Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

4682 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Dec 2013 at 7:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report