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.

(Syracuse Post-Standard)   Great Lakes ice coverage set to break the all-time record next week, exactly as predicted by global climate models   (syracuse.com) divider line 260
    More: Cool, Central New York, Great Lakes, Great Lakes ice, physical scientist, Lake Ontario, global climate models, lake effect  
•       •       •

9581 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:21 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 05:10:18 PM  

blatz514: We saw Maiden a couple summers ago. 4th of July, farking hot as hell. Anyhoo, shows over, still balls hot out at midnight. Need to take a leak before the multiple block walk back to the car. Hit the pisser and here comes in a dude, without shoes on. Sweaty floor littered with piss. hork


I didn't know Hippies still roamed the Earth.
 
2014-02-13 05:13:30 PM  

rkiller1: blatz514: We saw Maiden a couple summers ago. 4th of July, farking hot as hell. Anyhoo, shows over, still balls hot out at midnight. Need to take a leak before the multiple block walk back to the car. Hit the pisser and here comes in a dude, without shoes on. Sweaty floor littered with piss. hork

I didn't know Hippies still roamed the Earth.


Not sure he was a hippy or just absolutely smashed.

/going with smashed.
//or a smashed hippy
 
2014-02-13 05:16:24 PM  

blatz514: rkiller1: blatz514: We saw Maiden a couple summers ago. 4th of July, farking hot as hell. Anyhoo, shows over, still balls hot out at midnight. Need to take a leak before the multiple block walk back to the car. Hit the pisser and here comes in a dude, without shoes on. Sweaty floor littered with piss. hork

I didn't know Hippies still roamed the Earth.

Not sure he was a hippy or just absolutely smashed.

/going with smashed.
//or a smashed hippy


Though I assumed the shoeless dude was Hippy-like, you told the story exactly like a long-haired guy I knew in the summer of '69.
 
2014-02-13 05:18:41 PM  
Lordy, if we keep warming up, we're all gonna freeze to death.

Also:
Lake Huron rolls, Superior sings
in the rooms of her ice-water mansion.
Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams;
the islands and bays are for sportsmen.
And farther below Lake Ontario
takes in what Lake Erie can send her,
And the iron boats go as the mariners all know
with the Gales of November remembered.

/ Creepin' 'round your back door
// heh
 
2014-02-13 05:18:59 PM  
Remember how some scientists worry about global warming shutting down the Gulf Stream as cold water from melting ice covers the Atlantic and shuts down the thermo-saline circulation, sending parts of North Western Europe and the UK into the ice box? (As happened less than 11,000 years ago.) Well, imagine that the polar jet stream stays locked into place over Canada as well as the UK, drawing Arctic cold down to freeze some of us, while others suffer from unseasonal warmth and dryness.

This sort of thing is what causes glaciers to advance and ice caps to form in unwonted places.

There was still ice caps in Central Quebec 9,000 years ago.

The Great Lakes were freezing like this less than 300 years ago due to the "Little Ice Age", which lasted into the mid-1800s. A couple of times in the early 20th century, Niagara Falls froze. People were able to walk out to islands in the Great Lakes.

In other words, a regional new normal does not refute climate change--it just means that global warming comes with local or regional cooling as an optional extra. Some of which will be unpredicted change and thus dangerous. Nobody says the models are perfect, only that they are improving as more and more data is collected and different details of weather and local climate are modeled more accurately and added to the climate models.

I've been looking at the maps showing the climate in Eastern Canada over the last century. In my childhood, the whole area was much cooler than it was after the early 1980s. Normal was a lot colder all the way back through the lives of my parents, grandparents, and great- and great-great grandparents.

Most of the rest of North America began warming generations earlier than the Maritimes, New England, and Quebec. Perhaps it was largely due to the kind of warming that created the Great Dustbowl and the recent trans-American drought (which spared only the Pacific Northwest, which was wetter and cooler and thus attracted the attention of climate change denialists although it meant the climate was changing every where else and only a couple of states were bucking the trend). I expect that the North West will become a refuge against global warming again. It has done so several times when the world warmer much more than today and caused mass extinctions.

But if the present dip in the Jetstream with its Arctic cold through the middle of the Continent were to stick around, it would certainly have no cooling effect on the oceans. Only the UK would share in our cold, while Russia and Pakistan would warm again as they did during the year of the great fires and droughts and floods, and the tundra would go on thawing out and leaking Gigatonnes of CO2 and methane.

This could be the new normal. Ice free Siberia and glacier-covered Central Canada, although generally, the part of Canada that would generate a new ice age is warming at four times the rate as the rest of Canada, which is warming at twice the rate as the world as a whole (as is Australia). The map looked like that for thousands of years, though. The results for life in North America and Europe were not pretty. Don't gloat over what you don't understand. It may be worse than expected by the climate scientists and that is far more likely than it being better than expected. All of the shift in certainty is going the wrong way for the old normal and denialists.
 
2014-02-13 05:23:23 PM  
This will affect the shipping season.
 
2014-02-13 05:26:05 PM  

Descartes: Silly Subby, this is only weather.  When it's hotter than normal it's called climate.


stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-13 05:26:08 PM  

that one guy from that one place: Approves:

[www.notinhalloffame.com image 392x637]


www.miataturbo.net

They should do a duet...
 
2014-02-13 05:26:46 PM  
So let me get this straight. Artic ice shelves retreat for a few years and that is proof of global warming. The Great Lakes freeze more than they ever have, but that can't be used as an argument against it. I think I got it. Weather patterns in some parts of the world are more important than others.
 
2014-02-13 05:29:57 PM  

Lee451: The AGW crowd reminds me of playing cards when I was in jail. As soon as you caught on to the scam the others were perpetrating, they changed the rules so they can continue scamming. When you make up the rules as you go along you insure winning

/I got some carbon credits I will gladly sell the deluded farkers who still believe


I often get my science from the incarcerated, so this is a helpful post.
 
2014-02-13 05:30:39 PM  

Jakesta: I think I got it.


That's the problem.  You guys really think you do.
 
2014-02-13 05:38:15 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jakesta: I think I got it.

That's the problem.  You guys really think you do.


And that is the problem.  That you think the problem is his THOUGHTS, while others think it's CARBON, and others think it's AGW, and still others think it melting snow or animal migration or glaciers calving or that we can though debate or wealth redistribution or taxes or Al Gore movies or another government study predict or change the outcome.
 
2014-02-13 05:39:01 PM  

czetie: I'm disappointed to have to share a species with people as willfully ignorant as you.


2013 hottest year on record.  willful ignorance indeed.
 
2014-02-13 05:45:47 PM  

czetie: Descartes: Silly Subby, this is only weather.  When it's hotter than normal it's called climate.

I'm disappointed to have to share a species with people as willfully ignorant as you.


Of course, Descartes' own doubt was hyperbolic and methodological.
 
2014-02-13 05:46:35 PM  
 
2014-02-13 05:49:10 PM  

rkiller1: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jakesta: I think I got it.

That's the problem.  You guys really think you do.

And that is the problem.  That you think the problem is his THOUGHTS, while others think it's CARBON, and others think it's AGW, and still others think it melting snow or animal migration or glaciers calving or that we can though debate or wealth redistribution or taxes or Al Gore movies or another government study predict or change the outcome.


Weather or not (see what I did there?) climate change is man made is a silly argument. It implies that the climate ofthe earth has been stable at any point in time. It hasn't. The current change we are going through will not destroy the planet. It may mean tough times for certain plants and animals, not the least of which are humans. But the planet will be alright in the near future as well as long after we've moved to Mars
 
2014-02-13 05:50:01 PM  

de_Selby: Of course, Descartes' own doubt was hyperbolic and methodological.


ajrogersphilosophy.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-13 05:50:11 PM  
So when they say we need to reduce our "carbon footprint", do they really mean "carbon dioxide" footprint?
 
2014-02-13 05:53:44 PM  

Descartes: de_Selby: Of course, Descartes' own doubt was hyperbolic and methodological.

[ajrogersphilosophy.files.wordpress.com image 319x158]


Um, yes. And then after doubting everything, he realizes he can't doubt everything. And that he needs God for scientific knowledge of anything but himself. Is that the direction you are heading?
 
2014-02-13 05:54:45 PM  

John0x: You just got Bill Nye'd


Debate between Bill and Dill
 
2014-02-13 05:54:54 PM  

Jakesta: Weather or not (see what I did there?) climate change is man made is a silly argument. It implies that the climate ofthe earth has been stable at any point in time.


It most certainly does not.  This is what I mean when I say that the problem is that you guys think you know what you're talking about.  You're wrong from the very beginning, and you build your case from there.
 
2014-02-13 05:55:28 PM  
I keep hearing that a "consensus" of scientists agree about AGCC (Anthropocentric Global Climate Change). However every scientist that I have asked has responded by equating AGCC or AGW to other pseudo scientific pursuits such as astrologists, chupacabra chasers, ghost hunters, nessie watchers, and bigfoot research.

I have only ever heard about this "consensus" of AGCC scientists from journalists, politicians, and "Believers".

They wouldn't lie about something so important just to push some collectivist agenda, would they?
 
2014-02-13 05:56:40 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jakesta: Weather or not (see what I did there?) climate change is man made is a silly argument. It implies that the climate ofthe earth has been stable at any point in time.

It most certainly does not.  This is what I mean when I say that the problem is that you guys think you know what you're talking about.  You're wrong from the very beginning, and you build your case from there.


So what exactly is the "problem"?
Enlighten me please.
 
2014-02-13 06:01:48 PM  

Jakesta: rkiller1: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jakesta: I think I got it.

That's the problem.  You guys really think you do.

And that is the problem.  That you think the problem is his THOUGHTS, while others think it's CARBON, and others think it's AGW, and still others think it melting snow or animal migration or glaciers calving or that we can though debate or wealth redistribution or taxes or Al Gore movies or another government study predict or change the outcome.

Weather or not (see what I did there?) climate change is man made is a silly argument. It implies that the climate ofthe earth has been stable at any point in time. It hasn't. The current change we are going through will not destroy the planet. It may mean tough times for certain plants and animals, not the least of which are humans. But the planet will be alright in the near future as well as long after we've moved to Mars


"The planet will be fine. The people are farked" - GC
 
2014-02-13 06:01:51 PM  

Jakesta: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jakesta: Weather or not (see what I did there?) climate change is man made is a silly argument. It implies that the climate ofthe earth has been stable at any point in time.

It most certainly does not.  This is what I mean when I say that the problem is that you guys think you know what you're talking about.  You're wrong from the very beginning, and you build your case from there.

So what exactly is the "problem"?
Enlighten me please.


Maybe I should clarify. Climate change probably is real, and we are probably causing a lot of it. But so what? The planet will be fine. Even if all the polar ice caps melt and temps rise 10° (which has happened before, about 50 million years ago) the earth will recover. It may take 150,000 years or so but that's a blink of an eye in terms of planetary history.
 
2014-02-13 06:03:30 PM  

Jakesta: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jakesta: Weather or not (see what I did there?) climate change is man made is a silly argument. It implies that the climate ofthe earth has been stable at any point in time.

It most certainly does not.  This is what I mean when I say that the problem is that you guys think you know what you're talking about.  You're wrong from the very beginning, and you build your case from there.

So what exactly is the "problem"?
Enlighten me please.


The Dunning-Kruger Effect
 
2014-02-13 06:03:52 PM  

Pick: Back in the 1900's it was simply called, "A hot summer" or a "A cold winter". And that was that.


That is still what it is.  If we have a hot summer, it's a hot summer. It's a single data point for a single location for a single time period.

Do some people with little understanding of science say things like "it's hot today, thus global warming is happening"?  Of course!   Those aren't valid arguments for or against AGW or Global Climate Change.

Climate Change and Global Warming are both happening.  The average temperature of the earth is increasing steadily as a partial result of greenhouse gas emissions.   The overall warming of the Earth doesn't mean that all parts of the Earth will simultaneously increase in temperature at the same time.  Some of that additional energy will shift wind patterns around which might lead to locally colder temperatures in some areas of the Earth.

The fact that morons and idiots "believe" in a theory doesn't mean the theory itself is valid or not valid.  There are far more idiots and morons that "don't believe" in AGW for some of the most ridiculous reasons possible.

/The good thing is that science doesn't care if you "believe" in it or not.
 
2014-02-13 06:13:43 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Jakesta: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jakesta: Weather or not (see what I did there?) climate change is man made is a silly argument. It implies that the climate ofthe earth has been stable at any point in time.

It most certainly does not.  This is what I mean when I say that the problem is that you guys think you know what you're talking about.  You're wrong from the very beginning, and you build your case from there.

So what exactly is the "problem"?
Enlighten me please.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect


This made me laugh. Well done
 
2014-02-13 06:15:01 PM  

politech: I have only ever heard about this "consensus" of AGCC scientists from journalists, politicians, and "Believers".

They wouldn't lie about something so important just to push some collectivist agenda, would they?


97% of climate scientists agree [1][2][3].

1) W. R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change,"  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

2) P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"  Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

3)  N. Oreskes, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
 
2014-02-13 06:34:46 PM  

Jakesta: Maybe I should clarify. Climate change probably is real, and we are probably causing a lot of it. But so what? The planet will be fine.


But your great grandkids, maybe not so much.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:19 PM  
Surprised this picture did not surface in discussion yet:
s.imwx.com
It was a sunny and balmy 28 degrees today near Lake Huron - it actually felt better outside.

/Don't get excited yet - Spring is still over a month away.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:40 PM  

sigdiamond2000: It's like putting coffee in tall, narrow mug instead of a short, wide one. The taller cup keeps the coffee warmer.

Can any of Fark's baristas speak specifically to this reckless, incredible claim?


Smaller surface area = less heat loss, duhhhh.
 
2014-02-13 06:39:14 PM  

Rapmaster2000: [o.onionstatic.com image 850x595]
HA HA HA.  I for one am glad this fad is almost over.  Up next, blue jeans, rap music, and miniskirts.


Can I put in a request for the backless halter tops of the late 1990s/early 2000s to come back a bit sooner on the nostalgia train?
 
2014-02-13 06:46:14 PM  

unexplained bacon: OregonVet: unexplained bacon: looks like we're getting a heat wave next week, not sure if that's factored in DRTFA

damn it's been a hard winter, I can't recall one so cold and so snowy with so few breaks.

I normally vacation near Little Lake in the winter, but Northern OH has been bad enough I said hell with it. I still let my friends use my camp because the snowmobile trails are so much better up there, but usually I just hang around camp and read/cook. Rather just do it at home this year.

My friends and I skipped our "ice fishing" trip this year too. We haven't actually gone out to fish in a few years we've turned it into a long weekend of drinking and cards, but this year was just too nasty to make the trip. I did however make time to drink at home...almost as much fun.


It's the drinking that matters.
 
2014-02-13 06:46:23 PM  

whatshisname: Jakesta: Maybe I should clarify. Climate change probably is real, and we are probably causing a lot of it. But so what? The planet will be fine.

But your great grandkids, maybe not so much.


Why? Because the coastline will be in a different spot? Humans are very adaptable. They'll be ok too.
 
2014-02-13 06:46:29 PM  

simkatu: politech: I have only ever heard about this "consensus" of AGCC scientists from journalists, politicians, and "Believers".

They wouldn't lie about something so important just to push some collectivist agenda, would they?

97% of climate scientists agree [1][2][3].

1) W. R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change,"  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

2) P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"  Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

3)  N. Oreskes, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.



I see you have the  journos, politicians and the believers covered in your links. I also see a bunch of very important looking text formatting. But you're not a scientist are you? Your just another believer taking it all on faith (or you are lying). Why should I believe you, or them?

What is your agenda? What are your proposed solutions? Do your prefered solutions to the "problem" involve some sort of collectivist or authoritarian solutions? I'll bet they do!
 
2014-02-13 07:06:54 PM  
Well, the last two winters it's been so warm, lake erie didn't even THINK about freezing.

Since I moved to Cleveland two years ago... I really wanted to see the lake freeze over, since I've never gotten to see that in person... who knew the whole damn thing would freeze over :)
 
2014-02-13 07:07:10 PM  

czetie: Descartes: Silly Subby, this is only weather.  When it's hotter than normal it's called climate.

I'm disappointed to have to share a species with people as willfully ignorant as you.


Caught one in the first throw!
 
2014-02-13 07:11:32 PM  

Stile4aly: AngryDragon: I'm learning here that climate change proponents have absolutely no sense of humor.

I thought it was funny, subby

We've been hearing "it's cold in winter, therefore global warming is a hoax" for years.


It's still funny and you're still predictably humorless.
 
2014-02-13 07:26:58 PM  

Jakesta: whatshisname: Jakesta: Maybe I should clarify. Climate change probably is real, and we are probably causing a lot of it. But so what? The planet will be fine.

But your great grandkids, maybe not so much.

Why? Because the coastline will be in a different spot? Humans are very adaptable. They'll be ok too.


Our food cycle, air cycle, and water cycle is not closed and while Most other animals and plants are not capable of breeding year round. They depend on seasonal temperature and weather patterns and/or food availability. Plants die when it gets hot or cold at the wrong times during their growing cycles.

We are hugely dependent on non-artificial natural processes and many of them rely on predictable seasonal variations in temperature and weather.
 
2014-02-13 07:41:42 PM  

Rapmaster2000: [o.onionstatic.com image 850x595]
HA HA HA.  I for one am glad this fad is almost over.  Up next, blue jeans, rap music, and miniskirts.


What a surprise ... a denier advocating book burning.

I understand how stupid people can be anti-science. I find it strange how proud they are of it.
 
2014-02-13 07:47:02 PM  
Here are the latest totals for each lake, by percentage of surface area covered with ice. The entire Great Lakes average is 87 percent, the most since 1994.
Erie: 96
Superior: 95
Huron: 95
Michigan: 80
Ontario: 32


I get 79.6%, not 87%.
 
2014-02-13 07:56:43 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-02-13 07:56:44 PM  

rwdavis: Jakesta: whatshisname: Jakesta: Maybe I should clarify. Climate change probably is real, and we are probably causing a lot of it. But so what? The planet will be fine.

But your great grandkids, maybe not so much.

Why? Because the coastline will be in a different spot? Humans are very adaptable. They'll be ok too.

Our food cycle, air cycle, and water cycle is not closed and while Most other animals and plants are not capable of breeding year round. They depend on seasonal temperature and weather patterns and/or food availability. Plants die when it gets hot or cold at the wrong times during their growing cycles.

We are hugely dependent on non-artificial natural processes and many of them rely on predictable seasonal variations in temperature and weather.


If and when that happens, humans will adapt as they have for thousands of years. Why is it that people seem to think that if the environment changes the human species isn't going to survive it? We will as a species. Does it mean that we won't have some hard times? Of course not. And what we are doing today may very well be a cause of that. But the doom and gloom nonsense needs to stop if anyone ever actually wants to change something
 
2014-02-13 07:59:11 PM  

Hassan Ben Sobr: Here are the latest totals for each lake, by percentage of surface area covered with ice. The entire Great Lakes average is 87 percent, the most since 1994.
Erie: 96
Superior: 95
Huron: 95
Michigan: 80
Ontario: 32


I get 79.6%, not 87%.


You're joking, right?
 
2014-02-13 08:01:06 PM  

Jakesta: Hassan Ben Sobr: Here are the latest totals for each lake, by percentage of surface area covered with ice. The entire Great Lakes average is 87 percent, the most since 1994.
Erie: 96
Superior: 95
Huron: 95
Michigan: 80
Ontario: 32


I get 79.6%, not 87%.

You're joking, right?


He must be one of those guys that thinks size doesn't matter
 
2014-02-13 08:03:11 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Jakesta: Hassan Ben Sobr: Here are the latest totals for each lake, by percentage of surface area covered with ice. The entire Great Lakes average is 87 percent, the most since 1994.
Erie: 96
Superior: 95
Huron: 95
Michigan: 80
Ontario: 32


I get 79.6%, not 87%.

You're joking, right?

He must be one of those guys that thinks size doesn't matter


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-13 08:05:37 PM  

Hassan Ben Sobr: Here are the latest totals for each lake, by percentage of surface area covered with ice. The entire Great Lakes average is 87 percent, the most since 1994.
Erie: 96
Superior: 95
Huron: 95
Michigan: 80
Ontario: 32


I get 79.6%, not 87%.


I believe it percentage of total area, not the average of the 5 percentages.  Ontario has less surface, thus the 32% is not going to be weighted evenly.  At least I think that's what is happening - I don't give a crap enough to check.  Just like I don't give a crap about global warming / climate change because even if the most alarmist projection comes true, there's no way we could address the problem without throwing the world into a total, global, economic meltdown.  I'd prefer to die by freezing to death than to be captured by the roving rape gangs and kept for food.
 
2014-02-13 08:13:47 PM  
elvindeath: there's no way we could address the problem without throwing the world into a total, global, economic meltdown.

What a shock, a confident Internet Expert knows far more than all the folks who study this for a living.

Meanwhile, the US has cut it's total (not per capita - raw total tons) carbon emissions every year since 2007. No, it's not all due to the recession - the growth of natural gas availability from frackig is awesome. And apparently the auto industry can deliver efficient cars without resulting in roving rape gangs.

Reducing carbon emissions to a sustainable level (sustainable, which is far higher than zero) is completely doable without catastrophic costs. Costs that every study I've seen are far lower than the cost of re-building the past couple centuries of infrastructure, from watersheds to farm land, built up to support our populations.
 
2014-02-13 08:24:47 PM  

Surpheon: elvindeath: there's no way we could address the problem without throwing the world into a total, global, economic meltdown.

What a shock, a confident Internet Expert knows far more than all the folks who study this for a living.

Meanwhile, the US has cut it's total (not per capita - raw total tons) carbon emissions every year since 2007. No, it's not all due to the recession - the growth of natural gas availability from frackig is awesome. And apparently the auto industry can deliver efficient cars without resulting in roving rape gangs.

Reducing carbon emissions to a sustainable level (sustainable, which is far higher than zero) is completely doable without catastrophic costs. Costs that every study I've seen are far lower than the cost of re-building the past couple centuries of infrastructure, from watersheds to farm land, built up to support our populations.


Yet China and India's have skyrocketed.  Hate to tell you this but America is working on it.  Good luck getting the BRICs to comply though.  Those are the ones who will bury us.

Oh, and that's all due to outsourcing, offshoring, and NAFTA.  Ironic that Bill Clinton signed it, huh?
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report