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 27
    More: Followup, Little Ice Age, warm spell, Attribution of recent climate change, global warming  
•       •       •

7228 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Dec 2013 at 6:17 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-12-07 06:40:05 PM
14 votes:
2013-12-07 06:26:49 PM
8 votes:
warmists

farm4.staticflickr.com
2013-12-07 06:22:49 PM
6 votes:
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
5 votes:
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 08:30:24 PM
4 votes:
www.skepticalscience.com

Oblig
2013-12-07 06:35:07 PM
4 votes:
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 07:10:36 PM
3 votes:
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 06:36:36 PM
2 votes:
Not this shiat again
2013-12-08 06:42:31 PM
1 votes:

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 02:11:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:32:15 PM
1 votes:

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 12:58:14 PM
1 votes:

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 12:05:03 PM
1 votes:
2013-12-08 05:28:22 AM
1 votes:

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 02:53:24 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-12-07 11:51:52 PM
1 votes:

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 10:10:25 PM
1 votes:
"Hurricane Sandy" sounds like something that needs a Milk Bone treat before putting on a sweater for a walk.
2013-12-07 09:46:26 PM
1 votes:
It's about time that people learn the truth.
2013-12-07 08:27:47 PM
1 votes:
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 07:19:30 PM
1 votes:

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 06:55:19 PM
1 votes:
Too bad the deniers will all be dead before things really get bad.
2013-12-07 06:49:14 PM
1 votes:
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 06:44:29 PM
1 votes:
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 06:43:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:31:18 PM
1 votes:
What proof? Was there ever a proof?
2013-12-07 06:28:57 PM
1 votes:
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 06:27:31 PM
1 votes:
www.quickmeme.com
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report