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.

(The Daily Caller)   If you think Global Warming is bad now, you should have been around during the times of ancient Rome   (dailycaller.com) divider line 145
    More: Interesting, global warming, Middle Ages, Earth, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Reading University, Georgia Institute of Technology, warm period  
•       •       •

4676 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Dec 2013 at 7:49 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-14 04:22:23 PM
Who farted?
 
2013-12-14 04:37:19 PM
 
2013-12-14 04:55:11 PM
images.mmorpg.com
 
2013-12-14 05:00:24 PM
Let's get this out of the way:

HURR DURR IT'S COLD OUTSIDE WHAR GLOBAL WARMING ALGORE WHAR

OK, trolls, you are free to go to another thread.
 
2013-12-14 05:45:43 PM
With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 models.weatherbell.com
 
2013-12-14 06:00:11 PM
Why these threads keep showing up, I don't know. If global warming is happening, there's fark all we can do about it within any reasonable time frame (<1,000 years). All I know is that the sea level keeps rising.
 
2013-12-14 06:38:07 PM

DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now


You're adorable. *messes hair*
 
2013-12-14 06:38:44 PM
jake_lex [TotalFark]

Let's get this out of the way:

HURR DURR IT'S COLD OUTSIDE WHAR GLOBAL WARMING ALGORE WHAR

How about HURR DURR IT'S NEVER BEEN THIS HOT IN HUMAN HISTORY! SKY IS FALLING!11
 
2013-12-14 08:03:46 PM

DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


With all the cherry picked data.
 
2013-12-14 08:06:24 PM
Welcome to the year 2020, where the Earf is back into a little ice-age until abouts 2030. So be sure to stock up on your 100% whale oil heating fuel, and throw another Liberal on the bar-b.


/First sentence is not sarcasm, you illiterate rightwing bed wetters, whose continuous bed-wetting keeps the discount mattress industry fully supported in 3-shift production lines.
 
2013-12-14 08:06:46 PM
STOP WHINING AND BUILD NUKES!

/aaaanndd I'm out
//off to TF discussion to discuss Drew's Love Child
 
2013-12-14 08:07:55 PM

DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp
 
2013-12-14 08:08:22 PM

OnlyM3: jake_lex [TotalFark]

Let's get this out of the way:

HURR DURR IT'S COLD OUTSIDE WHAR GLOBAL WARMING ALGORE WHAR

How about HURR DURR IT'S NEVER BEEN THIS HOT IN HUMAN HISTORY! SKY IS FALLING!11


He was mocking people who think daily/monthly temperatures and trends (weather) indicate a lack of Global Warming, which it doesn't and wouldn't be a problem if it did.

You are mocking people who think decade-long temperature trends (climate) indicate Global Warming, which it does, and is a problem.

Also, you saying "human history" is significant-- climate change doesn't matter too much to the environment as a whole (things change, natural selection, etc) but people and society depend on the current climate. We don't want to have to abandon permanent coastal settlements, move out of encroaching deserts and adapt society to cope with the new world.
 
2013-12-14 08:10:18 PM

i586.photobucket.com

 
2013-12-14 08:13:57 PM

OnlyM3: jake_lex [TotalFark]

Let's get this out of the way:

HURR DURR IT'S COLD OUTSIDE WHAR GLOBAL WARMING ALGORE WHAR

How about HURR DURR IT'S NEVER BEEN THIS HOT IN HUMAN HISTORY! SKY IS FALLING!11


Oh good! All those thousands of "scientists" with all their "studies" and "schooling" and "peer reviews" were getting me worried. Random guy on Internet, you've really made me feel better about the whole thing!

Would you mind if I message you when I have a medical issue, because I'm certain you'll make me feel better than those "doctors" all with their hoity-toity "instruments" and "knowledge" and crap.
 
2013-12-14 08:14:42 PM
Whether or not there's global warming, we have to take hideously expensive, freedom-limiting, intrusive measures in developed nations, and keep developing nations from attaining anything approaching Western lifestyles, just in case it's true. The fact that it feeds our human need to subjugate and rule others is merely a happy byproduct.
 
2013-12-14 08:15:46 PM

DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 


Your graph doesn't even go back 10 years
 
2013-12-14 08:16:10 PM
Global warming?  Hah, I wish.

/Minnesota is cold right now.
 
2013-12-14 08:19:49 PM

sheep snorter: Welcome to the year 2020, where the Earf is back into a little ice-age until abouts 2030. So be sure to stock up on your 100% whale oil heating fuel, and throw another Liberal on the bar-b.


/First sentence is not sarcasm, you illiterate rightwing bed wetters, whose continuous bed-wetting keeps the discount mattress industry fully supported in 3-shift production lines.


It's always amusing when a liberal accuses other people of fear mongering. What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?
 
2013-12-14 08:22:02 PM

jjorsett: Whether or not there's global warming, we have to take hideously expensive, freedom-limiting, intrusive measures in developed nations, and keep developing nations from attaining anything approaching Western lifestyles, just in case it's true. The fact that it feeds our human need to subjugate and rule others is merely a happy byproduct.


There is really no debate among scientists. Global warming exists and can be demonstrated.
 
2013-12-14 08:24:01 PM
FTFA: A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.

Why do they let scientifically illiterate people write about science? The idea that warming in the past for other reasons somehow means that warming today cannot be man-made is simply moronic. It is faulty logic and yet it is the core of this article.

It is akin to saying "because there were natural floods in the past then any floods today cannot be man-made". It's pure stupidity but deniers are hanging their hats on it.
 
2013-12-14 08:27:58 PM

jjorsett: It's always amusing when a liberal accuses other people of fear mongering. What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?


Wow. You actually believe this don't you?
 
2013-12-14 08:33:50 PM

jjorsett: Whether or not there's global warming, we have to take hideously expensive, freedom-limiting, intrusive measures in developed nations, and keep developing nations from attaining anything approaching Western lifestyles, just in case it's true. The fact that it feeds our human need to subjugate and rule others is merely a happy byproduct.


Did you know that that is a strawman you are currently jousting with?

You must by now because I've seen you in enough of these threads and you've been corrected plenty of times. And yet you continue to pull the same old canards out of your ass.
 
2013-12-14 08:38:46 PM

jjorsett: sheep snorter: Welcome to the year 2020, where the Earf is back into a little ice-age until abouts 2030. So be sure to stock up on your 100% whale oil heating fuel, and throw another Liberal on the bar-b.


/First sentence is not sarcasm, you illiterate rightwing bed wetters, whose continuous bed-wetting keeps the discount mattress industry fully supported in 3-shift production lines.

It's always amusing when a liberal accuses other people of fear mongering. What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?


Death Panels. Socialism. FEMA death camps. Gun grabbers. Illegals. Job killing regulation. War on Drugs. War on Terror. Voter fraud. Destroying traditional marriage. Liberal media. Activist judges. Anchor babies. Terror babies.
 
2013-12-14 08:48:00 PM

Zeppelininthesky: jjorsett: Whether or not there's global warming, we have to take hideously expensive, freedom-limiting, intrusive measures in developed nations, and keep developing nations from attaining anything approaching Western lifestyles, just in case it's true. The fact that it feeds our human need to subjugate and rule others is merely a happy byproduct.

There is really no debate among scientists. Global warming exists and can be demonstrated.


How is it possible for the Earth to be getting warmer (on average) if there are a couple of room-temperature IQ people in this thread denying it that are not getting any smarter?
 
2013-12-14 09:00:30 PM
Who cares about this shiat, there was a story on that site about a python that ate a drunk guy.
 
2013-12-14 09:02:04 PM

Farking Canuck: FTFA: A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.

Why do they let scientifically illiterate people write about science? The idea that warming in the past for other reasons somehow means that warming today cannot be man-made is simply moronic. It is faulty logic and yet it is the core of this article.

It is akin to saying "because there were natural floods in the past then any floods today cannot be man-made". It's pure stupidity but deniers are hanging their hats on it.


It can be used to call into question the degree that man is effecting the warming though. That being said this is an APG thread........WE NEED GRAPHS!!!!
 
2013-12-14 09:12:09 PM
I'm confused, when are we allowed to use Scientific data and in which arguments again?
 
2013-12-14 09:17:00 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: The "study"

[perfectlycursedlife.com image 552x414]


The co-author of the alleged study, Craig Idso, gets paid a monthly stipend by these folks:  http://heartland.org/
I'm sure there's no agenda here though.  Just good science.

Oh he also works for these guys:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Energy
media.courierpress.com

Nothing 30 seconds of google couldn't give me.  Are these people even trying?
 
2013-12-14 09:18:05 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: jjorsett: sheep snorter: Welcome to the year 2020, where the Earf is back into a little ice-age until abouts 2030. So be sure to stock up on your 100% whale oil heating fuel, and throw another Liberal on the bar-b.


/First sentence is not sarcasm, you illiterate rightwing bed wetters, whose continuous bed-wetting keeps the discount mattress industry fully supported in 3-shift production lines.

It's always amusing when a liberal accuses other people of fear mongering. What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?

Death Panels. Socialism. FEMA death camps. Gun grabbers. Illegals. Job killing regulation. War on Drugs. War on Terror. Voter fraud. Destroying traditional marriage. Liberal media. Activist judges. Anchor babies. Terror babies.


You forgot war on Christmas.
 
2013-12-14 09:20:51 PM
So, this article gets its data from a privately funded concern whose mission is to show the benefits of CO2 gas "enrichment" in our atmosphere? lol. Oh its chairman was formerly employed by the largest coal company in the world. Yeah, ok, DC.
 
2013-12-14 09:54:41 PM
Ah man, can we please keep this shiat where it belongs: on the Politics Tab?
 
2013-12-14 09:57:00 PM
If people actually believed that global warming exists, they should do their part by killing themselves and no longer pumping out all that O2.. Hell, you won't even give up using your air conditioner. It sucks up a lot of power (often created using coal) and the current refrigerants are far worse than the original freon


/People always wan someone else to fix their real and imagined problems.
//misses the good ol' days when the ozone hole was going to destroy earth.
 
2013-12-14 09:58:56 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: jjorsett: sheep snorter: Welcome to the year 2020, where the Earf is back into a little ice-age until abouts 2030. So be sure to stock up on your 100% whale oil heating fuel, and throw another Liberal on the bar-b.


/First sentence is not sarcasm, you illiterate rightwing bed wetters, whose continuous bed-wetting keeps the discount mattress industry fully supported in 3-shift production lines.

It's always amusing when a liberal accuses other people of fear mongering. What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?

Death Panels. Socialism. FEMA death camps. Gun grabbers. Illegals. Job killing regulation. War on Drugs. War on Terror. Voter fraud. Destroying traditional marriage. Liberal media. Activist judges. Anchor babies. Terror babies.


Bwahaha, oh snap.
 
2013-12-14 10:00:18 PM
The fact it was warmer in the Earth past is no excuse to stop trying to reduce pollution, use environmentally friendly products and find alternative renewable energy sources because climate isn't the only factor that makes the planet livable, you need clean air to breath, clean water to drink and good soil for crops.
 
2013-12-14 10:02:26 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Nothing 30 seconds of google couldn't give me.  Are these people even trying?


Considering public acceptance of GW has plummeted in the last decade; they're not only trying, they're succeeding.

You have to understand that 99% of people will just accept studies like this at face value without checking whether they were done by actual scientists or industry shills. The Heartland Institute and other groups like them have successfully convinced about 50% of the population that GW is a liberal conspiracy to steal their Hummers or something.
 
2013-12-14 10:03:30 PM

Lee451: If people actually believed that global warming exists, they should do their part by killing themselves and no longer pumping out all that O2..


That was edgy.

And it's CO2, dumbass.
 
2013-12-14 10:04:17 PM
Well, we know shortly before BCE climate got really friendly in the northern mediterranean and southern europe, then things got a bit colder and pushed, IIRC, the Visigoths down into Italy where they sacked Rome. Then things stay miserable for a few centuries before warming up a bit, to the extent that vineyards in Britain were producing enough wine to export. Some crazy people with horned hats even tried to colonize Greenland. At the same time in the American southwest a few culture arose in wetter conditions. Then things got colder again for a few centuries, the colony in Greenland died out, famines across Europe as bad weather took out crops, that whole thing in the American southwest contracted and turned ugly. And then things warmed up again, and vineyards in England once again produce wine.

Time and time in history, warmth helped. But I'm iffy if the CO2 is a direct connection. I'd like to see more nukes, less strip mined coal. Native Americans did a lot of land and forest management through fire.
 
2013-12-14 10:06:15 PM

dennysgod: you need clean air to breath, clean water to drink and good soil for crops.


Renewable energy only changes the clean air part. Except for fraking, fossil power plant generation only has thermal effects on water, not purity. What's destroying our water supplies is agriculture.
 
2013-12-14 10:13:44 PM

wildcardjack: Well, we know shortly before BCE climate got really friendly in the northern mediterranean and southern europe, then things got a bit colder and pushed, IIRC, the Visigoths down into Italy where they sacked Rome. Then things stay miserable for a few centuries before warming up a bit, to the extent that vineyards in Britain were producing enough wine to export. Some crazy people with horned hats even tried to colonize Greenland. At the same time in the American southwest a few culture arose in wetter conditions. Then things got colder again for a few centuries, the colony in Greenland died out, famines across Europe as bad weather took out crops, that whole thing in the American southwest contracted and turned ugly. And then things warmed up again, and vineyards in England once again produce wine.

Time and time in history, warmth helped. But I'm iffy if the CO2 is a direct connection. I'd like to see more nukes, less strip mined coal. Native Americans did a lot of land and forest management through fire.


The science is very strong and that CO2 affects temperature is verifiable.
 
2013-12-14 10:23:14 PM

wildcardjack: Well, we know shortly before BCE climate got really friendly in the northern mediterranean and southern europe, then things got a bit colder and pushed, IIRC, the Visigoths down into Italy where they sacked Rome. Then things stay miserable for a few centuries before warming up a bit, to the extent that vineyards in Britain were producing enough wine to export. Some crazy people with horned hats even tried to colonize Greenland. At the same time in the American southwest a few culture arose in wetter conditions. Then things got colder again for a few centuries, the colony in Greenland died out, famines across Europe as bad weather took out crops, that whole thing in the American southwest contracted and turned ugly. And then things warmed up again, and vineyards in England once again produce wine.

Time and time in history, warmth helped. But I'm iffy if the CO2 is a direct connection. I'd like to see more nukes, less strip mined coal. Native Americans did a lot of land and forest management through fire.


There's nothing crazy about ceremonial horned headgear.
 
2013-12-14 10:36:09 PM
No, that site doesn't have an agenda at all. I wonder which oil company runs it?
 
2013-12-14 10:47:11 PM
Awww, shiat... I clicked a DC link.  Now I'm going to be bombed with targeted ads for freeze-dried foods, gold bullion, and Russian/asian brides for the next few weeks.

As for global warming, anyone who doesn't think that releasing an almost incalculable amount of stored carbon into the atmosphere in just the past century isn't going to have an effect on the global climate, they are probably the same idiots who insist that evolution is just a "theory".  More intelligent-and pragmatic-detractors take that position because any possible solution to the problem hits them straight in the wallet.
 
2013-12-14 10:55:14 PM
Web site is owned/sponsored/controlled or what ever by a group called "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" at least partially funded by Exxonmobile.  it's a 501(c)(3) org so that should also raise red flags.  etc..etc.    more noise to sow confusion.
 
2013-12-14 10:57:52 PM

Lee451: If people actually believed that global warming exists, they should do their part by killing themselves and no longer pumping out all that O2.. Hell, you won't even give up using your air conditioner. It sucks up a lot of power (often created using coal) and the current refrigerants are far worse than the original freon


/People always wan someone else to fix their real and imagined problems.
//misses the good ol' days when the ozone hole was going to destroy earth.


Wow... just wow.
 
2013-12-14 11:22:14 PM
I would also like to note that they only examined trees from the Swedish region of the Scandes mountain range. Evidence of warmer periods from a very small region in no way negates or even challenges the global temperature record for that time period. It was already known that certain regions of Europe were warmer while the rest of the world was cooler.

Yeesh, these guys are as bad as Watts.
 
2013-12-14 11:29:14 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: The "study"

[perfectlycursedlife.com image 552x414]


That's just the website pushing it. The study was actually published in a peer review journal, Boreas. It has an impact factor of about 2 versus Nature having one of about 31. Basically, it's a relatively obscure little journal that very few people routinely cite.
 
2013-12-14 11:35:29 PM
Ah yes, the classic fallacy "it was warmer two thousand years in the past, so global warming doesn't exist".  Also the fallacy "it was warmer in this one place in the world so it was warmer everywhere".

This article, while moderately interesting from a historical point of view, has zero bearing one way or the other on whether the world is warming today, and should not be framed as such.

It's like if you looked at a small suburban rich peoples' enclave 30 years ago and used it to argue that poverty doesn't exist in the USA today.
 
2013-12-14 11:41:41 PM

Zafler: I would also like to note that they only examined trees from the Swedish region of the Scandes mountain range. Evidence of warmer periods from a very small region in no way negates or even challenges the global temperature record for that time period. It was already known that certain regions of Europe were warmer while the rest of the world was cooler.

Yeesh, these guys are as bad as Watts.


Your hockey sticks are showing
 
2013-12-15 12:42:04 AM

DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


www.skepticalscience.net

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.
 
2013-12-15 12:46:56 AM

DesertDemonWY: Zafler: I would also like to note that they only examined trees from the Swedish region of the Scandes mountain range. Evidence of warmer periods from a very small region in no way negates or even challenges the global temperature record for that time period. It was already known that certain regions of Europe were warmer while the rest of the world was cooler.

Yeesh, these guys are as bad as Watts.

Your hockey sticks are showing



Which is one of the reasons why dendro records are only one of the types of proxies used in these large multiproxy reconstructions. As would this proxy record, if it were to be used in one.

On a side note, we can actually see what effect dendroproxies would have if they were excluded:

1.bp.blogspot.com

From Mann et al. 2008. There's not that much difference.
 
2013-12-15 12:51:48 AM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: jjorsett: sheep snorter: Welcome to the year 2020, where the Earf is back into a little ice-age until abouts 2030. So be sure to stock up on your 100% whale oil heating fuel, and throw another Liberal on the bar-b.


/First sentence is not sarcasm, you illiterate rightwing bed wetters, whose continuous bed-wetting keeps the discount mattress industry fully supported in 3-shift production lines.

It's always amusing when a liberal accuses other people of fear mongering. What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?

Death Panels. Socialism. FEMA death camps. Gun grabbers. Illegals. Job killing regulation. War on Drugs. War on Terror. Voter fraud. Destroying traditional marriage. Liberal media. Activist judges. Anchor babies. Terror babies.


... I think Dick Cheney just achieved ejaculation...
 
2013-12-15 12:53:50 AM

jjorsett: It's always amusing when a liberal accuses other people of fear mongering. What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?


I can understand being against 'doom and gloom' sorts of predictions as long as they're unsupported by the evidence and instead rely on hyperbole. However, one has to wonder how sincere your conviction is as your previous post consists of exactly the sort of behavior you yourself decry:

jjorsett: Whether or not there's global warming, we have to take hideously expensive, freedom-limiting, intrusive measures in developed nations, and keep developing nations from attaining anything approaching Western lifestyles, just in case it's true. The fact that it feeds our human need to subjugate and rule others is merely a happy byproduct.


If you want to stop fear-mongering, then I suggest stop doing so yourself. Discuss actual policy positions instead of hyperbole.
 
2013-12-15 01:18:21 AM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.


Any graph where the timescale is less than a century or two is talking about weather, not climate.
 
2013-12-15 01:41:38 AM

Lee451: If people actually believed that global warming exists, they should do their part by killing themselves and no longer pumping out all that O2.. Hell, you won't even give up using your air conditioner. It sucks up a lot of power (often created using coal) and the current refrigerants are far worse than the original freon


/People always wan someone else to fix their real and imagined problems.


Just as being against poverty does not necessarily mean that one should give all their possessions to the poor, nor being for reducing taxation necessitate one refusing to pay any taxes whatsoever, being in favor of something does not necessitate the most extreme or absurd way of furthering it.


Lee451: //misses the good ol' days when the ozone hole was going to destroy earth.


Since this was in no way what was actually predicted, I suggest either you memory is somewhat flawed or you were relying on really bad information. I hope either or both has improved since then.
 
2013-12-15 01:49:01 AM

Mr. Eugenides: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

Any graph where the timescale is less than a century or two is talking about weather, not climate.



I think you could make a valid argument for that, based on a somewhat different usage of 'weather' and 'climate' that's not very far beyond their conventional limitations.

You also indirectly bring up the underlying issue that those terms are somewhat 'fuzzy' in that they don't refer to exact scales but are instead context-dependent and somewhat relative. I suppose the lesson is that we should be careful to explicitly state our baselines when warranted.
 
2013-12-15 02:24:36 AM

Damnhippyfreak: www.skepticalscience.net

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.


Can you show where on your graph there was snow in Cairo?
 
2013-12-15 02:29:17 AM

simplicimus: Why these threads keep showing up, I don't know. If global warming is happening, there's fark all we can do about it within any reasonable time frame (<1,000 years). All I know is that the sea level keeps rising.


but that is the whole point.
There is nothing that we can do, unless we are willing to nuke india and china and kill 2 billion plus people.
Those two countries are increasing their CO2 output at a higher rate than all the combined decrease in the rest of the world.
The best that we could accomplish is slowing the rate of increase, but there would still be huge increase.
YAWN

I am not going to suffer for no real gain.
 
2013-12-15 02:34:04 AM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.


can you show us where on this graph teh arctic death spriral?
can you explain why, from the same graph, total global sea ice extent is above average?
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu
 
2013-12-15 02:40:55 AM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: www.skepticalscience.net

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

Can you show where on your graph there was snow in Cairo?



Case in point. The basic concept you're missing is, simply put, that short periods, whether a single snowstorm or a single decade, may not be representative of longer term trends. Combine this with the idea that we're primarily interested in what's happening on the order of decades to hundreds of years, and the inferences you would draw could be misleading.

We can use the graph to illustrate this:

img.fark.net

If we pretend for a moment that, say, that extreme low temperature recorded for that one point in 2008ish is analogous to that snowstorm in Cairo that you mention, making an inference from just that would lead to a conclusion very much at odds with the overall trend.

That aside, you're also putting a new twist on this concept you're missing by making the same mistake with spatial scale in addition to temporal. Just as with time, a short spatial scale may not be representative of a wider area.


Is this helping? You're making the same mistake over and over. I can try to explain this differently if it's not quite clicking with you.
 
2013-12-15 03:04:16 AM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

can you show us where on this graph teh arctic death spriral?



First off, if you want to look at the Arctic, it would help if you used data corresponding to the Arctic instead of globally. Remember, the scale (whether temporal or spatial) should reflect the question you want to examine.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu


So that's better - now that we have a slightly more useful spatial scale considering your question, you need to specify exactly what was meant by a 'death spiral'. It requires a bit more work sometimes, but if you're dealing with evidence in a rigorous way, it helps if you're specific about what you're comparing it to.


DesertDemonWY: can you explain why, from the same graph, total global sea ice extent is above average?


Sure! Again, it comes down to scale and how it relates to what you're interested in. You're running into problems with both spatial and temporal scale. Spatially, the differences between Arctic and Antarctic ice extent, when combined together, are masking what your question is about, the Arctic. This is what it actually looks like when they're separated:

nsidc.org

So you're running into a problem with spatial scale as the global pooled data you posted masks the changes in the Arctic that you're interested in.

As for temporal scale, you're running into the problem that your assertion that "total global sea ice extent is above average" is based on looking at only a short period of time. Again, it depends on what exactly what timeframe is meant by the 'arctic death spiral' you're talking about, but drawing a trend from such a short period of time is potentially misleading for the same reasons that I went into in my previous post.


So in summary, the 'Arctic death spiral' (depending on what exactly is meant by that) is potentially being masked by your less than appropriate choice of spatial scale that hides what's going on in the Arctic, while the temporal scale and subset of data you've chosen may not be enough to make a meaningful inference about change over time.

Hopefully that helps.
 
2013-12-15 03:25:46 AM
I should mention,  DesertDemonWY, that we can always pick this up next thread if you don't manage to get to it this thread. I'll repost the above next time if you don't manage to get around to it, unless you object. It would be a shame to have to start again from scratch.

If we can finally give you a better understanding of this stuff, it would save us both a lot of unnecessary time and effort in the future (besides putting you in a much better position to understand the science).
 
2013-12-15 03:46:16 AM

Damnhippyfreak: I should mention,  DesertDemonWY, that we can always pick this up next thread if you don't manage to get to it this thread. I'll repost the above next time if you don't manage to get around to it, unless you object. It would be a shame to have to start again from scratch.

If we can finally give you a better understanding of this stuff, it would save us both a lot of unnecessary time and effort in the future (besides putting you in a much better position to understand the science).


Next time we "pick this up:"
even more CO2 will have entered the atmosphere
It will have done jack shiat to the global temperature
you will still be a AGW fan boy
 
2013-12-15 03:58:08 AM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: I should mention,  DesertDemonWY, that we can always pick this up next thread if you don't manage to get to it this thread. I'll repost the above next time if you don't manage to get around to it, unless you object. It would be a shame to have to start again from scratch.

If we can finally give you a better understanding of this stuff, it would save us both a lot of unnecessary time and effort in the future (besides putting you in a much better position to understand the science).

Next time we "pick this up:"
even more CO2 will have entered the atmosphere
It will have done jack shiat to the global temperature
you will still be a AGW fan boy


Now call him a poopy head and take your crap and run home.
 
2013-12-15 03:59:08 AM

Damnhippyfreak: I should mention,  DesertDemonWY, that we can always pick this up next thread if you don't manage to get to it this thread. I'll repost the above next time if you don't manage to get around to it, unless you object. It would be a shame to have to start again from scratch.

If we can finally give you a better understanding of this stuff, it would save us both a lot of unnecessary time and effort in the future (besides putting you in a much better position to understand the science).


Nah, he knows he lost on the facts, so he will keep ignoring you, and making shiat up because Rush Limbaugh said its true for Jeebus!!
 
2013-12-15 04:06:51 AM
Relevant:
i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-15 04:37:53 AM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.


Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept that past performance is not predictive of future performance.

If the temp anomaly went to -5 and stayed there for 30 years straight, the Chicken Littlers would still be talking about how warm it is going to be when this temporary drop ends and the warming begins again in earnest.

But don't worry, it's only been 198 months. I am sure that warming will begin again reaaaaaaaaal soon, right?
 
2013-12-15 06:32:01 AM

Zeppelininthesky: jjorsett: Whether or not there's global warming, we have to take hideously expensive, freedom-limiting, intrusive measures in developed nations, and keep developing nations from attaining anything approaching Western lifestyles, just in case it's true. The fact that it feeds our human need to subjugate and rule others is merely a happy byproduct.

There is really no debate among scientists.


Of course there's no debate... who wants to ruin their career?

 Global warming exists

The Earth's temperature and CO2 level has been going up and down since forever. Stability is not an option.

 and can be demonstrated.

Where's your control group?
 
2013-12-15 06:36:51 AM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[graph of temperature change since 1970.jpg]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.


No... this is how realists view climate change.

math.ucr.edu
 
2013-12-15 07:07:15 AM

DemonEater: Ah yes, the classic fallacy "it was warmer two thousand years in the past, so global warming doesn't exist".  Also the fallacy "it was warmer in this one place in the world so it was warmer everywhere".

This article, while moderately interesting from a historical point of view, has zero bearing one way or the other on whether the world is warming today, and should not be framed as such.

It's like if you looked at a small suburban rich peoples' enclave 30 years ago and used it to argue that poverty doesn't exist in the USA today.


I'm not sure that's even the fallacy that's in play here. The article tries to conflate past results with current causes by saying the mere fact that ancient temperatures were higher than modern temperatures negates the theory that modern temperature increases are man-made. I don't see anything in the article that tells us what caused higher temperatures in ancient times or what the rate of temperature change was then so that we can compare apples to apples, etc.
 
2013-12-15 07:27:31 AM
The study also showed that wind power gives children cancer, and municipal bike sharing programs were designed by Stalin
 
2013-12-15 07:40:28 AM

jjorsett: Whether or not there's global warming, we have to take hideously expensive, freedom-limiting, intrusive measures in developed nations, and keep developing nations from attaining anything approaching Western lifestyles, just in case it's true. The fact that it feeds our human need to subjugate and rule others is merely a happy byproduct.


Don't worry.  It's For The ChildrenTM
 
2013-12-15 07:54:49 AM

Damnhippyfreak: I should mention, DesertDemonWY, that we can always pick this up next thread if you don't manage to get to it this thread. I'll repost the above next time if you don't manage to get around to it, unless you object. It would be a shame to have to start again from scratch.

If we can finally give you a better understanding of this stuff, it would save us both a lot of unnecessary time and effort in the future (besides putting you in a much better position to understand the science).


*golf clap.gif*
 
2013-12-15 08:01:51 AM

DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.


Exactly. The climate has changed in the past due to natural occurrences, so current changes must be natural. It's like how if you find a dead body riddled with bullet holes, you should probably assume he died from a heart attack - people have died in the past of natural causes, after all.
 
2013-12-15 08:30:09 AM

Gunther: DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.

Exactly. The climate has changed in the past due to natural occurrences, so current changes must be natural. It's like how if you find a dead body riddled with bullet holes, you should probably assume he died from a heart attack - people have died in the past of natural causes, after all.


Or suicide
 
2013-12-15 08:57:56 AM

Gunther: DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.

Exactly. The climate has changed in the past due to natural occurrences, so current changes must be natural.


You don't do so well at this rational discussion thing.

Because we've shown that it can be a natural process, and that life can thrive in much warmer temperatures...the onus is on alarmists to prove not only that we're causing it, but also why it's so bad.

Not that they're absolutely wrong, but that what they put forth is meaningless tripe(so far).

Same way most atheists feel about religion.  Hey, it's possible, however unlikely, but what of it?

The problem with the alarmist argument is that a lot of it is based in morals of what "should not" be done(sins) or "we'll pay the price."(hellfire and brimstone).

Then they wonder why they get written off as lunatics.
 
2013-12-15 09:05:20 AM

jjorsett: What is liberalism anyway but one continuous jeremiad about the doom we face unless we enact their policies and put them in charge?


In what way does this differ from conservatism?
 
2013-12-15 09:06:36 AM
dudelzak?

/difficult spelling to find
 
2013-12-15 09:08:45 AM
DAmn!

First wrong thread post for me.

*blushes*
 
2013-12-15 09:12:30 AM

omeganuepsilon: Because we've shown that it can be a natural process,


...in which case it happens slow enough for life to adapt to it ...

 and that life can thrive in much warmer temperatures...

...when it has time to adapt to it ...

the onus is on alarmists to prove not only that we're causing it,

...because spewing huge amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere has no effect at all.

 but also why it's so bad.

...because half the human population may have to relocate because of rising sea levels. Because the change is going so fast that plants and animals will die out instead of adapt. Because unstable weather may well make outdoor food production impossible. Because we'll basically have to start everything over from scratch.

IMO we're screwed. The deniers will keep on denying until the ocean washes their homes out from under them and by then it'll be too late.

i560.photobucket.com

I am not a climatologist and I do not have time to wade through the mountains of data they have accumulated over the past century, so I have to choose; do I listen to people who've dedicated their lives to studying the climate, or do I listen to the mouthpieces of people who make insane amounts of money on fossil fuel? Choices ...choices ...
 
2013-12-15 09:19:43 AM

Damnhippyfreak: Just as being against poverty does not necessarily mean that one should give all their possessions to the poor,


Not unless one is also a Christian... who actually follows the teachings of Christ.

/not Christian
//not poor
///will still accept your money, on their behalf
 
2013-12-15 09:20:47 AM
As for your little picture meme, reality is not a democratic process.

Uncle Tractor: ...because half the human population may have to relocate because of rising sea levels. Because the change is going so fast that plants and animals will die out instead of adapt. Because unstable weather may well make outdoor food production impossible. Because we'll basically have to start everything over from scratch.


And if the planet is going to change on it's own, you're not going to stop it.  You can't legislate against that.  You can't even legislate conservation on a global scale.  China and India don't give a fark at all.

Trying to stop change on that scale is futile, especially if alarmist claims are true that a very minor shift of a degree or two will be a global disaster, the planet does that on it's own.

Working our best at adapting is our key to success.
 
2013-12-15 09:30:38 AM

Lee451: If people actually believed that global warming exists, they should do their part by killing themselves and no longer pumping out all that O2..


Time to trot out the famous "breathing is carbon neutral, asshole".
 
2013-12-15 09:46:08 AM

omeganuepsilon: Gunther: DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.

Exactly. The climate has changed in the past due to natural occurrences, so current changes must be natural.

You don't do so well at this rational discussion thing.

Because we've shown that it can be a natural process, and that life can thrive in much warmer temperatures...the onus is on alarmists to prove not only that we're causing it, but also why it's so bad.


I am unsure why you think using an analogy to point out a flaw in someone else's argument means I'm irrational if I don't also explain away the various misunderstandings you have about global warming. The two don't really seem to have anything to do with each other.

Nonetheless; I hope you enjoy the linked explanations. If you have any questions, fire away.
 
2013-12-15 10:10:12 AM

Gunther: omeganuepsilon: Gunther: DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.

Exactly. The climate has changed in the past due to natural occurrences, so current changes must be natural.

You don't do so well at this rational discussion thing.

Because we've shown that it can be a natural process, and that life can thrive in much warmer temperatures...the onus is on alarmists to prove not only that we're causing it, but also why it's so bad.

I am unsure why you think using an analogy to point out a flaw in someone else's argument means I'm irrational if I don't also explain away the various misunderstandings you have about global warming. The two don't really seem to have anything to do with each other.

Nonetheless; I hope you enjoy the linked explanations. If you have any questions, fire away.


Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing.

The dude you quoted didn't say much, he posted a picture.  You irrationally inferred that he absolutely meant X.

That is why you're a dipshiat.

Carry on.
 
2013-12-15 10:16:42 AM
I see omega is still playing the "deliberately obtuse" card, isn't that special?

Next he'll combine it with "just asking questions" to continually insist that, through inference, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is a bunch of hooey and the scientists are all wrong about what the impacts will be.

Then he'll do the same thing next thread.
 
2013-12-15 10:31:19 AM

Zafler: I see omega is still playing the "deliberately obtuse" card, isn't that special?

Next he'll combine it with "just asking questions" to continually insist that, through inference, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is a bunch of hooey and the scientists are all wrong about what the impacts will be.

Then he'll do the same thing next thread.


He's in too deep now, you can't expect him to just admit he's wrong, do you?
 
2013-12-15 10:46:54 AM

Zafler: Evidence of warmer periods from a very small region in no way negates or even challenges the global temperature record for that time period.


That will just break Briffa's heart.
 
2013-12-15 11:08:30 AM

omeganuepsilon: The dude you quoted didn't say much, he posted a picture.  You irrationally inferred that he absolutely meant X.


 I've run into him in prior threads and I'm familiar enough with his position to know why he posted that.

That said, what other reason would he have to post that pic other than to imply that GW was natural? It's not irrational to assume that that's his argument, it's the most reasonable assumption.

omeganuepsilon:That is why you're a dipshiat.

Aww, is someone getting mad they're losing an argument?
 
2013-12-15 11:16:35 AM

omeganuepsilon: As for your little picture meme, reality is not a democratic process.


Of course not, but those who study reality seem to agree. Why is that, do you think? The voice of a climatologist weighs a hell of a lot more than that of a Fox News bobblehead. The point of that picture meme is that there is no disagreement among those who's job it is to know.

Uncle Tractor: ...because half the human population may have to relocate because of rising sea levels. Because the change is going so fast that plants and animals will die out instead of adapt. Because unstable weather may well make outdoor food production impossible. Because we'll basically have to start everything over from scratch.

And if the planet is going to change on it's own, you're not going to stop it.


The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it. All that carbon we're spewing isn't going away by itself.

You can't legislate against that.  You can't even legislate conservation on a global scale.

Nope. But each and every one of us can put our fat arses on a bicycle.

China and India don't give a fark at all.

That simply isn't true. Both countries are feeling the consequences of using fossil fuels and are looking for alternatives. Besides, using those two as an excuse to not do anything at all is just weak.

Trying to stop change on that scale is futile, especially if alarmist claims are true that a very minor shift of a degree or two will be a global disaster, the planet does that on it's own.

The planet doesn't do stuff like that on its own. Not  in just a few centuries. Furthermore; a "minor" shift of one or two degrees is already certain to happen. The question is whether we can stop the shift from going even higher.

Working our best at adapting is our key to success.

What do you think is cheaper? Learning how to ride a bike or moving half the human population further inland?
 
2013-12-15 11:20:13 AM

Zafler: I see omega is still playing the "deliberately obtuse" card, isn't that special?

Next he'll combine it with "just asking questions" to continually insist that, through inference, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is a bunch of hooey and the scientists are all wrong about what the impacts will be.

Then he'll do the same thing next thread.


I smell lingering butthurt.

I'm not being obtuse, I made a specific comment about a specific quote that was irrational.  If you want to discuss a certain point I have made here, do so.  If not, and you just want to use more fallic arguments like this appeal to spite, I can always toss you on ignore with the other dipshiats that obsessively hold grudges.

Mentalpatient87: He's in too deep now


Awe, still in touch with your mom then, what a good son.
 
2013-12-15 11:24:45 AM

SVenus: Zafler: Evidence of warmer periods from a very small region in no way negates or even challenges the global temperature record for that time period.

That will just break Briffa's heart.


Try to say something remotely intelligent about dendro, specifically relating to anything Keith Briffa has published with respect to reconstructions in Siberia.

Difficulty: Can't be regurgitated blogspam and must demonstrate you actually understand what you're saying.

We'll wait.
 
2013-12-15 11:37:28 AM

Gunther: That said, what other reason would he have to post that pic other than to imply that GW was natural?


I already covered that.

/but I'M the obtuse one.
//nods nods

Uncle Tractor: The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it. All that carbon we're spewing isn't going away by itself.


Maybe we are changing it, but that isn't exclusive to the planet going through it's natural cycles.

I'm not arguing against our involvement, only that your absolute is absurd.  Of course the planet is changing on it's own.  Deserts creep forward, earthquakes shift the earth, etc.  Our environment, to include the land on which we stand, is a hostile one.

Saying that does not happen is ludicrous.

Uncle Tractor: Of course not, but those who study reality seem to agree. Why is that, do you think? The voice of a climatologist weighs a hell of a lot more than that of a Fox News bobblehead. The point of that picture meme is that there is no disagreement among those who's job it is to know.


Which is still a fallacy and a useless thing to list to back up your points.

Note:  Even amongst many of those scientists, they will talk about how they don't have proof, how their studies seem to indicate....etc.

What I find entertaining, is how even scientists refuse to commit, yet farkers treat some things as gospel put upon earth by the hand of god, resolute faith.

It entertains me to call people out on that.  That's all.

I don't care if we are or are not.  I don't care to struggle against the planetary forces involved because it's futile.

I'm in favor of green power.  Bring on the nukes.  I'm in favor of good fuel economy if it's safer for the people.  A lot of our technology isn't there yet however.  You don't throw out old technology until it is obsolete and you can afford the cost of the new gen.

I'm not in favor of myths and half truths and shaky predictions from stage magicians used to convince people.

That's another mistake a lot of alarmists make.  They see someone question them on a specific point or two and they go off screaming about blasphemy(not literally, but an apt descriptive term).  They may even be 100 % correct in their theory, but the arguments they decide to go with are often infirm, if not fabricated whole-cloth or irrelevant fallacies.

If you are correct, and I think some of you have the right concept, many argue the point like morons.
1.bp.blogspot.com

/but many are just too blind to see it
 
2013-12-15 11:37:34 AM

omeganuepsilon: I'm not being obtuse, I made a specific comment about a specific quote that was irrational.  If you want to discuss a certain point I have made here, do so.


Oh, that's easy. You claimed that:

"The dude you quoted didn't say much, he posted a picture. You irrationally inferred that he absolutely meant X (that the recent change in temperature was natural)."

The dude in question was injecting himself into a discussion of anthropogenic climate change and said this:

DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.

(insert graph of temperature over hundreds of millions of years)

Presto, implication of current temperature change being natural, and, in the context presented, subsumed by previous climate change. Rational and logical conclusion to be drawn from the prior discussion he injected himself into and within his own post. Yet you claimed Gunther was the one being irrational, deliberately ignoring the context and content of the post you were referring to. A textbook definition of deliberately obtuse.

Now, get out of here and take your fail with you, I've done the rounds with you on your obtuseness and shan't waste my time doing so today.
 
2013-12-15 11:38:28 AM

DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


You hate models and model output.

You used to post temperature graphs from satellite data, when they allowed for convenient cherry-picks like this one.

But mysteriously, around the same time the trends from the UAH satellite data stopped allowing for such cherry-picks, you started posting plots from NCEP2.

NCEP2 is a reanalysis product based on a model. It is not a direct observational data set.

Why would someone who hates models and worships "observational data" eschew the latter for the former unless he was an intellectually bankrupt hack who will cherry-pick anything to try to make a point?

The linear trend for the UAH satellite data for the past ten years is, incidentally, is positive.
 
2013-12-15 11:40:17 AM

Jon Snow: The linear trend for the UAH satellite data for the past ten years is, incidentally, is positive.


Which still leaves aside the fact that 10 years is too short a timespan to get meaningful data on climate.
 
2013-12-15 11:47:14 AM

omeganuepsilon: the planet going through it's natural cycles.


"Natural cycles" isn't an answer.

There absolutely exist climate drivers that have a cyclical or pseudo-cyclical behavior. But they have names. They have known periodicities. They have bounded magnitudes and rates of change.

"Natural cycles" without specifying what you are attempting to invoke is just "god of the gaps" argumentation.

You may or may not believe this, but there are people who study climate and drivers of climatic change as their life's work. They are well aware of things like solar variability, Milankovitch cycles, various ocean-atmosphere couplings like ENSO, PDO, etc., and other non-anthropogenic factors.

There are also responses of the climate system that are unique to different drivers. For example, enhanced greenhouse warming results in a very different change in the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere than other drivers, specifically a warming of the surface and troposphere but a cooling of the stratosphere.

It is through a combination of uncontroversial atmospheric chemistry and radiative physics, understanding the signatures of different drivers of climatic change, observations of different drivers, observations of the response of the climate system, knowledge of how the system has responded to changes over the paleoclimatic record, and physics-based modeling that we have converged on the attribution of the present warming to anthropogenic causes (superimposed on natural variability of course).

If you have any questions about attribution, or how we can rule out other drivers, please let me know.

Cheers.
 
2013-12-15 11:48:52 AM

omeganuepsilon: As for your little picture meme, reality is not a democratic process.


Which nobody is claiming is the case. This is a standard denier strawman.

The fact is that the vast majority of publishing scientist in the field have independently come to the same conclusion: that AGW is real and is highly likely to have a significant net negative impact on human society.

Your strawman claims collusion when, in reality, it is independent confirmation.

But I'm sure you'll spew this lie again next thread ... it is what deniers do.
 
2013-12-15 11:58:47 AM

Zafler: implication


You really don't understand the difference between "impy" and 'infer" do you?

There are several things that he could have meant.  That was my point.

But a specific absolute was chosen and ran with, like a typical zealot does.  That could have even been his intention, knowing gunther would take enough rope to hang yourself.

A rational person, especially an intelligent one, would have simply asked him to clarify.  They would have refused the bait and handed the rope back.

Who would jump to conclusions?  The jaded, insecure, and possibly incapable, opposition.

Zafler: Rational and logical conclusion


Any conclusion is irrational, because there were serveral possibilities.

In addition to what I listed as a possibility above, there's this.

A large part of the thread, as it often is, an alarmist points how how small scales of time are insufficient to judge( a day is too small, a month, a year, a few years, etc).  Some say we need decades, some say we need several or a hundred years.  He could have just been mocking the arbitrary argument itself and being ludicrous at suggesting eons.

So, I'll bring it back to actual discussion, what is the optimal scale to go by?  Apparently a day is right out.  A year? 5? 10?  1000?  10,000?  More?

Rhetorical of course.  A lot of arguments alarmists use against deniers easily backfire.  A lot of people from either side, at least here on fark, are poorly equipped to argue the points.  As so many claim, if those scientists are so reliable, why not let them handle it?  Paranoia, belief, fear.  That is why the argument comes off as zealotic.

Either side, here on fark, amounts to a crusade.  General Jim as as adamant in a global warming thread as he is about insisting the Turin Shroud is real.

The whole presence of the topic here on fark is a sad joke.  However, there are more alarmists using bad arguments to fark with.  It's too easy to take the side of the majority, pick on the little guy, drown him out with quantity.  However, picking apart your "team's" posts, that's more of a challenge.  A person has to wade into the thick of it.

It's entertaining.
 
2013-12-15 12:03:46 PM

Jon Snow: Try to say something remotely intelligent about dendro


Do you mean that only Briffa and other dendro types can purposefully exclude trees from a study like Briffa does here?

"Finally a site was found, but the trees in this nearby forest were not considered 
ideal for dendroclimatic analysis. This stand was located on the sandy shore of river, where 
the depth of permafrost is more than 2 m. In such conditions the trees developed a deep root 
system. Where the sand bank of the river had migrated away, a thick layer of moss developed, 
and the permafrost was much closer to the surface (up to 20-30 cm) and the roots of trees 
could be observed within the frozen ground. The trees at this location have reduced growth 
and appear to be dying. Despite this, a set of modern samples from 18 trees was taken from 
this site "Khad.raw" (Schweingruber and Briffa 1996). However, we consider that the 
chronology produced from this site is not suitable for dendroclimatic analysis
. "
from  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/papers/briffa2013qsr/SM2_YamalTreesV3.pd f


No, I'm afraid I can't tell you anything on the subject that you can't already tell us.

 /// and now for a polar bear holding his breath
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-15 12:12:16 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Any graph where the timescale is less than a century or two is talking about weather, not climate.


"Climate" is generally defined as averaged weather over periods of 30 years or longer. There are good statistical reasons for this with regard to separating signal from noise in indices like globally-averaged surface temperature in the absence of boat loads of additional information. It's not an absolute rule- if you have more information about drivers of temp, you can detect signals on shorter timescales, and for other variables it may take much longer due to confounding factors.

Generally, when you look at graphs, you want to look at periods that are relevant to the process you're interested in. If you're interested in the impact of the diurnal cycle on surface temperature in a given locality, looking at 100 million years of global data with a resolution of a couple million years isn't going to tell you anything relevant.

In general (though there are exceptions), looking at the impact of radiative forcing on climatic properties like globally-averaged surface temperature and precipitation would lead you to look at multidecadal timescales to centennial timescales.
 
2013-12-15 12:17:50 PM

SVenus: Do you mean that only Briffa and other dendro types can purposefully exclude trees from a study like Briffa does here?


No, I don't mean that at all. What you just said and quoted is a total non sequitur.

What point do you think you're making?

You say nothing about this subject whatsoever apart from what you read on denialist blogs. You don't make meaningful statements, you just regurgitate things other people write and quote.

Tell us what Keith Briffa has to do with whether or not the paper TFA refers to says anything about the reality or attribution to human cause of global warming. Or what it says about dendro in general. Anything.

Say something in your own words. Make an explicit argument. Act like an adult. Stop parroting things you don't understand.
 
2013-12-15 12:32:30 PM
it's hilarious that we, as a society, are actually debating about whether or not counter-terraforming our planet is a good idea or not.
 
2013-12-15 12:34:58 PM

DesertDemonWY: can you show us where on this graph teh arctic death spriral?


You mean this death spiral?

i.imgur.com

DesertDemonWY: can you explain why, from the same graph, total global sea ice extent is above average?


Because the Arctic ice is in its recovery phase and Antarctic ice is just starting its seasonal melt.

But what is the point of conflating Arctic vs. global sea ice?

Do you actually think that Antarctic sea ice has the same significance for the climate system, regional environment, and geopolitics that Arctic sea ice does? If so, we can discuss why that's not the case. If not, you're engaging in a red herring fallacy.
 
2013-12-15 01:05:07 PM

omeganuepsilon: Uncle Tractor: The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it. All that carbon we're spewing isn't going away by itself.

Maybe we are changing it, but that isn't exclusive to the planet going through it's natural cycles.


Natural cycles don't happen in a century. Natural cycles are irrelevant on this scale.

And you know it.

I'm not arguing against our involvement, only that your absolute is absurd.  Of course the planet is changing on it's own.  Deserts creep forward, earthquakes shift the earth, etc.  Our environment, to include the land on which we stand, is a hostile one.

Now you're being pedantic.

Saying that does not happen is ludicrous.

...And now you're playing with straw-men.

Note:  Even amongst many of those scientists, they will talk about how they don't have proof, how their studies seem to indicate....etc.

Wow, you've just invalidated all of science. Good jerb.

What I find entertaining, is how even scientists refuse to commit, yet farkers treat some things as gospel put upon earth by the hand of god, resolute faith.

See, some of us farkers know that we can't keep on shiatting our nest without paying the price later on. That's why both China and India are trying to clean up their acts. It'll probably take a few generations, but at least they're not just sitting on their arses saying "there's not point unless every last person on the planet does the same."

It entertains me to call people out on that.  That's all.

Meanwhile, your posts in this thread aren't much more than a catalogue of denier tactics. Have fun listening to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather listen to what actual climatologists have to say on the matter.
 
2013-12-15 01:24:28 PM

omeganuepsilon: I smell lingering butthurt.


omeganuepsilon: Awe, still in touch with your mom then, what a good son.


If you meet an asshole in the morning, he could be a garden variety asshole, likely is for most people.  If you meet assholes all day long, it's a distinct possibility that in all reality, you're the only asshole, the common denominator.

As far as this thread goes, you're the only real asshole I've seen.
 
2013-12-15 01:24:54 PM

omeganuepsilon: A large part of the thread, as it often is, an alarmist points how how small scales of time are insufficient to judge( a day is too small, a month, a year, a few years, etc).  Some say we need decades, some say we need several or a hundred years.  He could have just been mocking the arbitrary argument itself and being ludicrous at suggesting eons.

So, I'll bring it back to actual discussion, what is the optimal scale to go by?  Apparently a day is right out.  A year? 5? 10?  1000?  10,000?  More?

Rhetorical of course.


Why is that rhetorical? It's a legitimate question. For a serious response, see my response here:

http://www.fark.com/comments/8060183/88184111#c88184111

A lot of arguments alarmists use against deniers easily backfire.  A lot of people from either side, at least here on fark, are poorly equipped to argue the points.  As so many claim, if those scientists are so reliable, why not let them handle it?  Paranoia, belief, fear.  That is why the argument comes off as zealotic.

Either side, here on fark, amounts to a crusade.


"Both sides are bad, so..."  ?

Are there no people who represent the mainstream scientific perspective that are not, in your opinion, "zealots" or "crusaders" or "alarmists"?

The whole presence of the topic here on fark is a sad joke.  However, there are more alarmists using bad arguments to fark with.  It's too easy to take the side of the majority, pick on the little guy, drown him out with quantity.  However, picking apart your "team's" posts, that's more of a challenge.  A person has to wade into the thick of it.

So is that you are doing? "Picking apart your 'team's posts"? Because to be perfectly honest, it doesn't sound at all like you're offering a scientifically-based pushback to what you think is over-reach by "alarmists" or whatever. Your comments are pretty indistinguishable from run of the mill contrarian talking points.

It's entertaining.

So are you just trolling for fun, or do you actually have a desire to understand the issue? If the latter, please let me know if there's anything specific you'd like to discuss.

Cheers.
 
2013-12-15 01:34:47 PM

DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.


Dominated by changes in radiative forcing, principally (but not exclusively) long-lived greenhouse gases such as CO2?

i.imgur.com

Agreed!
 
2013-12-15 02:06:34 PM
SevenizGud: But don't worry, it's only been 198 months. I am sure that warming will begin again reaaaaaaaaal soon, right?

And 5 of those were at or amongst the warmest years on record.  You remember back in '94 when you people were saying it was just an anomaly?  Well, by your own proof, you're suggesting that that warming is the new normal, and not merely cyclical.

So congratulations.  Your logic is making the case in favour of AGW, not against it.
 
2013-12-15 02:23:17 PM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: I should mention,  DesertDemonWY, that we can always pick this up next thread if you don't manage to get to it this thread. I'll repost the above next time if you don't manage to get around to it, unless you object. It would be a shame to have to start again from scratch.

If we can finally give you a better understanding of this stuff, it would save us both a lot of unnecessary time and effort in the future (besides putting you in a much better position to understand the science).

Next time we "pick this up:"
even more CO2 will have entered the atmosphere
It will have done jack shiat to the global temperature
you will still be a AGW fan boy



Your perception of "have done jack shiat to the global temperature" is based upon the problems that I have attempted to highlight above. We can get into the evidence a bit more, but it would greatly help if you would get this basic idea of scale under your belt. This problem is severely hampering your ability to properly read and interpret graphs and data and you need to understand it before being able to tackle anything more complex than the very simple and superficial interpretation of linear trends we've been restricted to so far.

Hopefully you'll be more open to it next time. Maybe as a bit of a kick in the pants, ask yourself why you ignored the argumentation I presented? What does this say about how rationally you're approaching this topic? Can you do better?
 
2013-12-15 02:25:33 PM

Uncle Tractor: omeganuepsilon: Uncle Tractor: The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it. All that carbon we're spewing isn't going away by itself.

Maybe we are changing it, but that isn't exclusive to the planet going through it's natural cycles.

Natural cycles don't happen in a century. Natural cycles are irrelevant on this scale.


The whole cycle, no.  But you don't just look at a small timeframe and say "nothing's happening".  Same flaw your fellow alarmist believers call out in the deniers.  Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.

But backpedal on your asinine comments some more, this is entertaining.  You're on your way setting a world record for putting your foot in your mouth.

Uncle Tractor: omeganuepsilon:Saying that does not happen is ludicrous.

...And now you're playing with straw-men.


Do you know what a straw man even is?  It is not directly quoting you, like this.

Uncle Tractor: The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it.


Maybe I am being pedantic, but with that, I am technically correct, and as noted above, that's the best kind of correct.

Uncle Tractor: Note:  Even amongst many of those scientists, they will talk about how they don't have proof, how their studies seem to indicate....etc.

Wow, you've just invalidated all of science. Good jerb.


Another absolute.  You may just be entirely incapable of learning.

I'm not invalidating anything but claims some of some of those scientist's more zealotic followers.

I love science.  It works(biatches).  Wanna be scientists who operate more on belief than rational use of credible information, less so.

fatassbastard: omeganuepsilon: I smell lingering butthurt.

omeganuepsilon: Awe, still in touch with your mom then, what a good son.

If you meet an asshole in the morning, he could be a garden variety asshole, likely is for most people.  If you meet assholes all day long, it's a distinct possibility that in all reality, you're the only asshole, the common denominator.


How true.  Much like a real scientist, you do leave room for error.  Things like "could" and "possibility" and "if".
How very astute of you to take my own post and use it perfectly in a thread that draws much less intelligent people like flies to horse-shiat.

Congratulations, you're well on your way to being self aware.

Thing is, even an possible asshole, me for example, isn't wrong just on the grounds that they're an asshole.  If Hitler said 1+1 = 2, he would still be technically correct.  Need I re-type about that again?

Jon Snow: Are there no people who represent the mainstream scientific perspective that are not, in your opinion, "zealots" or "crusaders" or "alarmists"?


Are there any that disagree with you, even in part, that are not "deniers"?

Jon Snow: Your comments are pretty indistinguishable from run of the mill contrarian talking points.


You just summed up 102% of fark global warming posts from either side, and probably 65% of fark in general.

Welcome to Fark!  Good to see you're getting to know the place.

Jon Snow: So are you just trolling for fun, or do you actually have a desire to understand the issue?


The issue?  The issue is that it's a highly politicized topic.  On either side you have people taking a certain stance because they have an agenda, because it falls in line with their other political beliefs.

I'm not too curious, so I am not really in need of further information.  I say "further" because I have read extensively on the topic and hold an informed opinion.  Admittedly, with some apathy, I say, why bother?  Some of man's greatest feats and advancements come when he's under pressure.  Either we adapt and overcome, or we don't.

Either way, from a moral standpoint, I don't think we deserve to rule the planet.  We are a horrible species in a hundred ways.  Best we can do is try to stop from killing each other, abusing each other, oppress each other, and stopping those that do choose to do such things.  If we do manage to kill each other by intent or accident, the planet will continue without us.  It does not need saving.
 
2013-12-15 02:40:54 PM

omeganuepsilon: Need I re-type about that again?


Nope, I just thought it was hilarious that you focus on how there's no evidence to support a deity in the other thread, then in this thread you ignore the evidence presented to you, present no evidence to support your contention, and call people names,

Have fun, buddy.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:07 PM

fatassbastard: omeganuepsilon: Need I re-type about that again?

Nope, I just thought it was hilarious that you focus on how there's no evidence to support a deity in the other thread, then in this thread you ignore the evidence presented to you, present no evidence to support your contention, and call people names,

Have fun, buddy.


Ignoring evidence?

When I'm calling someone out for an asinine absolute statement and directly quoting it?

Oh, right, I'm a "denier".  Gotcha.

I love how people in these threads go out of their way to imagine me into a particular argument that they're set on arguing against, instead of actually reading and comprehending the written word.

It confirms my notion that humans are not worth saving as a species, some more not worth it than others obviously, but still.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:18 PM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept that past performance is not predictive of future performance.


Perhaps it would be better to say that 'past performance is not necessarily predictive of future performance'. Otherwise, your statement as it stands would preclude any prediction of any phenomenon. What you're saying would argue equally against anything from the existence of gravity, to evolution, to whether the sun will come up tomorrow. What you're arguing is a bit meaningless.

That aside, the above modified statement is the reason why attribution of climate change is based upon more than simplistically looking at trends and instead based on understanding of the underlying processes and mechanisms. All this talk about linear trends is a bit of a side-show to the bulk of the meaningful science. Unfortunately, with DesertDemonWY (and with you, unless you've started to increase your understanding), we're still talking about these basic ideas of scale.


SevenizGud: If the temp anomaly went to -5 and stayed there for 30 years straight, the Chicken Littlers would still be talking about how warm it is going to be when this temporary drop ends and the warming begins again in earnest.


Besides violating your own caution against predicting future performance, coming up with imaginary  responses to imaginary scenarios isn't going to tell you much beyond your own imagination. However, I do suggest if you're tiring of hyperbole in the popular media, stick as close as you can to the scientific literature.


SevenizGud: But don't worry, it's only been 198 months. I am sure that warming will begin again reaaaaaaaaal soon, right?


As always, you're more than welcome to engage with any of the counter-arguments people like Jon Snow and myself (and others) have repeatedly provided to you in the past. What you should be asking yourself is the deeper question about why you've been hiding from them again and again and what your behavior tells you about how rationally you're approaching this topic.
 
2013-12-15 02:54:43 PM

DrPainMD: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[graph of temperature change since 1970.jpg]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

No... this is how realists view climate change.

[math.ucr.edu image 650x396]



Sure, if the 'real' you're interested in is changes on the order of millions of years. However, in the context of climate change (and therefore changes of tens to hundreds of years), looking at such a long period of time, while useful in terms of broad context, can be misleading.  Such a long scale can inform us, but extreme caution is warranted if you're going to make inferences from it - one could mistakenly conclude that ENSO doesn't exist if you exclusively used your graph, for example.
 
2013-12-15 02:57:05 PM

omeganuepsilon: I'm not too curious, so I am not really in need of further information.  I say "further" because I have read extensively on the topic and hold an informed opinion


Hey, that's great! It's always a joy to talk to Farkers who have read extensively on the issue and hold informed opinions. They're a rare breed, especially relative to people suffering from D-K who are incapable of understanding how vast the gulf between knowledge and trivia is on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on the validity of continuing to stick with an ECS/Charney sensitivity paradigm vs. alternatives like "dynamical" sensitivity (which have a less abstract basis and focus on changes in the general circulation, like the Hadley circulation and mid-latitude jets)?

What are your thoughts on using prescribed SSTs in the Nino region while letting the rest of the world evolve freely to assess the influence of ENSO/PDO on decadal surface temperature tends?

Do you think that it's funny how much the supposed Miocene "paradox" dominated "skeptical" perspectives until even relatively recently, and how quiet they've been on recent geochemical and modeling evidence reconciling expectations of radiative forcing and temp?

But I'm being rude! You probably have different interests than me. What are some issues or topics that your extensive reading have informed your opinion on that are interesting to you?
 
2013-12-15 03:01:07 PM

omeganuepsilon: Uncle Tractor: The whole cycle, no.  But you don't just look at a small timeframe and say "nothing's happening".  Same flaw your fellow alarmist believers call out in the deniers.  Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.


The natural cycles are too slow to be relevant here. Do try to keep up.

But backpedal on your asinine comments some more, this is entertaining.  You're on your way setting a world record for putting your foot in your mouth.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-15 03:06:06 PM

SVenus: Jon Snow: Try to say something remotely intelligent about dendro

Do you mean that only Briffa and other dendro types can purposefully exclude trees from a study like Briffa does here?

"Finally a site was found, but the trees in this nearby forest were not considered
ideal for dendroclimatic analysis. This stand was located on the sandy shore of river, where
the depth of permafrost is more than 2 m. In such conditions the trees developed a deep root
system. Where the sand bank of the river had migrated away, a thick layer of moss developed,
and the permafrost was much closer to the surface (up to 20-30 cm) and the roots of trees
could be observed within the frozen ground. The trees at this location have reduced growth
and appear to be dying. Despite this, a set of modern samples from 18 trees was taken from
this site "Khad.raw" (Schweingruber and Briffa 1996). However, we consider that the
chronology produced from this site is not suitable for dendroclimatic analysis. "
from  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/papers/briffa2013qsr/SM2_YamalTreesV3.pd f

No, I'm afraid I can't tell you anything on the subject that you can't already tell us.

 /// and now for a polar bear holding his breath
[i.imgur.com image 850x565]



But was that study double blind or not? Were the trees aware of what Briffa wanted?

/just ribbing you
//carry on
 
2013-12-15 03:38:16 PM

Jon Snow: recent geochemical and modeling evidence reconciling expectations of radiative forcing and temp?


I for one would be interested in this. Is it a specific paper?
 
2013-12-15 03:44:58 PM

omeganuepsilon: Are there any that disagree with you, even in part, that are not "deniers"?


On Fark? I have encountered plenty of people who started off in disagreement, walked through evidence with me, and updated their views in light of the evidence. These are not "deniers".

Are you asking if there are any people that have both seen and yet continue to reject the evidence for attribution who are not "deniers"? Impossible expectations are a hallmark of denialism, so I don't know how one could do the former without falling into the category of the latter unless we redefine words to mean things they currently do not.

Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.

Which "cycles"? Be explicit. What are their names? What are their periodicities? What are the sign, magnitude, and rate of forcing by which they are impacting the global energy balance?

The issue?  The issue is that it's a highly politicized topic.  On either side you have people taking a certain stance because they have an agenda, because it falls in line with their other political beliefs.

That's not actually true in the scientific community. While liberals/democrats are of course disproportionately represented in the physical sciences relative to the population of the US, even still the scientific consensus is near unanimous. If scientists were divided on this issue along even representatively partisan/ideological lines, the consensus would be weaker than the ~97% of publishing relevant experts.

Either we adapt and overcome, or we don't.

Sure. That's tautologically true. It's also meaningless in any context relevant to either the science or potential policy responses.

Either way, from a moral standpoint, I don't think we deserve to rule the planet.  We are a horrible species in a hundred ways.  Best we can do is try to stop from killing each other, abusing each other, oppress each other, and stopping those that do choose to do such things.  If we do manage to kill each other by intent or accident, the planet will continue without us.  It does not need saving.

The planet might not "need saving", but that is irrelevant. We are currently altering the climate in a geologically unprecedented fashion. Because we are driving it, it is in our power to pursue this change unchecked, to slow, or even to stabilize it. This spectrum of trajectories leads to a spectrum of outcomes. Changes in sea level (and thus exposure to storm surge, uninhability of nearshore property, etc.), extremes in heat and heavy precipitation events, conditions suitable for agricultural productivity, some types of disease vectors, viable habitat for many species, phenology based on temperature rather than light, etc. will all change. And in turn humans, as "horrible" as you believe they are, as prone to violence as you believe they are, will have to live with the consequences.

We have the technology to ensure that the amount of future change is relatively small. We have the technological and political inertia to ensure that the amount of future change is relatively large if nothing is intentionally done to avoid it.

If your primary concern is human strife irrespective of changing climate, then you might consider climate change as a threat multiplier rather than as a dichotomous, competing issue to be concerned about.
 
2013-12-15 03:51:22 PM

Jon Snow: So what are your thoughts on this stuff which I have a suspicion that you don't know about...


It know's how to be condescending, how cute!

omeganuepsilon: Admittedly, with some apathy, I say, why bother?  Some of man's greatest feats and advancements come when he's under pressure.  Either we adapt and overcome, or we don't.

Either way, from a moral standpoint, I don't think we deserve to rule the planet.  We are a horrible species in a hundred ways.  Best we can do is try to stop from killing each other, abusing each other, oppress each other, and stopping those that do choose to do such things.  If we do manage to kill each other by intent or accident, the planet will continue without us.  It does not need saving.


I do find it entertaining.  Half of this thread needs their hands held and walked through basic logic and language, but I'm a bad guy because I have an opinion about AGW and what we should/shouldn't do(a social subject) with out having a climatology degree.

I suppose I'll just have to go back to school to study everything so I know it all and can prove it on fark.

Uncle Tractor:

The natural cycles are too slow to be relevant here.

Now you're catching on.  It only took what, 4 posts to get you to make a rational statement that was not at least partly but outright false.  You've shifted from ignorant absolutes to something a bit more subjective.  Good for you, you get a gold star for today.  Now after snack time and your nap, you can start art class.  Today you get to glue macaroni to paper.
 
2013-12-15 03:53:54 PM

omeganuepsilon: Now you're catching on.  It only took what, 4 posts to get you to make a rational statement that was not at least partly but outright false.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-15 04:06:30 PM

omeganuepsilon: It know's how to be condescending, how cute!

 If it wasn't for the apostrophe, I think that sentence could have almost reached self-awareness.
 
2013-12-15 04:11:55 PM
Global warming might be fake, so lets not use energy systems that are more than likely better!

Reminded of this every-time I hear "E-cigs might be dangerous! We should ban them, because they might lead to the use of deadly tobacco cigarettes!"

Remember kids, green energy might lead to the use of hydrocarbons!
 
2013-12-15 04:12:06 PM

omeganuepsilon: It know's how to be condescending, how cute!


So now it's condescending to take someone's assertions at face value?

Look, I didn't ask you to derive the saturated adiabatic lapse rate, or give your thoughts on spatially-varying calibration techniques for geochemical proxies.

I asked your opinion about some pretty general questions about concrete examples in a field that you have read extensively about and have an informed opinion on.

If instead I assumed that you were talking out of your ass about the bolded part of above, and called you a liar and mocked you for your ignorance, that may indeed have been condescension (though whether deserved or not would be debatable).

Instead I took your claim at face value, treated you as I would anyone with such familiarity with the topic, and asked your opinion about questions that are of interest to me. And also asked what interested you.

So fuc|< me for that, right?

And recall, I made several genuine offers to you for constructive dialog and willingness to answer questions about a field that most people (recognizing their own ignorance) regard as a bit esoteric. It was your response (claiming lack of interest due to your extensive reading) to this offer from me that precipitated this whole line of commenting.

If you're both not interested in learning about the topic AND making exaggerated claims of knowledge about the topic, it's hard to understand why anyone should assume you're here to talk in good faith.
 
2013-12-15 04:22:19 PM

Jon Snow: Are you asking if there are any people that have both seen and yet continue to reject the evidence for attribution who are not "deniers"? Impossible


So, you imagine that I am rejecting the evidence?

Jon Snow: Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.

Which "cycles"? Be explicit. What are their names? What are their periodicities? What are the sign, magnitude, and rate of forcing by which they are impacting the global energy balance?


I even admitted that it was a pedantic argument and you still drone on about this crap. I bet you're just innocently asking questions, right?  Does that accusation sound familiar to anyone here?

Jon Snow: The issue?  The issue is that it's a highly politicized topic.  On either side you have people taking a certain stance because they have an agenda, because it falls in line with their other political beliefs.

That's not actually true in the scientific community.


You know, we're here on fark though.  I was talking about fark, I specifically noted it several times.

Jon Snow: And in turn humans, as "horrible" as you believe they are, as prone to violence as you believe they are, will have to live with the consequences.


And now return to something that I was actually talking about.  Difficult for you guys to respond to what's actually there, but at least you came around.

Yes, people will have to live with it.  A lot of people live with some pretty miserable shiat right now.

I find the claim of "save the humanity of the future" to be falsely bleeding heart and quite hypocritical.

Jon Snow: If your primary concern


I have apathy in that regard. As stated, I don't have a concern for our species at large.  Anything above trying to keep us from killing each other as well as the other things I listed, is a bit of wasted effort, indeed, can even be oppressive.

For example.  I live in an area that only has dirty(coal) power.  Raising taxes on that company is not a disincentive, it just gets passed onto the consumer in the form of higher costs.  Nothing is reduced, the cry for positive change has caused strife.

To really get a leg up on the issue, you(the government) are going to have to forcefully step in and develop.  Providing incentives, disincentives, taxes and tax write-offs, subsidizing, etc, jsut isn't a big enough motivator for companies to move in.  Can't force them to, that would be unethical(HA!).

Now, when they do move in, how do they do so.  do they buy out landowners by their own free will?  The government?
(again, HA!)

Just being on the "right" side of the issue doesn't make anyone a better person.  However you slice it some bad things are going to need to be done(and some already are, to near zero effect aside from hampering the economy).

I say hang it all, and suggest people enjoy themselves the best they can.  When bad things come down the pipe through nature, let the chips fall where they may.

As I said above.  I'm all for being as green as possible, but much of that is out of reach for much of america, much less on a global scale.  The technology is not as far along as a lot of you would like to think, at least not at a price point that's feasible on scale.
 
2013-12-15 04:35:11 PM

Jon Snow: exaggerated claims


Citation needed.  Wait, I think i know what you're referring to:

"I say "further" because I have read extensively on the topic and hold an informed opinion. "

That somewhat subjective bit?  How can anything that vague be exaggerated, especially in light of the opinion boiling down to "not a fark was given, even if we are the reason for it"?

As to the rest of your post, the sarcasm is evident.

Jon Snow: So fuc|< me for that, right?


Partially correct.  I would say it more like, "fark off and die, you disingenuous and pretentious asshole." But more or less, yeah.
 
2013-12-15 04:40:58 PM

omeganuepsilon: I would say it more like, "fark off and die, you disingenuous and pretentious asshole." But more or less, yeah.


Thanks for the unambiguous confirmation that you're not worth trying to discuss things with in good faith.
 
2013-12-15 04:46:33 PM

Jon Snow: omeganuepsilon: I would say it more like, "fark off and die, you disingenuous and pretentious asshole." But more or less, yeah.

Thanks for the unambiguous confirmation that you're not worth trying to discuss things with in good faith.


If you'd have stuck to only what I actually posted, I wouldn't have had to resort to that.  You being an unmitigated ass kind of pushed me into it.

bloomradio.com
 
2013-12-15 04:52:35 PM
You shouldn't have worn that dress, Jon Snow.
 
2013-12-15 04:53:48 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Jon Snow: recent geochemical and modeling evidence reconciling expectations of radiative forcing and temp?

I for one would be interested in this. Is it a specific paper?


No, a couple from a couple different directions. If I don't get the refs to you this thread, shoot me an email or get me in the next thread.
 
2013-12-15 04:54:42 PM

fatassbastard: You shouldn't have worn that dress, Jon Snow.


BUT MOM HE STARTED IT BY QUOTING ME

/blame the victim indeed
 
2013-12-15 05:58:18 PM

Jon Snow: Try to say something remotely intelligent about dendro, specifically relating to anything Keith Briffa has published with respect to reconstructions in Siberia.


The Briffa Method:


imageshack.us
 
2013-12-15 05:58:20 PM
The thread might be basically over now, but I'd just like to comment that  omeganuepsilon hasn't actually said anything about climate change since his first few comments, and he is just talking pendantics and  ad hominem to avoid discussing the topic at hand, seeing as how all of his early points were soundly crushed.

That is all.
 
2013-12-15 05:59:47 PM
In this thread: omega melts down, blames everyone else, implies that he is just trolling. But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.
 
2013-12-15 06:01:10 PM
Hide the decline.
 
2013-12-15 07:14:53 PM

New Farkin User Name: hasn't actually said anything about climate change since his first few comments, and he is just talking pendantics and  ad hominem  to avoid discussing the topic at hand


Because that's a requirement? I'm compelled to do so?

Also, I did discuss it.  Several times I admited that it very may well be true and caused by humans.(I just love that I say it that way bugs you guys so much)

However, I simply don't care.  Guess I'm just an evil blasphemer, a dirty sinner, and a denier.

Zafler: melts down


Huh?  I've had a jovial time on a lazy cold Sunday afternoon.  Didn't you?

Zafler: But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.


Especially not stalkers with grudges, god scientists forbid!
Fark, it's serious business.  Heads of state get their info right here as well as a majority of voters.  We are having world changing discussions right now.
 
2013-12-15 07:15:08 PM

SevenizGud: The Briffa Method:


That cartoon is funny. It's basically mocking/strawmanning the legitimate processes by which people look at trends in noisy data sets made up of discontinuous records. In other words, it could just as easily be applied to visualizations of the denialist-favored UAH satellite record as it can proxy reconstructions.

In any event, it hardly applies to Keith Briffa's publications, let alone have anything to do with specific chronologies in Siberia.

And of course, the "difficulty" part of my comment was:

Jon Snow: Difficulty: Can't be regurgitated blogspam and must demonstrate you actually understand what you're saying.

So, you know, troll harder.
 
2013-12-15 08:03:16 PM

DrPainMD: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[graph of temperature change since 1970.jpg]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

No... this is how realists view climate change.

[math.ucr.edu image 650x396]


That's cute. Do you really think humanity could have lived on the planet for the entirety of the Earth's lifespan? Do you think there have never been mass extinctions related to geologically sudden climate change?
 
2013-12-15 09:54:37 PM

Zeppelininthesky: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp


And you can go back another couple hundred years to see it was right about where it is now back then but let's just concentrate on being arrogant to think man controls everything.

Its actually easier and safer to believe its all our fault and we can fix everything, if it were let out that we have no control over anything then those in charge lose their power.
 
2013-12-15 10:20:03 PM

steamingpile: Zeppelininthesky: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

And you can go back another couple hundred years to see it was right about where it is now back then but let's just concentrate on being arrogant to think man controls everything.

Its actually easier and safer to believe its all our fault and we can fix everything, if it were let out that we have no control over anything then those in charge lose their power.


You're knocking down a straw-man. You'll be hard pressed to find people who think that "man controls everything" and that "we can fix everything", and you certainly won't find such in the scientific literature or actual policy being proposed and implemented. Similarily, "we have no control over anything" is erring on the opposite, but equally extreme side.

I suggest instead of black-or-white extremes of total or no control, we instead recognize something in the middle. I also suggest that you taking a closer look at the actual science or policy would help in this - the real world tends not to be conducive to the sort of absolutes you're putting forward here.
 
2013-12-15 11:52:30 PM

New Farkin User Name: The thread might be basically over now, but I'd just like to comment that  omeganuepsilon hasn't actually said anything about climate change since his first few comments, and he is just talking pendantics and  ad hominem to avoid discussing the topic at hand, seeing as how all of his early points were soundly crushed.

That is all.


Zafler: In this thread: omega melts down, blames everyone else, implies that he is just trolling. But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.


Jon Snow's world class beat down and omega's hissy fit were both great.  The best part was watching omega go from arguing both sides of the debate should be more rational, argue using evidence and stuff like that directly to name calling and total refusal to discuss the topic like an adult.  I wish I had made popcorn before entering the thread.

omeganuepsilon: However, I simply don't care.


Let's see you posted 16 times in the thread, you frequently visit climate change threads, you claim to have read "extensively" on the topic and claim to hold "an informed opinion" and you used the world "alarmist" roughly 10 times.  Yeah, I'm not buying it.  Here's what I am buying: you attempted to discuss the topic at first, but then immediately moved to name calling when pressed.  Then when Jon Snow made it blindingly obvious you don't have a farking clue what you're talking about then, and only then, did you retreat to "not caring".
 
2013-12-16 03:57:39 AM

omeganuepsilon: But a specific absolute was chosen and ran with, like a typical zealot does.  That could have even been his intention, knowing gunther would take enough rope to hang yourself...A rational person, especially an intelligent one, would have simply asked him to clarify.  They would have refused the bait and handed the rope back.


So he had a brilliant ploy to make me look like an idiot by... correctly interpreting his post.

I'm not sure you've thought this through, dude.
 
2013-12-16 05:12:13 AM

Gunther: omeganuepsilon: But a specific absolute was chosen and ran with, like a typical zealot does.  That could have even been his intention, knowing gunther would take enough rope to hang yourself...A rational person, especially an intelligent one, would have simply asked him to clarify.  They would have refused the bait and handed the rope back.

So he had a brilliant ploy to make me look like an idiot by... correctly interpreting his post.

I'm not sure you've thought this through, dude.


So you're saying:
imagemacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-16 08:56:32 AM

Zafler: In this thread: omega melts down, blames everyone else, implies that he is just trolling. But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.


FARK: Not Trolls, but #1 With Trolls!
 
Displayed 145 of 145 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report