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.

(Time)   Climate change skeptics point to freezing weather to deny historical warming trends. As you might expect, science explains why they are wrong, again   (science.time.com) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, climate change skeptics, market trends, atmospheric wave, global warming, climate change  
•       •       •

2732 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jan 2014 at 5:45 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 06:54:50 PM
add energy to an unstable oscillating system, and the extremes get more extreme. eventually something breaks. simple.
 
2014-01-06 06:55:16 PM
i936.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-06 06:57:31 PM

ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]


That's a pretty damn effective GIF.
 
2014-01-06 06:57:37 PM

Jon Snow: Bob The Nob: Why can't this change be due to just, you know, change? Can it be proven that the climate isn't just evolving on its own? Aren't we coming out of an ice age, thus making "warming" a given?

The climate system isn't magic, It doesn't change for no reason. Sustained, multidecdal changes to the global mean surface temperature and ocean heat content are driven by changes in the planet's energy balance, through changing the amount of radiative forcing the system receives. We know what the other drivers of change are doing, and they're not the cause. We also know unequivocally that increasing GHGs imposes an increase in radiative forcing necessitating a warming to a higher equilibrium state.

Further, there are fingerprints unique to warming caused by increased GHGs vs. other kinds of drivers, such as stratospheric cooling.

That's why it can't be "just change". One, that's not a real answer, two we know what the other "suspects are doing", three we know what GHGs are doing, and four we see "fingerprints " of greenhouse warming.


Well, evolutionary change IS an answer. And do we *really* know your #2,3,4 or could it be a correlation / causation error?

I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...
 
2014-01-06 06:59:39 PM
Since when does "lowest temperatures in 20 years" = historical anyway?
 
2014-01-06 07:01:41 PM

MarkEC: Please explain how you think Exxon Mobil's profits would be hurt if whatever you propose we do about ACC is done


A better question is why Exxon Mobil is funding anti-climate change propaganda.
 
2014-01-06 07:03:18 PM

Mugato: pdieten: It's because if they accept man-made climate change as real, they know there will be calls to address the problem. The solution to the problem involves at minimum greatly increasing taxes and/or the cost of energy, and at maximum essentially ending civilized society as we have always understood it, because the world is not and may never be ready for alternative fuels to provide adequate energy to continue the lifestyle we've adjusted to.

I think it's more than that because those same people don't complain about our military spending when we invade some country for no reason. I can see oil people and business owners who are afraid that added environmental regulations might hurt their bottom line being global warming deniers but Joe 12-Pack is just toeing the party line and following whatever they hear on Rush Limbaugh;s show,


Nah. Defense spending is a known line in the budget. It keeps people employed. And people knowing their country is the toughest in the world makes them feel good about themselves. Defense spending is a show of strength. Alternative energy spending is a show of weakness. Whether you think this is logical or not is kind of beside the point. It's a mindset.
 
2014-01-06 07:03:39 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]

That's a pretty damn effective GIF.


Yes, yes it is.

Got it here (I think), would like to give credit, but can't remember who put it up first.
 
2014-01-06 07:04:30 PM

Mugato: What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe? It can't be based on personal interests, certainly.


Having watched it happen from the late 80s, when global warming became a major public issue, to now, the answer is that the oil companies threw a shiatload of money at PR firms to bring the science into doubt.  It's the same thing tobacco companies did for decades, and the sad/amazing thing is that you can get a good chunk of the populace to buy that there's some question about the science simply by spending money on advertising and buying off the right pundits.
 
2014-01-06 07:04:44 PM

Bob The Nob: , just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...


Kind of a bad analogy. No one with a brain in their head needed the Surgeon General to tell them that breathing smoke directly into their lungs for 30 years might be bad for them.
 
2014-01-06 07:05:23 PM

Bob The Nob: Why can't this change be due to just, you know, change? Can it be proven that the climate isn't just evolving on its own? Aren't we coming out of an ice age, thus making "warming" a given?


Suppose you're right, and it's warming from causes other than CO2.

When summer rolls around, do you put on a parka?  Because emitting more CO2 is a lot like putting on a parka in the summertime under that scenario.
 
2014-01-06 07:05:56 PM

Mugato: What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe? It can't be based on personal interests, certainly.


One?

Climate change denial seems to go hand in hand with evolution denial, as well as believing vaccinations cause autism, with a smattering of truthers and birthers thrown in.

//Personal experience with the denialists
 
2014-01-06 07:07:02 PM

Bob The Nob: I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...


Ironically, the claim that cigarettes were not a cause of cancer perpetuated by the tobacco industry is the perfect analogy for the lies that climate change deniers are promoting today.

So at this point, I'm not actually sure whether you are very stupid, or astonishingly clever in a very subtle way...
 
2014-01-06 07:10:06 PM

fusillade762: jigger: fusillade762: [grist.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Regional activists like the UN.

You are adorable. Let assume your tinfoil hat is not on too tight and the UN is in the bag for your climate change hoax:

UN Budget for 2012-2013: $5.4 billion

Oil company profits for 2012: $118.1 billion


It's really more like $13 billion, but they tend to hide money rather effectively. But are you seriously claiming that the UN and all the governments involved in funding some sort of climate activism/outreach or another (don't forget their budgets that dwarf oil company profits) are "regional community organizers"?

It's not a hoax. The people involved in it (well, the people you see) really believe we're headed for a climate holocaust. But let's see where some of those obscene oil profits go, hmm?

BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.

The Sierra Club gets dirty oil money. So does the Nature Conservancy. So do all sorts of "regional community organizers" telling everyone about the coming climate apocalypse.

So some anti-alarmist think tanks get some money from some oil company (among many other sources) and suddenly it's a kochspiracy.
 
2014-01-06 07:11:37 PM
ZMugg: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]

That's a pretty damn effective GIF.

Yes, yes it is.

Got it here (I think), would like to give credit, but can't remember who put it up Boobiesed it up a few weeks ago, but I got it from SkepticalScience, so they are the the ones to credit.
 
2014-01-06 07:12:10 PM

ScaryBottles: jigger: Is this coldness particularly unusual? Doesn't it normally get cold like this up there in Canada and around the Great Lakes from time to time?

Hey guy trust me when I tell you that this isn't going to go over as well as it did when you and your sisterfarking buddies chuckled about it on the derprepublic.


Maybe I've been farking my sister too long. Can you translate that into Engrish?
 
2014-01-06 07:15:41 PM

czetie: Bob The Nob: I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...

Ironically, the claim that cigarettes were not a cause of cancer perpetuated by the tobacco industry is the perfect analogy for the lies that climate change deniers are promoting today.

So at this point, I'm not actually sure whether you are very stupid, or astonishingly clever in a very subtle way...


Heheh ... Very true. :)

I'm not trying to deny GW, just trying to say "Have we stepped back from the data to get a fresh perpective on it"?

/ going with astonishingly clever
// and handsome
/// and cold
 
2014-01-06 07:16:36 PM

Mugato: Bob The Nob: , just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...

Kind of a bad analogy. No one with a brain in their head needed the Surgeon General to tell them that breathing smoke directly into their lungs for 30 years might be bad for them.


And, of course, there's the fact that it's just not true.  Does the (over a) century-old nickname "coffin nails" ring a bell?
 
2014-01-06 07:16:42 PM

jigger: ScaryBottles: jigger: Is this coldness particularly unusual? Doesn't it normally get cold like this up there in Canada and around the Great Lakes from time to time?

Hey guy trust me when I tell you that this isn't going to go over as well as it did when you and your sisterfarking buddies chuckled about it on the derprepublic.

Maybe I've been farking my sister too long. Can you translate that into Engrish?


Oh its obvious that you have been farking your sister too long but I think if you didn't get it the first time you aren't going to.
 
2014-01-06 07:18:45 PM

ScaryBottles: jigger: ScaryBottles: jigger: Is this coldness particularly unusual? Doesn't it normally get cold like this up there in Canada and around the Great Lakes from time to time?

Hey guy trust me when I tell you that this isn't going to go over as well as it did when you and your sisterfarking buddies chuckled about it on the derprepublic.

Maybe I've been farking my sister too long. Can you translate that into Engrish?

Oh its obvious that you have been farking your sister too long but I think if you didn't get it the first time you aren't going to.


Anybody else know what this booger eater is talking about?
 
2014-01-06 07:19:23 PM

RexTalionis: ZMugg: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]

That's a pretty damn effective GIF.

Yes, yes it is.

Got it here (I think), would like to give credit, but can't remember who put it up Boobiesed it up a few weeks ago, but I got it from SkepticalScience, so they are the the ones to credit.


Cool. I get to give credit to my source, and bonus boobies to boot.

My lucky day.
 
2014-01-06 07:19:48 PM
The Earth's climate fluctuates over time. Fact. How do I know this?

Ice ages motherfarkers.

The ONLY question is how much of an affect we have on it.
 
2014-01-06 07:26:19 PM

MarkEC: Stile4aly: jigger: fusillade762: [grist.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Regional activists like the UN.

In 2013, the entire UN had an operating budget of $5.5 billion.  In 2012 Exxon Mobil had a net income of $45 billion.

Please explain how you think Exxon Mobil's profits would be hurt if whatever you propose we do about ACC is done. You are right on the assumption that corporations are profit drive. You are wrong in your assumption that they don't play both sides of the field. When alternative energy becomes viable, companies like Exxon Mobil will be making their profits there.


Then we'll be biatching about Big Solar.

Hey, did anybody notice that nuclear fusion is around the corner?
 
2014-01-06 07:26:28 PM
Climate change skeptics point to. . .

We point to The predictions by the congregation of Global warming claiming:
** Snow would be non existent and just a story young children would read about in books. (Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church was wrong.)

** Sea Ice would be non existent by 2013 (Reality: we're at record levels)

** Himalayan ice was retreating and would drown brown people (Reality:
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows +Note that the church's reaction to this scientific fact Fears Grow of a Himalayan Tsunami as Glaciers Melt Also note that this fear mongering sky-is-falling bullshiat is AFTER global warming "scientists" found Himalayan glaciers are not melting

** Nonstop massive storms. (Reality: 2013 was Since 1950, there were only five other hurricane seasons less active than 2013

But keep preaching shaman
 
2014-01-06 07:27:08 PM
blame Jenny McCarthy
 
2014-01-06 07:28:53 PM

jigger: BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.


Did you even read the articles you linked?  The first article never mentioned Greenpeace receiving money from oil companies.  It was harping on Greenpeace's lack of commentary about organizations that have.

In the second, the money donated to Stanford was to fund research into greener fuel alternatives. It isn't for climatology research at all.  Here, let me give you a quickie to speed things along:

FTFA:
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were "vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world."
 
2014-01-06 07:28:57 PM
ShawnDoc [TotalFark]
2014-01-06 02:27:39 PM


HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong. Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.

Both sides are bad, so burn Carbon.

Both sides are bad, so vote democrats that lie about phony predictions and offer no real alternatives.
 
2014-01-06 07:29:18 PM
MarkEC:
You are wrong in your assumption that they don't play both sides of the field.

He never made that claim.  But, since you brought it up so suspiciously (i.e. without prompting and mis-attributing it to someone else), do you have any evidence that they fund climate science and not just climate denier groups?

When alternative energy becomes viable, companies like Exxon Mobil will be making their profits there.

And if they could, they would already be doing it.  But they're not.  Why  wouldn't Exxon be concerned about switching to a different market with different competitors where all of their long-established advantages (infrastructure, agreements, etc.) are no longer as useful?

It's like claiming that Blockbuster didn't have to worry about streaming video because they'd just switch to the streaming video market and make profits there.  Do you understand the idea that switching the entire focus of your business isn't that easy and actually costs quite a bit of money?  What big established company has ever said "Competition? That sounds like a great idea!"?

Please explain how you think Exxon Mobil's profits would be hurt if whatever you propose we do about ACC is done.

To reduce CO2 output, we need to reduce fossil fuel consumption.  If we reduce fossil fuel consumption, Exxon sells less fossil fuel.  If Exxon sells less fossil fuel, their profits decline.  This is all pretty straightforward (and obvious, though I don't mean to insult).  They invest a fraction of a percent of their profits into renewable energy.

Exxon reps have stated that they predict continued strong demand for oil and intend to keep that as the main focus of their business.  That is, they're assuming that fossil fuels will continue to produce the same percentage of the world's energy consumption for decades to come.  They're basing their business model on the assumption that we will not reduce fossil fuel consumption.  Do you see how what you're saying is contrary to reality?
 
2014-01-06 07:32:33 PM

OnlyM3: We point to The predictions by the congregation of Global warming claiming:


You could point to a lunatic fringe on any subject that says anything. If you want to ignore the scientific community for whatever your personal or financial reasons might be, go ahead but point to some random idiot statements and you look rather silly.
 
2014-01-06 07:34:26 PM

Bob The Nob: Well, evolutionary change IS an answer.


To what question? Change on multidecedal to centennial timescales? Not typically.

And do we *really* know your #2,3,4 or could it be a correlation / causation error?

Yes, we know. We have satellites pointed at the sun. We have detailed records of orbital forcing. We have isotopic geochemistry illustrating the fossil fuel source for the increase in GHGs. We have a fundamental understanding of the different responses that the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere has to something like an increase in solar irradiance vs. an increase in CO2.

The confluence of events necessary to reach this conclusion in error would have to be so great, and involves science fundamental to stuff like national security (e.g. heat-seeking missiles) that the odds are infinitesimal, and you'd have a lot more to worry about than needlessly stabilizing emissions.

I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...

No, "we" didn't. That impression was given to you by a dedicated disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry. 50 years ago the medical community was sufficiently convinced that it was issuing statements about tobacco causing cancer:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_and_Health:_Report_of_the_Adviso r y_Committee_to_the_Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States#Background

Not at all coincidentally, the same tactics, and even the same think tanks (and in some cases even the same individuals) are currently trying to sow disinformation about the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
 
2014-01-06 07:36:09 PM

0100010: jigger: BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.

Did you even read the articles you linked?  The first article never mentioned Greenpeace receiving money from oil companies.  It was harping on Greenpeace's lack of commentary about organizations that have.

In the second, the money donated to Stanford was to fund research into greener fuel alternatives. It isn't for climatology research at all.  Here, let me give you a quickie to speed things along:

FTFA:
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were "vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world."


Ah, I had a shiatload of tabs open. Greenpeace receives Rockefeller oil money once removed: http://philsreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/big-green-oil-money-wwf-found e d-and-run.html

So you don't consider funding alternative energy to be part of the equation? Exxon wants nothing more than to beat down anyone who would challenge the supremacy of fossil fuels in energy production. Right?
 
2014-01-06 07:39:22 PM
Mugato [TotalFark]


What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe?

Tell you what. I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.


Let me explain further. This kook -->
www.upl.co
Harold Camping
predicted the end of the world would be September 6, 1994. Fools believed him.
He then predicted TEOTW would be May 21, 2011. Fools believed him.
He then predicted TEOTW would be October 21, 2011. Fools believed him.


Global warming nuts have been making kooky predictions (end of snow, no sea ice by 2013, nonstop storms, food riots due to no crops growing, Kuwaiti Oil fires will bring nuclear winter, etc... etc... etc... None of them have come true, yet...

... fools keep believing them.  You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.
 
2014-01-06 07:41:33 PM

jigger: 0100010: jigger: BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.

Did you even read the articles you linked?  The first article never mentioned Greenpeace receiving money from oil companies.  It was harping on Greenpeace's lack of commentary about organizations that have.

In the second, the money donated to Stanford was to fund research into greener fuel alternatives. It isn't for climatology research at all.  Here, let me give you a quickie to speed things along:

FTFA:
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were "vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world."

Ah, I had a shiatload of tabs open. Greenpeace receives Rockefeller oil money once removed: http://philsreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/big-green-oil-money-wwf-found e d-and-run.html

So you don't consider funding alternative energy to be part of the equation? Exxon wants nothing more than to beat down anyone who would challenge the supremacy of fossil fuels in energy production. Right?


And the UAE knows what happens when oil prices slip.  So they invest money in renewable research, because the guy that invents (and controls) the next technology that runs our transportation network will be a billionaire overnight.

I see no reason why, Exxon, BP, et. al. wouldn't do the same thing.  They know how much oil they produce, and they know it won't last forever, and they know that the first one to come up with some truly viable alternative that is cheaper to produce than a barrel of oil will become the world's biggest energy company.
 
2014-01-06 07:41:48 PM

voltOhm: specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'


The goal of the trip was actually to look at the Southern Ocean-surface (which is warming) carbon flux

i.imgur.com

 and to study the Antarctic continent proper (which is losing ice at a nonlinear rate)

i.imgur.com

 not sea ice.

Why would you lie about that?
 
2014-01-06 07:45:27 PM

jigger: fusillade762: [grist.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Regional activists like the UN.


Jigger, please.
 
2014-01-06 07:45:43 PM
p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted

This is akiin to L.Ron Hubbard admitting e-meter's & "clears" are bunk and travolta still playing with the g.d. things.
 
2014-01-06 07:46:36 PM

OnlyM3: I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.


Increase in absorption of OLR in the H2O, CO2, CH4, etc. wavelengths.
Failure of OLR to increase proportionately with increased SSTs.
Increase in global ocean heat content.
Increase in tropopause height.
Cooling of the stratosphere.
Contraction of the upper atmosphere.
Expansion of the topics.
Amplification of Arctic warming relative to the lower latitudes.

I can go on and on.

Let's see how honest you are about being convincible.

What more do you need?
 
2014-01-06 07:50:26 PM

OnlyM3: You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.


Those nuts called "scientists"?
 
2014-01-06 07:50:37 PM

jigger: Ah, I had a shiatload of tabs open. Greenpeace receives Rockefeller oil money once removed: http://philsreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/big-green-oil-money-wwf-found e d-and-run.html

So you don't consider funding alternative energy to be part of the equation? Exxon wants nothing more than to beat down anyone who would challenge the supremacy of fossil fuels in energy production. Right?


What equation?  Exxon wants nothing more than to make profits by the easiest means possible.  If it's easier to suppress than innovate, I woudn't be surprised if that's what it is doing.  All of which is beside the point.  I was calling out that both of the links you gave did nothing to support your claims.

Oh, and I'd like to point out that there's a bit of difference between receiving donations from a non-profit sponsored by a big-oil family and a corporation directly providing funds.  It might also help if you found a website that didn't have such an annoying way to highlight its text.
 
2014-01-06 07:50:42 PM

OnlyM3: p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted

This is akiin to L.Ron Hubbard admitting e-meter's & "clears" are bunk and travolta still playing with the g.d. things.


Um no, but thanks for playing/trolling.
 
2014-01-06 07:53:04 PM

OnlyM3: p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted

This is akiin to L.Ron Hubbard admitting e-meter's & "clears" are bunk and travolta still playing with the g.d. things.


Lovelock is not a climate scientist. He is only loosely associated with climate in any meaningful way due to Daisyworld, and his invention of the electron capture detector, neither of which have anything to do with the science underlying the detection and attribution of the present change to anthropogenic warming.

Joesph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Guy Callendar, James Hansen- any of these guys could credibly be called the father of climate change or whatever. Not Lovelock.

As an aside. When older scientists, even vary distinguished scientists, start making wild pronouncements outside of the scientific literature, especially outside of their direct area of expertise? There's a word for that. "Crank." And Lovelock was a crank back when he was talking about climate change in a way that was "alarmist", too.
 
2014-01-06 07:55:08 PM

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


Hi. How are you doing?

I'm just curious as to why you believe this. Can you elaborate on what has led you to this conclusion, in terms of sources, arguments, etc.?

Thanks!
 
2014-01-06 07:56:13 PM
In the last 6 months Toronto was hit with a hurricane like rainstorm, shattering all previous records and stranding a commuter train, and an ice storm of unheard of proportions causing a power outage which lasted two weeks in some places.

Canada is known for some wacky weather, but rarely to this degree. And two mass abnormalities within the span of half a year is unheard of.

The scary thing is that such destructive weather patterns will likely become the new normal.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:06 PM
Jon Snow

The goal of the trip was actually to look at the Southern Ocean-surface (which is warming)
Of course it is. My glasses of hot water have the same pesky problem of icing over.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:56 PM

OnlyM3: ** Snow would be non existent and just a story young children would read about in books. (Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church was wrong.)


Strawman.  This claim has never ever been made seriously by any climatologist and you should feel bad.

** Sea Ice would be non existent by 2013 (Reality: we're at record levels)

Cherry picking/citation needed.  Sea ice was not predicted to be entirely gone by 2013.Additionally, we're nowhere near record levels.

www.arctic.noaa.gov
www.arctic.noaa.gov

You're getting your talking points confused - the one you mean is that we've seen a record rebound in arctic sea ice from 2012 to 2013, as indicated by that graph up there.  That's a rebound from a record low.  And is still lower than any year but 6 since we started measuring sea ice.

** Himalayan ice was retreating and would drown brown people (Reality:
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows +Note that the church's reaction to this scientific fact Fears Grow of a Himalayan Tsunami as Glaciers Melt Also note that this fear mongering sky-is-falling bullshiat is AFTER global warming "scientists" found Himalayan glaciers are not melting


If you read the article you yourself linked, you'd find that lack of melting is confined to the high-altitude glaciers, low-altitude ones are still melting, and ice loss is still a big deal all across the world.  But of course that requires grasping at least 6th-grade scientific concepts and nuance, which you can't.

** Nonstop massive storms. (Reality: 2013 was Since 1950, there were only five other hurricane seasons less active than 2013

The quiet hurricane season surprised a lot of people, but they have also been looking into the reasons for it.  Jon Snow is better-equipped to field this one, I think, being an actual climatologist, but I could be boring and observe things like global warming means weather extremes, of which no major hurricanes is certainly an extreme, or point out that one year does not a trend or pattern make.

Also, I'm sure you feel oh-so-clever talking about how it's a "church", but last I checked, real churches weren't too big on things like evidence, revision of tenets due to new evidence, or inquiry in general.  Sounds more like the denial camp to me.
 
2014-01-06 07:59:27 PM
Mugato [TotalFark]

>>>OnlyM3: You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.

Those nuts called "scientists"?
Who are recanting their claims admitting they lied ... yes, those "scientists"
 
2014-01-06 07:59:28 PM

OnlyM3: Tell you what. I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.


There have been a good number published studies over the past couple years that predict as the arctic warms, we will begin to experiencing larger effects from "polar amplification" and wider oscillation of the jet stream. This brings into effect a "blocking weather pattern," which depending on the time of the year will cause extreme cold snaps in the winter or extremely dry, hot droughts in the summer.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-warming-is-altering-weathe r- patterns-study-shows

If you haven't noticed, the Southwest part of the USA is just had the driest year on record, the Pacific NW has 80% less snowpack than in typical years, and the mid-west and east are currently undergoing one of the most extreme cold snaps ever experienced.

For quite a long time, even in *gasp,* Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, there has been predictions of widening extremes and weather as the overall climate warms. In many, many metrics we're starting to see many more outliers for records; plus those whole "100-year" storms that occur every couple years now.

The oceans are rising, weather extremes are far more common, and yep, the overall planet is warming.
 
2014-01-06 07:59:59 PM

pdieten: The solution to the problem involves at minimum greatly increasing taxes and/or the cost of energy, and at maximum essentially ending civilized society as we have always understood it, because the world is not and may never be ready for alternative fuels to provide adequate energy to continue the lifestyle we've adjusted to.

That's why. People don't like those options very much.


I'm curious as to why you think that this is what is necessary to ameliorate the problem. Why do you believe that something like a small but rising tax on carbon at the mine or wellhead, given the increasingly competitive costs of solar thermal and other renewables even in the absence of such policy, wouldn't be sufficient to trigger a shift in global energy infrastructure away from carbon intensive fuels?

I'm not saying it would be sufficient, mind you. But I've certainly heard arguments that it would be, and I'm curious as to why you think we must "end civilized society as we have always understood it".
 
2014-01-06 08:00:33 PM

Mugato: People only question science when it's based on their own interests.


I always found it amusing that people will second guess scientists when it comes to climate or evolution, but they have full, absolute, unconditional trust in medical science when they go to their doctor.
 
2014-01-06 08:01:43 PM
Mugato [TotalFark]
2014-01-06 07:32:33 PM


OnlyM3: We point to The predictions by the congregation of Global warming claiming:

You could point to a lunatic fringe on any subject that says anything. If you want to ignore the scientific community for whatever your personal or financial reasons might be, go ahead but point to some random idiot statements and you look rather silly.
You consider the father of the G.W. church a lunatic fringe? Interesting position for one of the believers to hold. You followers said algore's film was accurate. You're changing your tune now and calling him a lunatic fringe? Put that goal post back where you found it sir.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report