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 42
    More: Interesting, climate change skeptics, market trends, atmospheric wave, global warming, climate change  
•       •       •

2734 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jan 2014 at 5:45 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-01-06 02:17:49 PM  
12 votes:

voltOhm: I think recent events supported by facts....specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T. Kinda trumps the pseudo science.


First of all- yeah, it is.  Because coverage isn't an indication of ice quality- It can be frozen and refreeze over a huge area (which it did recently, and which you mistakenly believe to mean that the ice isn't going anywhere), but be very thin  i.e. can disappear again just as quickly (quicker, actually).  And your own military believes it, as well.  They're preparing for the day (arriving much sooner than forecasted, btw) when there is ice-free sailing through the northwest passage.

But you're right about one thing- sea ice alone doesn't prove or disprove anything.  It's just one more data point with which we can establish a trend, which is the thing we're actually concerned with when figuring out climate change.

Your lack of even basic scientific principles is astounding.  Even more astounding is the confidence with which you believe them.
2014-01-06 03:17:45 PM  
5 votes:

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.


img.fark.net

yeah, it's pretty much 50-50 on global climate change.
2014-01-06 02:27:38 PM  
5 votes:

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.


Carbon dioxide was proven to be a greenhouse gas back in the 1800's.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rapidly increasing due to man made carbon emissions.

The earth's temperature is climbing.

All of these facts are indisputable.
2014-01-06 07:07:02 PM  
4 votes:

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 06:04:04 PM  
4 votes:

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
2014-01-06 02:46:42 PM  
4 votes:

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.


OK. I will sit here and wait patiently for you to produce a single peer reviewed climatologist's study disputing that global climate change is happening.

One study. One. Let's see it.
2014-01-06 02:41:35 PM  
4 votes:
Haha, dumbasses. Keep confusing weather with climate and calling shiat you don't understand "pseudoscience" all you want.
2014-01-06 02:19:38 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2014-01-06 02:01:57 PM  
4 votes:
I think recent events supported by facts....specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T. Kinda trumps the pseudo science.
2014-01-07 01:12:43 AM  
3 votes:

steamingpile: What climate change people never answer is the axis shift theory which means the earths axis shifts and man has zero control over it which is scarier than man causing if.


Are you talking about precession or the magnetic pole reversal? If the latter, there is zero evidence for significant climatic/biosphere changes associated with a reversal. If the former, Milankovitch, or orbital, forcing is extensively written about in climate science, especially paleoclimate. If the latter, I can give you any number of examples of how we know that's not at all what's driving the present change, from changes in global ocean heat content to changes in the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere to the fact that orbital forcing operates on orders of magnitude too slow of a timescale and is currently in the wrong direction (i.e. would be driving us very slowly towards a new glacial maximum), to the fact that the total amount of radiative forcing associated with orbitally-driven climatic change is relatively small compared to human stores of fossil fuels, etc.

What exactly do you want to know?
2014-01-06 07:57:56 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:55:16 PM  
3 votes:
i936.photobucket.com
2014-01-06 06:49:07 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2014-01-06 05:42:21 PM  
3 votes:
grist.files.wordpress.com
2014-01-06 05:41:06 PM  
3 votes:

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.


It's based on the personal interests of Big Oil and Coal. They tap into the conservative notion that industry knows better than the government, and that liberals want to send us all into caves to eat organic tofu. They use conservatives' paranoia against them. The same way they always get conservatives to vote against their own best interests.
2014-01-06 09:37:41 PM  
2 votes:
Jon Snow:

I just want to say I've found your comments highly informative, and I thank you for taking the time to post.

That being said, I'm pretty sure you're being trolled by OnlyM3. I'm sure you know that already, but it is a pretty masterful troll and I feel it needs to be acknowledged.
2014-01-06 07:34:26 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:29:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:04:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:54:50 PM  
2 votes:
add energy to an unstable oscillating system, and the extremes get more extreme. eventually something breaks. simple.
2014-01-06 06:41:29 PM  
2 votes:
scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net

I could make nuanced and well researched arguments, or I can take a pot shot and point out that Rockefeller saved the whales from extinction, Ford got out the horses and their propensity to eat our food and shiat in our streets, nitrogen fertilizers derived from natural gas feed stocks helped feed the billions, and plastics made from oil derivatives makes our life vastly different.

Unless you're going to let us build enough nukes, and reprocessing facilities, to generate the same number of joules required to replace all the oil and gas you advocate a regression. Otherwise we're going back to the old days, where we burn every scrap of biomass gatherable just to heat our homes.
2014-01-06 02:38:06 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Just wait until the sea levels start rising and rich people's shore front properties are in the crosshairs. You're not going to ever hear another peep about global warming being a hoax.


Pfft! The smart ones will have already sold their properties to the dumb ones.
2014-01-07 11:22:10 AM  
1 votes:
Science is about questioning everything.  I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.

Especially when even scientists are quite aware of the 'problems of scale' - being that a lab experiment doesn't have 100% of the variables that a world experiment does.

Anyone ever read that book were scientists were deemed untrustworthy, and if you were a scientist you could be put in prison?  With the overabundance of 'because science', and the poor job scientists have been doing (butter bad!  No Good!  Peanuts Bad!  No, Wait!), I'm getting the feeling we're heading in that direction.
2014-01-06 11:46:16 PM  
1 votes:

OnlyM3: Of course it is. My glasses of hot water have the same pesky problem of icing over.


Hello retard.  Did you know that "warm" and "cool" and their verb forms are relative references to temperature?  That object A can be warmer than object B, and that both can still be frozen?

No.  Because you're a retard.
2014-01-06 09:32:14 PM  
1 votes:

06Wahoo: You mean kind of like how global warming believers point to hurricanes as evidence?  Face it, both sides do it, only those who believe it continue to deny that they tend to pick and choose (and often not use science) what they look at to make their (weak) point.


People who believe in climate change (who aren't fearmongering out of ignorance or to generate hype) generally point to extreme weather events and say that they will be more likely to occur, not that they are evidence of climate change. 'Skeptics' tend to look for non-extreme events and regard them as evidence of a lack of warming, as well as using anecdotes to back of their believes rather than the models which predict more extreme weather used by 'believers'.
2014-01-06 08:44:14 PM  
1 votes:

OnlyM3: Once again you move the goal post.


Huh?

OnlyM3: You calm nobody ever made the claim


When exactly did I do that?

I said it was never a consensus prediction of the scientific community, I never said "nobody ever made the claim".

OnlyM3: now you try to backpedal.


How exactly am I backpedaling?
2014-01-06 08:43:32 PM  
1 votes:
OnlyM3: You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.

People like you are terrible in my opinion, you belittle the efforts of scientists and contribute to the problem of so many not valuing science in today's society. The path forward for our species will be achieved thanks to science, but people like you have clouded that understanding and will only contribute to our ruin if we take you lot seriously.
2014-01-06 08:18:27 PM  
1 votes:

OnlyM3: You consider the father of the G.W. church


Why do you keep repeating this? Do you actually believe it? Or do you know that it's bullshiat but think it's rhetorically effective to lie?
2014-01-06 07:55:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:53:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:50:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:50:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:46:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:41:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:26:28 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:48:52 PM  
1 votes:

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,
2014-01-06 06:37:11 PM  
1 votes:
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?
2014-01-06 06:03:06 PM  
1 votes:
If you don't know the mathematical concept of "averages" or the difference between "weather" and "climate" you should just STFU during any discussion of climate change.
2014-01-06 05:50:44 PM  
1 votes:

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.


God made the world perfect, so the world can't possibly change by any actions of man.

/Except for the extinct animals.
//And the environmental pollution.
///And that hole in the ozone layer.
2014-01-06 03:03:38 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Can you prove to me, 100%, that you exist as a flesh and blood person and not a spam bot or a brain in a jar a la the "matrix"?

Nothing is proven 100%, but the weight of evidence is clearly in favor of man made climate change by a very large margin. One would have to be a fool to ignore it.
2014-01-06 02:51:08 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Or, climatologists explain why science shows that the five assholes working for Exxon are incorrect and that available evidence shows that climate change is real.
2014-01-06 02:22:54 PM  
1 votes:

voltOhm: pseudo science


i42.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 42 of 42 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