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 34
    More: Interesting, global warming, Middle Ages, Earth, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Reading University, Georgia Institute of Technology, warm period  
•       •       •

4680 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»



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

2013-12-14 08:24:01 PM  
4 votes:
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 08:15:46 PM  
3 votes:

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
2013-12-15 06:36:51 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:25:46 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:53:50 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-12-14 11:35:29 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:03:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:08:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:38:44 PM  
2 votes:
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
2013-12-15 11:52:30 PM  
1 votes:

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".
2013-12-15 05:58:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:53:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:40:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:12:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:57:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:47:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:12:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:40:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:46:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:42:04 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-12-14 10:13:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:02:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:54:41 PM  
1 votes:
Ah man, can we please keep this shiat where it belongs: on the Politics Tab?
2013-12-14 09:20:51 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:17:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:22:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:19:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:14:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:07:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:06:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:00:11 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:37:19 PM  
1 votes:
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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