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.

(NYPost)   *POOF* goes the proof   (nypost.com) divider line 108
    More: Followup, Little Ice Age, warm spell, Attribution of recent climate change, global warming  
•       •       •

7232 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Dec 2013 at 6:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-12-07 06:22:49 PM  
Yes, the New York Post tabloid owned by News Corp. There's no way this information could be misleading of outright false.
 
2013-12-07 06:25:28 PM  
Oh I'm sorry, I was expecting a scientific study.  I'm sure this journalist is much more educated than the thousands of climatologists around the world.
 
2013-12-07 06:26:49 PM  
warmists

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-12-07 06:27:31 PM  
www.quickmeme.com
 
2013-12-07 06:28:45 PM  
I had to check the byline. I thought for sure this was written by my alcoholic uncle known for posting short novels about why Obama is the devil on Facebook.

/perhaps he's using a pen name, I'll ask
 
2013-12-07 06:28:57 PM  
Michael Fumento is a journalist and attorney based in Colombia.

Well, that settles it.  He definitely knows what he's talking about...
 
2013-12-07 06:30:23 PM  
It's -40 C here. We could use some regional warming
 
2013-12-07 06:31:07 PM  
Global warming doesn't exist.  It's 5 degrees outside right now.  Explain that, liberals!
 
2013-12-07 06:31:18 PM  
What proof? Was there ever a proof?
 
2013-12-07 06:35:07 PM  
FTA:  The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960.

The Philippines and much of Southeast Asia would disagree with you.

Oh, you mean the quietest in the  United States.  Well, that's a stupid thing to base a climate change argument off of.
 
2013-12-07 06:35:42 PM  

Farker Soze: Global warming doesn't exist.  It's 5 degrees outside right now.  Explain that, liberals!


Obama and his magic weather machine.
 
2013-12-07 06:36:36 PM  
Not this shiat again
 
2013-12-07 06:40:05 PM  
 
2013-12-07 06:43:36 PM  

MrEricSir: Same author has lots of wonderful reads.

Here he claims that the idea that hetrosexuals can get AIDS is a myth -- therefore who cares about AIDS?

Here he says stem cell research is a "scam" because in some cases you don't need stem cells for certain types of research.

Here he claims there aren't really any homeless vets, because someone once looked and couldn't find any. Therefore, fark homeless people.

Real quality journalism there. And not at all served up with a heavy-handed dose of bias, no sir!


And that wraps this up nicely.  Well done, sir.
 
2013-12-07 06:44:29 PM  
FTA: "Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate."

Indeed, indeed.
Watch them come here and do just that.
Like doggies to the invisible whistle.

/They'll start with an ad hom on the author. Just watch ...
 
2013-12-07 06:45:17 PM  
Watch out Drew, you'll have cease and desist papers from Rupert soon. He'll claim "it's not news" is a News Corp trademark.
 
2013-12-07 06:49:14 PM  
The icepocalypse in Dallas was caused by moisture coming up from the warmed ocean. Less warming and it would have been less ice, or even just freezing temperatures.
 
2013-12-07 06:50:42 PM  

Siskabush: It's -40 C here. We could use some regional warming


Hah, it's -40 F here!

/weeny...
 
2013-12-07 06:55:19 PM  
Too bad the deniers will all be dead before things really get bad.
 
2013-12-07 07:01:12 PM  
I farted a bit less today, therefore I don't have IBS.
 
2013-12-07 07:10:36 PM  
Dear Subby, eabods. Science doesn't work that way. The evidence/data for climate change is solid, its one of the most studied scientific events or whatever you'd call it ever. Sure we don't have a clear idea of what the effects of climate change are going to be exactly, but that doesn't means climate change is automatically invalidated.
 
2013-12-07 07:12:44 PM  
WTF did I just try to read?
 
2013-12-07 07:17:26 PM  
Drink!
 
2013-12-07 07:19:30 PM  

Surool: Yes, the New York Post tabloid owned by News Corp. There's no way this information could be misleading of outright false.


Well, it appears to be talking about the claim that hurricane activity would increase with global warming.  That claim actually is complete bullshiat, and always was.

They're still failing at logic forever by claiming that by association all the actual legitimate science is bad, though.
 
2013-12-07 07:21:16 PM  
Oh, it's this thread again.
 
2013-12-07 07:21:23 PM  
A complex system that is not fully understood isn't behaving as predicted?
That's weird.
 
2013-12-07 07:40:57 PM  
Not having studied the subject I don't claim to know either way but artificial global warmingreminds me of the 'land bridges' controversy and also the claim that the universe is made of 95%  'dark matter'.

or example, it somehow wasn't front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there's been no surface global warming for well over a decade

Is this true? Citation needed?
 
2013-12-07 07:42:37 PM  

wildcardjack: The icepocalypse in Dallas was caused by moisture coming up from the warmed ocean.


And it sucked, too. It was 18° this morning and only got up to 25°. I know everyone from the northern states and the Midwest are laughing, but that's cold for this part of the US. Here's what my street looked like:

farm4.staticflickr.com

And that's ice, not snow. We got two inches of sleet that was mixed with freezing rain.

Here's some of the photos I took of my neighborhood.
 
2013-12-07 07:43:44 PM  
Some years we get lucky.
 
2013-12-07 07:52:00 PM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: FTA:  The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960.

The Philippines and much of Southeast Asia would disagree with you.

Oh, you mean the quietest in the  United States.  Well, that's a stupid thing to base a climate change argument off of.


It's as stupid as saying any one particular weather event is proof of climate change as so many people often do.

The media also loves to hype things. A couple days after Haiyan many "news" outlets simply dropped the estimate that there could be 10,000 dead in the Philippines and just flat out said that 10,000 people had died, but in fact it is still under 6,000.  That's still a fark-ton fo casualties and it was still a devastating event but to point to any one particularly bad storm every few years and say "see?  Global Whargarrrrbl" is just as stupid as saying we didn't have any bad storms  (in the US) so there is no global warming.
 
2013-12-07 07:52:45 PM  

Surool: Yes, the New York Post tabloid owned by News Corp. There's no way this information could be misleading of outright false.


Or as I call it, the New York Compost
 
2013-12-07 08:00:01 PM  
inb4 charts and graphs pulled from 8,000 different "credible" sources to win an internet e-penis contest...
 
2013-12-07 08:08:07 PM  
Warmists?  That's awesome!
The war has well and truly been joined.
Oh, and Sandy was NOT a hurricane.
Continue!
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-12-07 08:13:54 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: I had to check the byline. I thought for sure this was written by my alcoholic uncle known for posting short novels about why Obama is the devil on Facebook.

/perhaps he's using a pen name, I'll ask


"Michael Fumento is a journalist and attorney based in Colombia."

I read that as:

"Michael Fumento is a 'journalist' and paid shilling whore based in Colombia."
 
2013-12-07 08:21:26 PM  
Author could have save on web-space by just quoting Sarah Palin "It snowed in Alaska in May, so there is no Global Warming"
 
2013-12-07 08:27:47 PM  
Humans have been farking up space with artificial light.  There is no artificial light in outer space, and us humans have really been farking up space with it this whole damn time, and it is just getting worse and worse.  Have you seen those pictures from space?

epod.typepad.com

The only people that have not been farking up space with un-natural illumination is North Korea.  The UN and all lefties hand-in-hand demand, with emphasis, that you give all your money to the norks, um, the North Koreans.  Give your money to this man to carry it there, for what you evil people have been doing to fark up space:

mediaoutrage.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-07 08:30:24 PM  
www.skepticalscience.com

Oblig
 
2013-12-07 08:42:06 PM  

traylor: What proof? Was there ever a proof?


No, but there's tons of evidence that Earth's climate is holding steady. Or if it's not holding steady, then it's only changing a little bit. Or if it's changing more than a little bit, then man had nothing to do with it. Or if man had something to do with it, then it doesn't matter because the climate is constantly changing. Or if it does matter, then there is nothing we can do about it because man is incapable of changing it back. Or if he is capable of changing it back then we shouldn't because that's messing with nature. Or if we should, we can't because it's too expensive. Or if it's not too expensive, then what good would it do if only some countries contributed while others didn't. Whatever, the science and media are wrong because they're liberal and you can take that to the bank.
 
2013-12-07 08:53:42 PM  
I really learned something from this article.

Specifically, I learned that it's harder than I thought to find a gif of someone rolling their eyes so hard they fall out of their head.  So, this will have to do to sum up my feelings:
replygif.net
 
2013-12-07 08:57:25 PM  

PacManDreaming: wildcardjack: The icepocalypse in Dallas was caused by moisture coming up from the warmed ocean.

And it sucked, too. It was 18° this morning and only got up to 25°. I know everyone from the northern states and the Midwest are laughing, but that's cold for this part of the US. Here's what my street looked like:

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x640]

And that's ice, not snow. We got two inches of sleet that was mixed with freezing rain.

Here's some of the photos I took of my neighborhood.


It hasn't gotten about zero in 3 days here but yeah Dallas can have some awful ice.  Used to live there.
 
2013-12-07 09:20:12 PM  

brandent: PacManDreaming: wildcardjack: The icepocalypse in Dallas was caused by moisture coming up from the warmed ocean.

And it sucked, too. It was 18° this morning and only got up to 25°. I know everyone from the northern states and the Midwest are laughing, but that's cold for this part of the US. Here's what my street looked like:

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x640]

And that's ice, not snow. We got two inches of sleet that was mixed with freezing rain.

Here's some of the photos I took of my neighborhood.

It hasn't gotten about zero in 3 days here but yeah Dallas can have some awful ice.  Used to live there.


I'm about 60 ~ 70 miles north of Dallas. We're iced in.  As I live at the bottom of a valley, I can't leave my neighborhood.  I'm out of smokes and have just enough V to last the night.
 
2013-12-07 09:20:47 PM  
Wow, really?

"Opinion"

"Warmists"

And... done.
 
2013-12-07 09:22:34 PM  

traylor: What proof? Was there ever a proof?


Show your work
 
2013-12-07 09:39:43 PM  

Odoriferous Queef: I'm about 60 ~ 70 miles north of Dallas. We're iced in. As I live at the bottom of a valley, I can't leave my neighborhood. I'm out of smokes and have just enough V to last the night.


Given your login, is V short for vaj?
 
2013-12-07 09:46:26 PM  
It's about time that people learn the truth.
 
2013-12-07 09:51:31 PM  

Farker Soze: Global warming doesn't exist.  It's 5 degrees outside right now.  Explain that, liberals!


stop it. people like you are why the evil libtard... Or wait was it tardpublicans... anyways people like you are why they stopped calling it global warming and started up with "climate change." That easy they can point at every storm and say "SEE!? We were RIGHT"
 
2013-12-07 09:51:32 PM  
So, do you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the earth is warming? One that has a chance to get a consensus of scientists saying "Hey, that might be more plausible than factories pumping CO2 and god knows what else into the sky?" Yes? If so, then I will call you a skeptic.  Until then, you are only a denier who thinks poking holes in the prevailing theory makes yours true.

/Newsflash: It doesn't.
 
2013-12-07 09:58:15 PM  

Odoriferous Queef: I'm about 60 ~ 70 miles north of Dallas. We're iced in. As I live at the bottom of a valley, I can't leave my neighborhood. I'm out of smokes and have just enough V to last the night.


That sucks. Fortunately for me, the cigar lounge is only four blocks away. I had to go there tonight and it was like driving on a hockey rink.

brandent: It hasn't gotten about zero in 3 days here but yeah Dallas can have some awful ice. Used to live there.


Yep, it was a bad one this time.
 
2013-12-07 10:06:00 PM  

Chameleon: I really learned something from this article.

Specifically, I learned that it's harder than I thought to find a gif of someone rolling their eyes so hard they fall out of their head.  So, this will have to do to sum up my feelings:
[replygif.net image 500x254]


Liz Lemmon from 30 Rock had a good over the top eye-roll. I can't see gifs on my phone though .
 
2013-12-07 10:10:25 PM  
"Hurricane Sandy" sounds like something that needs a Milk Bone treat before putting on a sweater for a walk.
 
2013-12-07 10:20:22 PM  
PacManDreaming:  That sucks. Fortunately for me, the cigar lounge is only four blocks away. I had to go there tonight and it was like driving on a hockey rink.

I'm going to walk to the Quick Mart tomorrow, It's about a mile. [up hill. both ways], and get some smokes.  I would take the truck [F350 FWD] but some asshole put the wrong batteries in it. It doesn't have quite enough umph to turn over in this cold.
 
2013-12-07 10:22:00 PM  

traylor: What proof? Was there ever a proof?


data1.whicdn.com
 
2013-12-07 10:23:33 PM  
I saw "opinion", then saw he based it on this year's hurricane season. So basically, *plbbtbtbtb*
 
2013-12-07 10:24:43 PM  

fusillade762: warmists

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]


I LOL'd because I had the exact same response.
 
2013-12-07 10:55:27 PM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: FTA:  The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960.

The Philippines and much of Southeast Asia would disagree with you.

Oh, you mean the quietest in the  United States.  Well, that's a stupid thing to base a climate change argument off of.


Are you saying that a powerful hurricane in the Phillipines is proof of global warming, while the quietest U.S. hurricane season in 50 years is a stupid argument?
 
2013-12-07 10:58:19 PM  
nytmare:
albatros183:
ScaryBottles:


Ah, weekend Farkers. Lighten up a little.
 
2013-12-07 10:58:58 PM  

IlGreven: So, do you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the earth is warming?


Direct CO2 emission is probably a reasonably influential factor, but deforestation and our rather unfortunate alterations to the ocean's chemistry are probably bigger ones (the oceans being where most CO2 is photosynthesized out of the atmosphere), and damage to the ocean biospheres in general probably dwarf any other variation in the steady-state balance.

There are also plenty of other greenhouse gases that are human-related that probably add up to a lot more than our influence on atmospheric carbon content.

Basically, CO2 is the chemical that's getting the panic because, firstly, it's something that people are familiar with so it's easy to spread the word, secondly it's pretty ubiquitous as an industry byproduct (any process that burns anything makes CO2) so from an engineering standpoint it seems like a good specific point to attack the general problem, and thirdly most of the other factors are governed by the activities of psychopathic third-world nations we can't do fark-all about (deforestation and the ocean).

It's not actually the entirety of the potential shift in the steady-state point.

// Humans have had some pretty big impacts on global climate since about the middle bits of the Roman empire or so.  Actually the only reason it was as stable as it has been for a lot of the last couple centuries has been luck-- a lot of our contributions have kinda canceled each other out, e.g. burning coal produces greenhouse gases, also makes soot that results in climate cooling.

// Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.
 
2013-12-07 11:14:21 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-12-07 11:51:52 PM  

YodaTuna: Oh I'm sorry, I was expecting a scientific study.  I'm sure this journalist is much more educated than the thousands of climatologists around the world.


Like all those church guys knew better than Gallileo. Reality isn't subject to a vote. Either they have an explanation for why their models and predictions are failing or they don't. So far, it's the latter.
 
2013-12-07 11:52:05 PM  

Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.


Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!
 
2013-12-08 12:48:06 AM  

Sidecrab: Not having studied the subject I don't claim to know either way but artificial global warmingreminds me of the 'land bridges' controversy and also the claim that the universe is made of 95%  'dark matter'.

or example, it somehow wasn't front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there's been no surface global warming for well over a decade

Is this true? Citation needed?


No. It's the standard denialist method. It doesn't matter if it's global warming or any other graphable subject. They'll measure between selected points to make data show what they want it to show. In reality you can't just cut out data points to get the desired result, unless you want to get the wrong answer.
 
2013-12-08 12:58:14 AM  
When bullshiat this big gets posted can't we downvote it?   I wasted time reading it and posting this and I don't want anyone else to lose time or brain cells.

/I have beer that called dibs on those brain cells
 
2013-12-08 01:00:23 AM  
Then the piece of shiat who wrote the article has nothing to worry about when New York disappears under all that water that didn't melt from glaciers!
 
2013-12-08 01:04:28 AM  
Have you seen the new poof?  images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-12-08 01:12:12 AM  

Farker Soze: Global warming doesn't exist.  It's 5 degrees outside right now.  Explain that, liberals!


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-08 01:24:39 AM  

traylor: nytmare:
albatros183:
ScaryBottles:

Ah, weekend Farkers. Lighten up a little.


Man I was just looking for an excuse to use that one. If it wasn't you it would've been someone else.
 
2013-12-08 02:06:56 AM  
New York Post
Wall St. Journal
Blaze
FOX News

All reliable sources!!
 
2013-12-08 02:20:16 AM  
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.
 
2013-12-08 02:53:24 AM  
When climate change denialists come up with a theory to explain what's happening, I'll listen - just like I'll listen when they come up with an alternative theory on evolution. But so far, they haven't, so I can't.
 
2013-12-08 03:11:03 AM  

jso2897: When climate change denialists come up with a theory to explain what's happening, I'll listen - just like I'll listen when they come up with an alternative theory on evolution. But so far, they haven't, so I can't.


Tell me why this is just weather:

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-12-08 03:16:58 AM  

MrEricSir: Same author has lots of wonderful reads.

Here he claims that the idea that hetrosexuals can get AIDS is a myth -- therefore who cares about AIDS?

Here he says stem cell research is a "scam" because in some cases you don't need stem cells for certain types of research.

Here he claims there aren't really any homeless vets, because someone once looked and couldn't find any. Therefore, fark homeless people.

Real quality journalism there. And not at all served up with a heavy-handed dose of bias, no sir!


FATALITY!
 
2013-12-08 03:31:25 AM  

starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.


Show us where the death spiral touched you
nsidc.org
 
2013-12-08 04:58:56 AM  
No poofters!
 
2013-12-08 05:28:22 AM  

PacManDreaming: Fortunately for me, the cigar lounge is only four blocks away. I had to go there tonight and it

was like driving on a hockey rink.

Seriously..?

Bad, uncommon weather that concerns you..particularly with regards to driving..and you couldn't  WALK a lousy four blocks..?

That is a failure of common sense that mere geographical location cannot account for..
 
2013-12-08 06:31:23 AM  

starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.


...also, you know why all this year, the Daily Fail et al trumpeted 15 years ago?

2013-15=1998. AKA the hottest year in recorded history. When you've been to the peak of Everest, everything's downhill, even if it's still higher than everything else.
 
2013-12-08 08:11:18 AM  

LewDux: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x340]

Oblig


Nobody posted the graph you are rebutting..

IlGreven: starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.

...also, you know why all this year, the Daily Fail et al trumpeted 15 years ago?

2013-15=1998. AKA the hottest year in recorded history. When you've been to the peak of Everest, everything's downhill, even if it's still higher than everything else.


The problem is, we were told there would be higher peaks and that the higher peaks would be the problem. As we have just passed the peak of everest, yes we are quite high up but the only way is down and people are insisting we could find a higher peak in just a bit further...

jjorsett: YodaTuna: Oh I'm sorry, I was expecting a scientific study.  I'm sure this journalist is much more educated than the thousands of climatologists around the world.

Like all those church guys knew better than Gallileo. Reality isn't subject to a vote. Either they have an explanation for why their models and predictions are failing or they don't. So far, it's the latter.


Yup, funny how the pause  is retconned into being canon all this time and they still cannot explain the deviation from their models other than the explanation that the models are just crap and do not predict at all well.

Make predictions for more than 10 years in the future, test the predictions and if they are right show they stay correct for 5 years (currently up to 1998 predictions tested between the dates 2008-2013) and then come back and say you have something.

Until that point, you have nothing but alarmism.

I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...
 
2013-12-08 08:54:08 AM  
weather ≠ climate

/that is all
 
2013-12-08 09:03:10 AM  

dready zim: I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...


Surely you understand that science is not static, particularly with something as massive as global climate modelling? And that scientific predictions are based on best-info at the time, and subject to change?
 
2013-12-08 09:54:26 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Tell me why this is just weather:


The part where it says "December" is a hell of a start.
 
2013-12-08 09:59:20 AM  
As near as I can tell, the entire argument against climate change boils down to this:

1. "I am afraid of the implications if climate change is true"
2. "Therefore climate change can't be true"
3. "Therefore, everybody who says otherwise is some combination of foolish, lying, in it for the money, or part of a global conspiracy by the scientific establishment to suppress dissenting views"
4. "Having invested myself so deeply in this belief, I will repeat any lie, no matter how easily disproven, and ignore any evidence, no matter how thoroughly validated, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance."

Did I miss anything?
 
2013-12-08 10:06:45 AM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Bad, uncommon weather that concerns you..particularly with regards to driving..and you couldn't WALK a lousy four blocks..?

That is a failure of common sense that mere geographical location cannot account for..


Well, I did have other places to go and other things to get. If I was just gonna go sit up there for a couple of hours, I would've walked. We were only expecting to be iced in for a day, two at the most(it usually melts by the middle of the second day). We're on day three, now, which is almost unheard of here. It's been literally 30 years since we had an ice storm where we were home-bound this long. It hit a day or two before Christmas, 1983.
 
2013-12-08 10:30:31 AM  
Went and read both the article and Fumento's wikipedia page.
Seems like I wasted some valuable time with the first step of my plan.
 
2013-12-08 10:52:43 AM  
So when will we know if we've fixed the climate?

/article still gave me a migraine
//it's FARK, lighten up Francis
 
2013-12-08 11:50:48 AM  

LasersHurt: dready zim: I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...

Surely you understand that science is not static, particularly with something as massive as global climate modelling? And that scientific predictions are based on best-info at the time, and subject to change?


Of course, but surely you understand that the heart of science is making predictions that at some point turn out right. It is how you test your science. If you do not have that core feature your science and your scientific process is bad. If you cannot predict an outcome then it is not even science, just the scientific process which can be used to examine blatantly untrue things and so means nothing in and of itself.

The scientific process is being followed but as I say, that means nothing by itself. You could follow the scientific process to study astrology for example but astrology will never make accurate predictions so if you check the accuracy of the predictions made by astrology against reality and you would find them lacking, you would (rightly) dismiss astrology even though a lot of people believe in it and make a lot of money from it. In the right circles you might even say there was a consensus, which also means nothing either and does not prove astrology. This leads us so the conclusion that astrology is bad science even if we follow the scientific process.

At the point you make predictions that match real world observations then your science is passable but needs double checking to make sure your scientific process is on place.

We are not past that part.
 
2013-12-08 12:05:03 PM  
 
2013-12-08 12:41:38 PM  

DesertDemonWY: jso2897: When climate change denialists come up with a theory to explain what's happening, I'll listen - just like I'll listen when they come up with an alternative theory on evolution. But so far, they haven't, so I can't.

Tell me why this is just weather:

[pbs.twimg.com image 850x425]


Are you aware of what that image represents? RTMA stands for real-time meso-scale analysis. The map represents conditions over the course of a single hour.

In short, this is just weather because it's a weather map.


Now what you should be asking yourself is why did you think this was a valid question for you to ask? You must have picked up this image quite recently and apparently decided to post it without knowing even the basics of what it represents. Why did you think this was a good idea? How much reasoning or understanding are you actually using when approaching this topic.
 
2013-12-08 12:58:14 PM  

DesertDemonWY: starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.

Show us where the death spiral touched you
[nsidc.org image 850x850]



What you're posting represents a single point in time.   As you should be aware by now, looking at such a small window can be misleading as it relies on only a subset of data. Let's instead look at more than just one point in time, and represented numerically so it's easier to make comparisons over time:

nsidc.org

What you're posting is analogous to  weather (short-term conditions) when we're actually interested in is  climate(longer-term trends)

You seem to be making the same mistake over and over. What about this concept do you not understand?We can help.
 
2013-12-08 01:26:45 PM  

Jim_Callahan: IlGreven: So, do you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the earth is warming?

Direct CO2 emission is probably a reasonably influential factor, but deforestation and our rather unfortunate alterations to the ocean's chemistry are probably bigger ones (the oceans being where most CO2 is photosynthesized out of the atmosphere), and damage to the ocean biospheres in general probably dwarf any other variation in the steady-state balance.

There are also plenty of other greenhouse gases that are human-related that probably add up to a lot more than our influence on atmospheric carbon content.

Basically, CO2 is the chemical that's getting the panic because, firstly, it's something that people are familiar with so it's easy to spread the word, secondly it's pretty ubiquitous as an industry byproduct (any process that burns anything makes CO2) so from an engineering standpoint it seems like a good specific point to attack the general problem, and thirdly most of the other factors are governed by the activities of psychopathic third-world nations we can't do fark-all about (deforestation and the ocean).

It's not actually the entirety of the potential shift in the steady-state point.

// Humans have had some pretty big impacts on global climate since about the middle bits of the Roman empire or so.  Actually the only reason it was as stable as it has been for a lot of the last couple centuries has been luck-- a lot of our contributions have kinda canceled each other out, e.g. burning coal produces greenhouse gases, also makes soot that results in climate cooling.

// Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.


Literally everything in this post is wrong.
 
2013-12-08 01:32:15 PM  

dready zim: LewDux: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x340]

Oblig

Nobody posted the graph you are rebutting..


The underlying fallacy that graph is meant to argue against (drawing potentially misleading trends from a subset of data) has been used in this thread, yet again by DesertDemonWY.


dready zim: IlGreven: starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.

...also, you know why all this year, the Daily Fail et al trumpeted 15 years ago?

2013-15=1998. AKA the hottest year in recorded history. When you've been to the peak of Everest, everything's downhill, even if it's still higher than everything else.

The problem is, we were told there would be higher peaks and that the higher peaks would be the problem. As we have just passed the peak of everest, yes we are quite high up but the only way is down and people are insisting we could find a higher peak in just a bit further...


The issue is that it's difficult to make judgements from just a single year or short period of time - using your analogy, it makes it difficult to state what is 'up' and 'down' from just looking at a single peak, when what we're interested in is the height of the mountain range.

On a side note, and if you're interested in further reading, what IlGreven is describing is termed regression to the mean, or in the context of the claim he's arguing against, a regression fallacy.


dready zim: jjorsett: YodaTuna: Oh I'm sorry, I was expecting a scientific study.  I'm sure this journalist is much more educated than the thousands of climatologists around the world.

Like all those church guys knew better than Gallileo. Reality isn't subject to a vote. Either they have an explanation for why their models and predictions are failing or they don't. So far, it's the latter.

Yup, funny how the pause  is retconned into being canon all this time and they still cannot explain the deviation from their models other than the explanation that the models are just crap and do not predict at all well.


Refer back to your previous point and what IlGreven and I have pointed out. Another explanation is that the trend is potentially spurious (again, regression to the mean) because of the influence of the very strong ESNO event of 1997-1998. Back to the mountain analogy, it only seems like temperatures are declining if you set your start point at the top of Mt. Everest.

In addition, you have to realize two things about the sort of models that we're talking about, as you're expressing some misconceptions here. First,  their primary focus isn't to reproduce shorter-term variation, and therefore unsurprisingly show less skill at that scale. They're climate models, not weather models. Second, when you see a model prediction, it's an aggregate of many, many individual runs of a climate model - analogous to an average and therefore will not portray short-term variation as well. The sort of 'pause' that is being currently observed is not unknown in climate models (see below) and therefore isn't relflective of some sort of failing.
img.fark.net
From Easterling & Wehner 2009 showing an individual climate model run.

In short, your percieved "failure" has more to do with not knowing what the explanations are.


dready zim: Make predictions for more than 10 years in the future, test the predictions and if they are right show they stay correct for 5 years (currently up to 1998 predictions tested between the dates 2008-2013) and then come back and say you have something.

Until that point, you have nothing but alarmism.

I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...


You're in danger of running into the same fallacy that the graph that LewDux posted is arguing against. I'll repost it here for reference:

img.fark.net

The idea is that it's difficult to make inferences about longer periods of time by using only short periods (like the 5 years you propose) because of shorter-term variation. You can think of it as looking for a longer-term 'signal' that's mixed up with shorter-term 'noise'. Again, what you can tell from only 5 years can be misleading, as one can see in the temperature record again and again. In short, your 5-year yardstick has given you wrong answers in the past, and will do so again in the future.
 
2013-12-08 01:36:36 PM  
Subby, do you want to know how three simple words tell me that you don't know the first thing about science?
 
2013-12-08 01:41:45 PM  

WelldeadLink: Denier land: How deniers view global warming, the video

[img.fark.net image 640x388]



Just as the phenomenon of interest can be masked by shorter-term variation, it can also just as easily be masked by longer-term variation.

For example, if you want to look at seasonal changes in temperature, you would be misled by looking at just a week - seasonal change would be very hard to detect as it would be swamped out by diurnal changes and one could mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist. Just as easily, seasonal change would be swamped out if you looked at, say, a thousand years - seasonal change would be also be very hard to detect if the resolution of the data was yearly or longer, and one could again mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist.

Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.
 
2013-12-08 01:46:36 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Inquisitive Inquisitor: FTA:  The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960.

The Philippines and much of Southeast Asia would disagree with you.

Oh, you mean the quietest in the  United States.  Well, that's a stupid thing to base a climate change argument off of.

Are you saying that a powerful hurricane in the Phillipines is proof of global warming, while the quietest U.S. hurricane season in 50 years is a stupid argument?


If you understood the concept of distributions within  a system, then that idea might not hurt your brain so much.  You don't, so there you go.
 
2013-12-08 02:11:03 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.


And because you only care about temperature change from 1950 to 1998, that's the only information which should be used. Got it.
 
2013-12-08 02:25:39 PM  

dready zim: Of course, but surely you understand that the heart of science is making predictions that at some point turn out right.


This is wrong on several levels.
 
2013-12-08 02:36:09 PM  

Herr Flick's Revenge: A complex system that is not fully understood isn't behaving as predicted?
That's weird.


Exactly what I have been saying. Accurate  records only go back about 200 years. The reason hurricanes seem so much bigger/badder is that there is so much developed area to destroy.

/Global warming gives certain people something to believe in and a way to feel useful.
//And gives them ad hominem attacks when they hear something "they just know" can't be true
 
2013-12-08 02:55:34 PM  

Lee451: The reason hurricanes seem so much bigger/badder is that there is so much developed area to destroy.


Oh my, I bet scientists hadn't accounted for increased development compared to the 1950s when doing storm analysis.

If only we had some sort of way of measuring hurricanes - some way of telling which ones were bigger than others independent of where they made landfall.  Like, if you could tell how fast their winds were, how much area they covered, how long they lasted, what times of year they happened, that kind of stuff.  Maybe even make a scale for it.

Then you could put them all in a big spreadsheet and see if average storm strength was increasing over time, without relying on changeable metrics like cost of the damages.
 
2013-12-08 04:35:33 PM  

WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.

And because you only care about temperature change from 1950 to 1998, that's the only information which should be used. Got it.



Nope. Other scales can inform. The problem comes from when looking exclusively at a short time scale or a long time scale (as in the video you posted).
 
2013-12-08 05:24:44 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:

What you're posting is analogous to  weather (short-term conditions) when we're actually interested in is  climate(longer-term trends)

[ice-extent.jpg].


35 years of data is long term relative to the planet's climate?

I know...we've only had reliable satellite ice coverage data for that long; I just don't like people saying 'the decline from 1998 is too short to be relevant' then turn around and say that only 20 years more data is, when AGW is generally dated to have 'begun' around 1800. (or arguably much earlier as posted above in the thread)

Also depends on what scale or set of data the chart is using:

nsidc.org

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu

/skeptic but not a denier
 
2013-12-08 05:28:01 PM  
Whoops, should have previewed those images came out larger than I thought they would...
 
2013-12-08 06:42:31 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Denier land: How deniers view global warming, the video

[img.fark.net image 640x388]


Just as the phenomenon of interest can be masked by shorter-term variation, it can also just as easily be masked by longer-term variation.

For example, if you want to look at seasonal changes in temperature, you would be misled by looking at just a week - seasonal change would be very hard to detect as it would be swamped out by diurnal changes and one could mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist. Just as easily, seasonal change would be swamped out if you looked at, say, a thousand years - seasonal change would be also be very hard to detect if the resolution of the data was yearly or longer, and one could again mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist.

Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.


This is very similar to the way I view your participation in these threads.
The fact that you argue in favor of warming put the lie to any objective scientific knowledge or interests in the subject. Your stance is strictly politically motivated within a discrete period and topic.
You use any narrow position you can conjure in your selfish, self-interestind mind to justify your positions, which are, ultimately, rhetorical and belief-based and have nothing to do with objective reality any more (if they ever did.).
 
2013-12-08 08:31:34 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-08 08:45:54 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: I had to check the byline. I thought for sure this was written by my alcoholic uncle known for posting short novels about why Obama is the devil on Facebook.


I'm pretty sure Obama is the devil everywhere.
 
2013-12-08 09:44:26 PM  
Huh. I figured there'd be walls of green text by now.

Though I notice some of the usual idiots have shown up.
 
2013-12-08 10:56:55 PM  

Gleeman: Damnhippyfreak:

What you're posting is analogous to  weather (short-term conditions) when we're actually interested in is  climate(longer-term trends)

[ice-extent.jpg].

35 years of data is long term relative to the planet's climate?


Certainly longer term than a single point in time, but you're quite right in that it's short compared to the history of the planet, and may not be representative depending on what you consider to be "the planet's climate". How about instead 'long enough that we can make meaningful inferences about deviations from the current climate'.


Gleeman: I know...we've only had reliable satellite ice coverage data for that long; I just don't like people saying 'the decline from 1998 is too short to be relevant' then turn around and say that only 20 years more data is, when AGW is generally dated to have 'begun' around 1800. (or arguably much earlier as posted above in the thread)

Also depends on what scale or set of data the chart is using:

/skeptic but not a denier


You're quite right about the scale. What may help would be to note that just looking at trends is very limited as an approach, especially as different processes are simultaneously at work over different scales (something I think you grasp intuitively). Therefore what matters is understanding the underlying processes and mechanisms.
 
2013-12-08 11:21:49 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: This is very similar to the way I view your participation in these threads.
The fact that you argue in favor of warming put the lie to any objective scientific knowledge or interests in the subject


people.virginia.edu

I wish I didn't have to state this explicitly, but you should probably shouldn't be dismissing "objective scientific knowledge" because you don't like the conclusion. What would be better is if you did this the other way around - the "objective scientific knowledge" should determine what you think about the conclusion.


HotIgneous Intruder: Your stance is strictly politically motivated within a discrete period and topic.
You use any narrow position you can conjure in your selfish, self-interestind mind to justify your positions, which are, ultimately, rhetorical and belief-based and have nothing to do with objective reality any more (if they ever did.)


Considering the above, this might be a better descriptor of your own behavior rather than mine. You can't get much more narrow, belief-based, and nothing to do with objective reality than you discounting "any objective scientific knowledge" because you don't like the conclusion.

Unfortunately, this view of yours is all too common - in creationists:
img.fark.net

HotIgneous Intruder: I don't need to respect the scientific method when I can see clearly the logical progression of any acceptance of AGW by the political sphere.

 
2013-12-09 01:23:13 AM  

SVenus: Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.

Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!


Hi! Let's talk radiative forcing, shall we?

Jim_Callahan: IlGreven: So, do you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the earth is warming?

Direct CO2 emission


Can you come back into the thread, please? We need to chat,,,
 
2013-12-09 02:19:53 AM  

Jon Snow: SVenus: Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.

Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!

Hi! Let's talk radiative forcing, shall we?



I dunno... between him asking  in the other thread whether a behavioral study involving fish was double blind and gems like the following (about the same paper, mind you):

SVenus: No, I didn't bother to read the paywalled paper.

SVenus: Again, I will contend someone decided on the requested results, and someone else provided the "research" required to meet those results.  Made.Up.Science.



...you've probably better off talking about basic science literacy before you get to radiative forcing.
 
2013-12-09 02:40:54 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Jon Snow: SVenus: Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.

Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!

Hi! Let's talk radiative forcing, shall we?


I dunno... between him asking  in the other thread whether a behavioral study involving fish was double blind and gems like the following (about the same paper, mind you):

SVenus: No, I didn't bother to read the paywalled paper.

SVenus: Again, I will contend someone decided on the requested results, and someone else provided the "research" required to meet those results.  Made.Up.Science.


...you've probably better off talking about basic science literacy before you get to radiative forcing.


But he's a petroleum geologist.

A PETROLEUM. GEOLOGIST!

There's no way he'd be biased. No way at all.
 
Displayed 108 of 108 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






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