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 19
    More: Scary, University of New South Wales, cloud cover  
•       •       •

8842 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2014 at 11:33 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-01-02 09:17:40 AM  
2 votes:

SevenizGud: The libtards are hysterical about this.

There's Al "The Science is Settled" Gore

You libtards are so voracious in your defense of Chicken Little


LOL.

There has been some remaining credibility?

You mean like endorsing positions from the relevant scientific organizations on the subject matter, like the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union[1][2][3]? Or perhaps the National Academy of Sciences[4]? Or the national science academies of the largest economies in the world[5]? Or the relevant scientific agencies like NASA, NOAA, etc.[6][7]? Or an overwhelming majority of experts in the field and the peer-reviewed scientific literature[8][9][10][11]?

[1]  https://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
[2]  http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
[3]  http://news.agu.org/press-release/american-geophysical-union-releases - revised-position-statement-on-climate-change/
[4]  http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=14674
[5]  http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
[6]  http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
[7]  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq15.html
[8] Oreskes, N. (2004), The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, 306(5702), 1686-1686, doi:10.1126/science.1103618.
[9] Doran, P. T., and M. K. Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
[10] Anderegg, W. R. L., J. W. Prall, J. Harold, and S. H. Schneider (2010), Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 107(27), 12107-12109, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
[11] Cook, J., D. Nuccitelli, S. A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce (2013), Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett., 8(2), 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
2014-01-02 02:07:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:48:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:20:39 AM  
1 votes:

Jon Snow: That you grouped the two things together is unequivocal.


The claim that people turning into fish-human hybrids is as ridiculous as the claim that sea level rise will cover Minneapolis with water, as asserted by the graphic. I made no other equivocation.

So I guess my point is that Gawker reports on fantasy, not reality, and its contents are not news.

The image is from the DrownYourTown app being advertised in the article, not some random stock graphic. I did a GIS search for DrownYourTown and didn't see a graphic with that particular city anywhere at a glance. To me, the most likely scenario is that the author was trying out the program and generated the graphic.

What their motive was of using Minneapolis, I don't know, but you would think an editor-in-chief with a PhD would at least take a moment to reflect on the message they are conveying to their readers; yes? On the other hand, perhaps she is a total idiot.
2014-01-02 10:32:40 AM  
1 votes:

Jon Snow: I know which scenario sounds more plausible to me. In order to designate it as "sensationalism" and "cause for alarm", you're assigning motive and saying it was deliberate.

Do you really think that's the case?


This is i09 we're talking about. It is practically the Internet equivalent of  The Staror  The National Enquirer. I think they deliberately selected that picture because they are a bunch of trolls.
2014-01-01 08:25:41 PM  
1 votes:

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



Might as well get this out of the way.

www.skepticalscience.net
2014-01-01 06:33:07 PM  
1 votes:

Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?


Habitats will move with the changing climate, and people will have to move as well. The most pressing issue will be year round supplies of fresh water, but that's not a show stopper. I don't believe WE will cause a run away green house effect and make the Earth look like Venus. That's pure fear mongering bullshiat.
2014-01-01 06:21:52 PM  
1 votes:
The Guardian = Daily Mail for champagne socialists.
2014-01-01 02:27:53 PM  
1 votes:

Stone Meadow: Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?

Short answer? Because good news doesn't get eyeballs on webpages, TV ads sold and research grants and social engineering programs funded. Okay, that's a bit cynical, but it's also true.

BTW, nearly all of the readily accessible glacier water is already in the ocean, so both its contribution to sea level rise as well as the prospects for land rebound have largely already played out. For large-scale melting of Greenland and the Antarctic West to happen (and raise global sea level by more than another 2-3 feet), a credible mechanism has to be identified, which doesn't currently exist. Even IPCC (the most aggressive "credible" sea level rise alarmists) don't predict more than another 2' of rise, and that's at the top end of their range for the foreseeable future.


A voice of rational and reason? On FARK, where everyone is supposed to follow the crowd?

/I agree with you completely. If you frighten people they will demand to be saved, whether the fear is rational or not, immediate or 100 years down the road.
2014-01-01 02:17:17 PM  
1 votes:

Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?


Short answer? Because good news doesn't get eyeballs on webpages, TV ads sold and research grants and social engineering programs funded. Okay, that's a bit cynical, but it's also true.

BTW, nearly all of the readily accessible glacier water is already in the ocean, so both its contribution to sea level rise as well as the prospects for land rebound have largely already played out. For large-scale melting of Greenland and the Antarctic West to happen (and raise global sea level by more than another 2-3 feet), a credible mechanism has to be identified, which doesn't currently exist. Even IPCC (the most aggressive "credible" sea level rise alarmists) don't predict more than another 2' of rise, and that's at the top end of their range for the foreseeable future.
2014-01-01 12:08:55 PM  
1 votes:

Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.


That's because "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.

~upload.wikimedia.org

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
2014-01-01 12:05:10 PM  
1 votes:
Is this like those predictions back in the late 80s that said Wisconsin would be ocean-front property by the year 2000?
2014-01-01 11:51:08 AM  
1 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: So, we won't even be around in the year 4545, when you ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes... You won't find a thing to chewwwwww... Nobody's gonna look at you?


I'm more interested in what happens in 2525

webspace.webring.com

/So bad, it was terrible.
2014-01-01 11:48:07 AM  
1 votes:
I thought the SOP here is that subby clicks on the source of the Gawker article and submit THAT link instead?
2014-01-01 11:46:40 AM  
1 votes:
Now this is the smart way to make a doomsday prediction. Far enough out that you'll be dead, but not so far in the future that people don't care about it.
2014-01-01 11:37:58 AM  
1 votes:
And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.
2014-01-01 11:28:45 AM  
1 votes:

shanrick: Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube


Woah, woah.
2014-01-01 11:23:05 AM  
1 votes:
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube
2014-01-01 10:49:42 AM  
1 votes:
So, we won't even be around in the year 4545, when you ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes... You won't find a thing to chewwwwww... Nobody's gonna look at you?
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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