 2020" in Manokwari, Indonesia, Mora said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday.

10 Signs Climate Change Is Already Happening

Unprecedented rate of change in climate demands action


Sorry that horse has already been flogged to death. Those goalposts have been cemented down. You can`t say the climate is *already* undergoing unprecedented change and then say it will *start* to undergo it in a reduced region in 7 years which is in turn 16 years before everyone else...
 
2013-10-09 07:31:49 PM
zombiesatemygames.com
Looks pretty good to me. Then again, I choose the impossible.
 
2013-10-09 07:33:58 PM
I like the way that `underwater` and `devastated` has been diluted to `uncomfortable` as well...
 
2013-10-09 07:35:58 PM

New Farkin User Name: bighairyguy: styckx: Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze

Yes, cities like New Orleans, Houston, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. are all amused.

I'll give you New Orleans and Charleston, but have you ever felt high humidity in Pheonix? I hiked in 120 degree weather outside of the city this summer, and am in complete agreement that NJ in the summer is worse.

/its a dry heat


Not during monsoon season.
 
2013-10-09 07:39:14 PM

jjorsett: I remember when Ted Danson predicted the death of the oceans and shortly afterward us in ten years. In 1988. So this must be hell, which explains why it's getting hotter.


I remember a lot of the things that have been said as predictions on this subject which is why it is so funny now observing the change in terminology used by climate scientists who are not having the planet play ball with their predictions of doom.

Kids only able to see snow on tv
coastal cities underwater by 2010
that sort of thing

changed to

uncomfortable.

Now the acidification of the ocean is a different matter. that we should do something about. Maybe grind up a lot of Kent and throw it in the ocean?
 
2013-10-09 08:08:10 PM
I, too, am stupid enough to conflate random blogs and shiattily researched news articles with actual science. The ice isn't melting in my freezer. Thanks, algore.
 
2013-10-09 08:23:31 PM
FTFA:
With this climate change, what is going to happen is we're going to be moving outside this comfort zone

What climate change?


www.woodfortrees.org
 
2013-10-09 09:05:23 PM
www.skepticalscience.com

Thanks, algore.
 
2013-10-09 09:07:14 PM

Swampmaster: So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...


Because it isn't possible that as scientists have studied climate change over the past 30 years that they've refined their understanding and now make more accurate predictions.
 
2013-10-09 09:08:49 PM

Krieghund: Swampmaster: So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...

Because it isn't possible that as scientists have studied climate change over the past 30 years that they've refined their understanding and now make more accurate predictions.


Thanks for the explanation, albore.
 
2013-10-09 09:12:56 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
With this climate change, what is going to happen is we're going to be moving outside this comfort zone

What climate change?
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


What lack of warming?
 
2013-10-09 09:23:12 PM
There's already another ACC thread. Leave this thread to be shiatted on by greentext at the last minute.
 
2013-10-09 10:01:39 PM
So.

I live in Rochester, NY.  Here's a typical August:

4.bp.blogspot.com

OK, serious here now.  First frost is on average 9/29 in Rochester.

I haven't even had to break out my fall jacket yet.  Been that way for a few years.

/This post was originally meant to go with the more trolltastic headline that duplicates this link.
//But I figured I'd post it anyway.
 
2013-10-09 10:05:34 PM
But doesn't living in high density cities reduce your carbon footprint, thus making cities more livable?
 
2013-10-09 10:08:03 PM
Well, the more active thread got nuked.
 
2013-10-09 10:26:06 PM
Wow. The anti-science brigade is out in force today.

Since when is "cities will get hotter" a new prediction? I thought higher temperatures have always been part of the prediction along with all the other effects of having more energy in the system.

Is this the new denier strategy? Just say intensely stupid things that don't even make sense? "They said it would get hotter but they did not specifically mention cities before so ... they are moving the goalposts! They are moving the goalposts!!!!"

/ the stupid burns
 
2013-10-09 10:46:00 PM
Like the back of a Volkswagen?
 
2013-10-09 10:49:09 PM

Farking Canuck: Wow. The anti-science brigade is out in force today.


Yeah they piled into this thread in a hurry, didn't they?
 
2013-10-09 10:54:30 PM

dready zim: I like the way that `underwater` and `devastated` has been diluted to `uncomfortable` as well...


It's a wet heat.
 
2013-10-09 11:00:24 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-09 11:10:51 PM

Swampmaster: So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...


Of all the anti-science, anti-global warming arguments, the one about how scientists are all fabricating data to get their cut of all the sweet, sweet grant money is the most profoundly stupid.
 
2013-10-09 11:12:14 PM

WelldeadLink: [parody image mocking the way deniers ignore the overall trends to focus on short trends to dishonestly misrepresent the data]


WelldeadLink: [graph of actual data showing a massive increase in average global temperatures starting around 1900]


The fact that you keep posting these two graphs together just shows how completely you do not understand what they say.

If you actually think there is any similarity between these two graphs, just because they both have short lines and pretty colors, you are completely unqualified to even join the conversation. Hush now, the adults want to talk.
 
2013-10-09 11:27:55 PM

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: [parody image mocking the way deniers ignore the overall trends to focus on short trends to dishonestly misrepresent the data]

WelldeadLink: [graph of actual data showing a massive increase in average global temperatures starting around 1900]

The fact that you keep posting these two graphs together just shows how completely you do not understand what they say.

If you actually think there is any similarity between these two graphs, just because they both have short lines and pretty colors, you are completely unqualified to even join the conversation. Hush now, the adults want to talk.


Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.
 
2013-10-09 11:43:09 PM

WelldeadLink: Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.


Nope ... nothing missed.

You saw two graphs, one that mocks the way deniers dishonestly represent data and one that plots 10-year average temperatures as 10-year-wide bars, and said to yourself "these look similar therefore I can put them side-by-side and pretend that I am saying something relevant".

The parts that you are missing are as follows:

- the first graph is not trying to present data ... it is just a parody of denier stupidity/dishonesty

- the parody graph is not suggesting that temperature is being represented by a series of short lines ... it is demonstrating that for any time span, a denier will choose to start a trend line at a local maximum and then choose just the right amount of points to achieve a result that gives the flat or negative slope that they were looking for. It is mocking their unethical and demonstrably bad scientific method.

- the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.
 
2013-10-09 11:44:56 PM
Glad to see the Catastrophists are alive and well.
 
2013-10-09 11:53:51 PM

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.

Nope ... nothing missed.

...
Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.


Nope, you again missed what you wrote. Not surprising. The second graph is the second part of the first graph in IPCC's AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers. Come back when you catch up on your reading. No, wait. Come back when you catch up on your comprehension.
 
2013-10-10 12:07:25 AM

Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).


You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27
 
2013-10-10 12:25:00 AM

DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27


Because you don't understand these graphs either?

Farking Canuck may have asked for the source of the second graph, but what part of "decadal average" (in the box in part a of the figure on page SPM-27) makes you think his interpretation was wrong?
 
2013-10-10 12:27:04 AM

WelldeadLink: Nope, you again missed what you wrote. Not surprising. The second graph is the second part of the first graph in IPCC's AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers. Come back when you catch up on your reading. No, wait. Come back when you catch up on your comprehension.


Thank you. And you still don't get that those are decadal averages ... not trends. It says it there on the graph in big letters.

They are not trend lines. I can't say it any simpler for you. Seriously, if you do not understand the difference between a decadal average an a trend line you should look up the word 'simpleton'.
 
2013-10-10 12:28:30 AM
Humans have spent thousands of years perfecting "inside".

Let's just stick with that.
 
2013-10-10 12:50:55 AM

DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27



Farking Canuck is right. The second graph represents decadal averages:

Figure SPM.1: (a) Observed global mean combined land and ocean surface temperature anomalies, from
1850 to 2012 from three data sets. Top panel: annual mean values, bottom panel: decadal mean values 
including the estimate of uncertainty for one dataset (black).
Anomalies are relative to the mean of 
1961−1990
.

In addition, if you were to actually read the report you're linking to, it will tell you why it was graphed in this way:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits 
substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, 
trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in 
general reflect long-term climate trends.
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 
years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is 
smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5



If you would take a moment to understand, both graphs that WelldeadLink posted are making the same point (in bold above). The first shows how short-term trends can be misleading in relation to long-term climate trends, while the second shows how how such short-term trends can be filtered out - in this case by using decadal averages.

Yet again, it appears you might be having trouble with this really basic idea that short-term trends may be misleading and are in no way mutually exclusive with longer-term trends. What part of this do you not understand? We might be able to help.
 
2013-10-10 12:56:40 AM

HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27

Because you don't understand these graphs either?


From those graphs, I understand that the temps rose from the 1910s through the 1940s (roughly .4C), then leveled out to the 1980s. Then it rose again up to the 'oughts (roughly .4C). I'm sure you're well aware that most temperature data sets show 1998 as the hottest year, with a level or cooling trend through now.

Farking Canuck may have asked for the source of the second graph, but what part of "decadal average" (in the box in part a of the figure on page SPM-27) makes you think his interpretation was wrong?

I don't disagree with him, I think IPCC graphs are pretty stupid too
 
2013-10-10 01:30:47 AM

WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.

Nope ... nothing missed.

...
Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Nope, you again missed what you wrote. Not surprising. The second graph is the second part of the first graph in IPCC's AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers. Come back when you catch up on your reading. No, wait. Come back when you catch up on your comprehension.



Unfortunately, you may indeed be missing the point. You seem to not have understood Farking Canuck's explanation, so let me rephrase it. Those two graph seem similar in a very superficially visual way, but they are plotting different things. In your first graph, each line in blue represents a  short-term trend, abest-fit line based upon a short period. In your second graph, each line represents a decadal average, simply the average for each decade, but plotted as a horizontal line.

Now with that out of the way, both graphs (even though they are portraying different things) are dealing with the same underlying issue.I'll repost the section in the SPM that references the second graph:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits 
substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1).  Due to natural variability, 
trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in 
general reflect long-term climate trends.
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 
years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is 
smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5


Both graphs are grappling with this idea in bold, that short-term trends can be misleading due to short-term variability and do not necessarily reflect long-term climate trends. The first graph you posted shows how short-term trends (in blue) do not accurately reflect long-term increase in temperature. Each of those blue trends do not accurately show the long-term trend - which was the point of that graph. The second graph is not showing short-term trends, but decadal averages - in fact, a way of filtering out those short-term trends by averaging each decade. By filtering out short-term trends, the longer-term trend becomes clearer.

So in short, the first graph is highlighting the problem, again, that short-term trends may not accurately reflect longer-term trends, while the second graph shows a solution, filtering out short-term trends.

Hopefully this makes sense. Tell me if itdoesn't and I can try to explain it in a different way.
 
2013-10-10 01:37:40 AM
Dammit people... am I going to boil to death or freeze to death? I need to know where to put all my money.
 
2013-10-10 01:39:27 AM

DesertDemonWY: HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27

Because you don't understand these graphs either?

From those graphs, I understand that the temps rose from the 1910s through the 1940s (roughly .4C), then leveled out to the 1980s. Then it rose again up to the 'oughts (roughly .4C). I'm sure you're well aware that most temperature data sets show 1998 as the hottest year, with a level or cooling trend through now.



Which is exactly the sort of thingthat IPCC graph was explicitly meant to address - looking at justa relatively short period of time (such as the 1998 to now period you reference) can be misleading. One big reason is the eventyou yourself highlight - that 1998 was an extremely hot year. Drawing a trendline from that extraordinarily hot year can be misleading in terms of the long-term climate trend we're actually interested in. We can get into the exact reasons for this if you want (regression to the mean and a peculiarity of OLS linear regression).

Take a moment to actually understand the graph. I for one am more than willing to help.
 
2013-10-10 01:45:58 AM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27

Because you don't understand these graphs either?

From those graphs, I understand that the temps rose from the 1910s through the 1940s (roughly .4C), then leveled out to the 1980s. Then it rose again up to the 'oughts (roughly .4C). I'm sure you're well aware that most temperature data sets show 1998 as the hottest year, with a level or cooling trend through now.


Which is exactly the sort of thingthat IPCC graph was explicitly meant to address - looking at justa relatively short period of time (such as the 1998 to now period you reference) can be misleading. One big reason is the eventyou yourself highlight - that 1998 was an extremely hot year. Drawing a trendline from that extraordinarily hot year can be misleading in terms of the long-term climate trend we're actually interested in. We can get into the exact reasons for this if you want (regression to the mean and a peculiarity of OLS linear regression).

Take a moment to actually understand the graph. I for one am more than willing to help.



Forgot to add the important bit. Since looking at a relatively short period of time (such as the 1998 to now period you reference) can be misleading, what the IPCC has done in that graph is instead plotted temperature as a series of decadal averages, thereby filtering out some of the variability (because averages reduce extreme values).
 
2013-10-10 01:48:47 AM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
With this climate change, what is going to happen is we're going to be moving outside this comfort zone

What climate change?
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


The climate change that we repeatedly point out to you, and that you dishonestly hide from.
 
2013-10-10 02:12:21 AM
The same may be said for humans, Mora told NBC News "We have these political boundaries that we cannot cross as easily. Like people in Mexico--if the climate was [sic] to go crazy there, it is not like they can move to the United States."

Is Mora trying to be ironic, or is he a complete idiot?
 
2013-10-10 02:14:41 AM

dready zim: "On average, the tropics will experience unprecedented climate change 16 years earlier than the rest of the world, starting as early as 2020" in Manokwari, Indonesia, Mora said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday.

10 Signs Climate Change Is Already Happening

Unprecedented rate of change in climate demands action


Sorry that horse has already been flogged to death. Those goalposts have been cemented down. You can`t say the climate is *already* undergoing unprecedented change and then say it will *start* to undergo it in a reduced region in 7 years which is in turn 16 years before everyone else...



As is often the case, the details matter. There are of course different things that can change, and at different times, compared to different baselines, and are measured by different metrics. You really have to look at more than just the headlines and a couple of sentences from a news report. This is true of any subject matter, but is especially true of scientific information.

So if we actually do some reading, the paper TFA is talking about defines 'climate' as a synthetic index combining seven variables (near-surface air temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation, evaporation, transpiration, surface sensible heat flux, and ocean surface pH, if you're interested) and talks about 'change' as exceeding historical variability (as defined by 1860-2005). What this means is that they've defined 'change' as being when even the coldest year will be hotter than what we've seen from 1860-2005. Hopefully it is obvious to you that you  do not need as pronounced of a metric as that in order to detect changes. We are still able to draw meaningful trends even though current yearly temperatures (for example) are not unprecedented. This is the case for the other indicators of 'change' in the links you provide.
 
2013-10-10 02:17:30 AM

GentlemanJ: The same may be said for humans, Mora told NBC News "We have these political boundaries that we cannot cross as easily. Like people in Mexico--if the climate was [sic] to go crazy there, it is not like they can move to the United States."

Is Mora trying to be ironic, or is he a complete idiot?



It's a fair point - political boundaries provide a barrier to movement that limits people's ability to adapt to changing climates.
 
2013-10-10 02:27:10 AM

Damnhippyfreak: GentlemanJ: The same may be said for humans, Mora told NBC News "We have these political boundaries that we cannot cross as easily. Like people in Mexico--if the climate was [sic] to go crazy there, it is not like they can move to the United States."

Is Mora trying to be ironic, or is he a complete idiot?


It's a fair point - political boundaries provide a barrier to movement that limits people's ability to adapt to changing climates.


Not much, evidently.
 
2013-10-10 04:03:36 AM
Ah, Damnhippyfreak and Farking Canuck. Two pretend scientists, in the pay of Big Green, threadshiatting their condescending alarmist BS.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report