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 9
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-09 11:43:09 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-10-10 11:32:16 AM
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Waiting for an outlyer year so you can say ...

This is a load of crap. Nobody is waiting for anything. There are predictions of what will likely happen and reactions to what does happen.


Maybe you weren't around at the turn of century. Or you have a poor memory. But the alarmism reached fever pitch after the hot year of 1998. It is only much more recently that climatists want it to be an outlier, now it no longer supports their position.

The data shows that the earth is on clear trend of increased energy retention due to the greenhouse effect. This is having many effects including increased global average temperatures for atmosphere and oceans, receding glaciers, polar ice melt, etc.

The original prediction was of increased air temperatures, not energy retention. To predict one and then cite the other as confirmation is moving the goal posts. And not just in a pedantic way: "energy retention" means ocean temperature - and this lags air temperature. So after an increase in air temperature, an increase in ocean temp is sure to follow. It is not new info, and is not a successful prediction of CAGW, only of the phenomenon of heat capacity, which is kids' stuff.

It is only natural for everyone to make a big deal every time we hit a new extreme. Just like the 2012 polar ice cap low, the 1998 temperature spike made the news. They will likely make the news again soon for new extremes as the net energy retained is still increasing. If we get a new high in 2017 maybe SevenIzGud will finally choose a new starting point for his graphs ... that would make him a little less boring.

Any kind of event that can be used in a pro-CAGW argument must be allowed in anti-CAGW arguments too. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to impose arbitrary rules onto the debate, in order to influence the outcome, which is about the most unscientifc thing you could possibly do.

Scientists understand that it is just a combination of the trends predicted by AGW combined with natural variation to create an extreme data point. It is a curiosity for science and something to sell papers and page hits for the news agencies.

But they do not accept that the rise prior to 1998 could have been natural variation. Why is evidence that goes against them allowed to be natural randomness but not events that go in their favour? Not a single climatology institution predicted any kind of slowdown following 1998. In fact, many predicted an increase in the rate of change. So the discrepancy we have now from the predictions is virtually as big as the discrepancy we had around 1995 versus no rapid rise at all. So why is one of these important and the other irrelevent?

When it comes to science it is the trends that tell the real story ... not individual data points. Your insistence that individual years are important to science suggests you are one of those people who gets their science from reporters. This would explain a lot.

No I think you misunderstand. I do not need to present 1998 as important - the trend is still flat or slightly falling temps even if you remove it. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of climatists who happily cited 1998 when it seemed to support their arguments, but insist it be excluded when it does not.

The trend of no rises has gone on long enough to "show up" on climatology timescales. Remember, cliatologists themselves defined the tiemescales they were going to call relevent to climate as decades and centuries (based on a wrong assumption about natural variability resembling white noise). The climate (as in, over a scale of a decade) is outside the error bars on their predictions (even the most optimistic scenario). Based on their definitions, climate change has failed to happen. Scientifically speaking, it's over. All that is left is some kind of quasi-religion practiced by those who have lost their way.
2013-10-10 09:09:13 AM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: Also, see http://www.fark.com/comments/7944016/86623730#c86623730 in which user Farking Canuck lets the mask slip and admits his true agenda. When his true colours show, you can jusdge for yourself whether this is a scientist, with an uncoloured outlook, searchign for the truth, or just a thug trying to impose his dogma for his paymasters.


Your link goes to one of DamnHippyFreak's posts. This is too bad - I was curious to discover what my agenda was.

ProTip for seeing a denier's true colors: On the rare occasion that they present links you need to follow them and read carefully. A key strategy in the anti-science platform is the assumption that 99% of people will not actually check what they link to.

Often their links are:
- not even relevant (as in this case)
- links to blogs which offer no supporting evidence for their lies/arguments
- links to blogs which then link to scientific papers - but when you read the paper you see that they've distorted or otherwise misrepresented the paper
- links directly to the scientific papers but, again, they've distorted or misrepresented the results

Once you start following their links you see that the anti-science position is based entirely on misdirection and deception.
2013-10-09 11:53:51 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-09 11:10:51 PM
1 votes:

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 10:26:06 PM
1 votes:
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 08:08:10 PM
1 votes:
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 07:33:58 PM
1 votes:
I like the way that `underwater` and `devastated` has been diluted to `uncomfortable` as well...
2013-10-09 06:35:07 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report