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.

(io9)   Homo Sapiens, 195,000 BC-2100 AD. RIP   (io9.com) divider line 116
    More: Scary, University of New South Wales, cloud cover  
•       •       •

8835 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2014 at 11:33 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-02 01:04:05 PM

Stone Meadow: Baelz: This is the prediction for the sun's activity for the next 80 years. Welcome to your next mini-ice age people.

[nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com image 572x388]

Gotta linkable webpage for that image?


Sure knock yourself out, lots of info here about the sun's activity and predictions.

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/
 
2014-01-02 01:37:09 PM

Baelz: Stone Meadow: Baelz: This is the prediction for the sun's activity for the next 80 years. Welcome to your next mini-ice age people.

[nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com image 572x388]

Gotta linkable webpage for that image?

Sure knock yourself out, lots of info here about the sun's activity and predictions.

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/


Thanks...I think. ;^)

/getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks
 
2014-01-02 01:48:20 PM

Baelz: That pesky ball of fire in the sky going into another Maunder Minimum for this cycle and predicted to continue into the next cycle will have everyone wishing these predictions were true. Sadly we're in for some nasty cooling over the next 10-15 years globally. I for one don't welcome the coming famine, but it will be nice to laugh at all these morons while I eat my ration of rice.


The impact of entering a new Maunder-like minimum will be swamped by the increase in radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic emissions, which are an order of magnitude greater:

i.imgur.com

This is something that has been studied by several different groups over the last few years, all reaching similar conclusions (Lockwood, 2010;Feulner and Rahmstorf, 2010; Meehl et al., 2013; Anet et al., 2013).

Baelz: Sure knock yourself out, lots of info here about the sun's activity and predictions.

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/


A wordpress blog reprinting crap from Tony Watts and Steve Goddard? Gee, hard to argue with that!

References:

Anet, J. G. et al. (2013), Impact of a potential 21st century "grand solar minimum" on surface temperatures and stratospheric ozone, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/grl.50806.

Feulner, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2010), On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 5 PP., doi:201010.1029/2010GL042710.

Lockwood, M. (2010), Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum, Proc. R. Soc. A, 466(2114), 303-329, doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0519.

Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, and D. R. Marsh (2013), Could a future "Grand Solar Minimum" like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?, Geophysical Research Letters, 40(9), 1789-1793, doi:10.1002/grl.50361.
 
2014-01-02 02:07:04 PM

DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?


i.imgur.com

This is what it looks like when you don't cherry pick a decade. The instrumental record is well within the range necessary to get us to 4°C above preindustrial.
 
2014-01-02 02:07:44 PM

Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks


Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?
 
2014-01-02 02:25:16 PM

Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?


Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?
 
2014-01-02 02:35:13 PM

Jon Snow: DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?

[i.imgur.com image 600x427]

This is what it looks like when you don't cherry pick a decade. The instrumental record is well within the range necessary to get us to 4°C above preindustrial.


farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-02 02:44:36 PM

Jon Snow: DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?

[i.imgur.com image 600x427]

This is what it looks like when you don't cherry pick a decade. The instrumental record is well within the range necessary to get us to 4°C above preindustrial.


Oh look, more scary model projections that will fail miserably.
Back in the real world, RSS observations show no warming at all for a full 17 years now, despite nearly a 15% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same time period.

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2014-01-02 03:02:38 PM

Stone Meadow: Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise.

Worst case scenario

is the context you're missing there. You know, the context you introduced originally?

Before you took it completely off the table by saying we'd solve the problem?

That's like asking what the "worst case scenario" for driving headlong through fog of a cliff would be, and then saying "not that bad, because the driver will brake way before it's too late."
 
2014-01-02 03:36:31 PM

DesertDemonWY: Back in the real world, RSS observations show no warming at all for a full 17 years now, despite nearly a 15% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same time period.


What is the significance of "15 years" other than to cherrypick the 1998 El Niño event?

We have data for more than the past 15 years.

i.imgur.com

And of course if you extend it to the entire instrumental record, or the ice core record, the correlation gets tighter and tighter because the importance of non-GHGs diminishes.

But of course the relationship is not based on naive correlation. Rather we have demonstrable causal relationship. Of course there are other things that affect surface temperature besides CO2, notably the behavior of the tropical Pacific, most notably ENSO events. That's why in climate models, you can see apparent "pauses" of 10-15 years or longer even as greenhouse gases climb and the temperature does so in the long run.

i.imgur.com

But let's be honest. You don't care about, let alone understand, concepts of energy balance, or the role of the tropical Pacific in the redistribution of energy through the system. No matter how patiently and slowly someone explains to you that you can't cheat physics, you'll find a way to ignore, play down, or distract from the reality of the situation. It's what you do.
 
2014-01-02 03:43:05 PM
Should have been"17 years". Point remains.
 
2014-01-02 04:30:35 PM

Stone Meadow: Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?

Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?



A better approach would be to present a counter-argument rather than just incredulity.
 
2014-01-02 05:19:35 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Stone Meadow: Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?

Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?

A better approach would be to present a counter-argument rather than just incredulity.


You may not have noticed, but I LED with a credible argument, namely that natural SLR of another couple of meters is going to happen, that IPCC forecasts a couple of feet additional, and that the worst case consensus is 13-20 feet. Then Snow strung together a series of increasingly unlikely outcomes to stretch that to "several hundred feet"; denigrated "deniers" and 'skeptics" as fools, and tried to pretend TFA was not stupidly alarmist.

If you wish to spend your time arguing with him, have at it.
 
2014-01-02 07:43:59 PM

Stone Meadow: You may not have noticed, but I LED with a credible argument


Except, that's not at all what happened. You made a bare assertion backed by absolutely zero scientific literature that

Stone Meadow: "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet


Literally none of which is true.

Stone Meadow: natural SLR of another couple of meters is going to happen


Why?

The reason Holocene sea levels rose, and indeed the river of eustatic sea level variability over the Pleistocene, is directly tied to orbitally-paced glaciation cycling. In the absence of human activity, we'd be seeing orbitally-driven cooling, not warming.

So why would there be "another couple of meters" of "natural" sea level rise in the absence of anthropogenic warming? Magic?

If we froze emissions at roughly today's levels, we should expect something like 14m of SLR over long timescales due to the relatively modest amount of CO2 increase we're already responsible for.

Stone Meadow: IPCC forecasts a couple of feet additional


By the end of the century or so. Not total.

the worst case consensus is 13-20 feet

"Worst case consensus"? LOL! That was a conservative estimate for SLR associated with a modest warming above preindustrial (~0.2-3C above preindustrial). We've almost already guaranteed that amount of warming in the very long run even if we stabilize emissions in the near future. It sure as shiat isn't a "worst case consensus".

Hell, the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period had sea levels higher by 10-20m and CO2 was only around 400ppm.

Stone Meadow: Then Snow strung together a series of increasingly unlikely outcomes to stretch that to "several hundred feet"


Lower probability outcomes on the pessimistic end  are what normal people mean when they talk about the "worst case scenarios", otherwise they would talk about the "most likely scenario".

There is a relationship between CO2 and sea level over the geological record. Will we likely hit 1200-1400ppm ppm CO2? No, I don't think we will. I think we will not be so suicidal.

But I might be wrong. And it's well within the realm of possibility if we exhaust the commercially attractive conventionals, heavily exploit unconventionals (as many energy corporations are seeking to do), and engage a strong carbon cycle feedback, putting us there in a hundred years or so.

And if that were to happen, something that is a credible worst case scenario, but not the most probable outcome, we would expect to see an essentially ice free state, with hundreds of feet of sea level rise over equilibrium timescales.

i.imgur.com

Source:  Foster, G. L., and E. J. Rohling (2013), Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales, PNAS, 110(4), 1209-1214, doi:10.1073/pnas.1216073110.
 
2014-01-02 08:42:27 PM

Stone Meadow: Damnhippyfreak: Stone Meadow: Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?

Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?

A better approach would be to present a counter-argument rather than just incredulity.

You may not have noticed, but I LED with a credible argument,


Yes, you did lead with a credible argument (if not strictly accurate), but are now ignoring what has been presented since. Probably not a good thing. However, I can flesh it out a bit more if you don't like what was said.


Stone Meadow: namely that natural SLR of another couple of meters is going to happen, that IPCC forecasts a couple of feet additional,


I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers from, but what you may be missing here is some idea of time.

If you're considering centuries for both, your latter number may be wrong (at least where the IPCC forecasts are concerned):

img.fark.net
IPCC AR5 WGI Ch.13

If you mean centuries for natural sea level rise, and just until 2100 for anthropogenic sea level rise, you probably shouldstate the large differences in time involved.


Stone Meadow: and that the worst case consensus is 13-20 feet


It looks like you're basing this on a wikipedia entry. Let's follow where the information goes. From said entry:

On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in even higher sea level rise. Partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, could contribute 4 to 6 m (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise.

Contrary to your claim, this isn't necessarily the worst case scenario. We can get more information by following the citation to the IPCC AR4 WGII SPM:

There is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1-4°C (relative to 1990-2000), causing a contribution to sea-level rise of 4-6 m or more. The complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a contribution to sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m, respectively [Working Group I Fourth Assessment 6.4, 10.7; Working Group II Fourth Assessment 19.3].

So this isn't the worst case scenario (again, contrary to your claim).


Stone Meadow: Then Snow strung together a series of increasingly unlikely outcomes to stretch that to "several hundred feet"; denigrated "deniers" and 'skeptics" as fools, and tried to pretend TFA was not stupidly alarmist.

If you wish to spend your time arguing with him, have at it.


Perhaps there are differences in ways you consider what is a 'worst-case scenario'. Jon Snow's perspective (as a physical scientist) isn't necessarily to state what is likely (as you're stating here)but what is possible. Frankly, the term 'worst-case scenario', at least to me, tends to favor the latter rather than the former.

As for tone, what you have to keep in mind is that, if it hasn't been made abundantly clear by now, that Jon Snow knows what he's talking about, working as he does in this field. It's harsh, but come on now - do you really know what you're talking about here? You didn't even accurately relay information from wikipedia.

If it makes you feel better, I think there's a general principle at work - there is a tendency to be abrupt with people who state with an undue amount of certainty somewhat shaky opinions about fields they aren't as familiar with. It'll happen in places like this if you talk about stuff like cars, laws, or guns as well without knowing exactly what you're talking about.
 
2014-01-02 09:00:24 PM

Jon Snow: and indeed the river of eustatic sea level variability


Should be "driver", jesus that would have been confusing.
 
Displayed 16 of 116 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report