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 45
    More: Cool, Central New York, Great Lakes, Great Lakes ice, physical scientist, Lake Ontario, global climate models, lake effect  
•       •       •

9584 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:21 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-02-13 03:32:19 PM  
5 votes:
I'm learning here that climate change proponents have absolutely no sense of humor.

I thought it was funny, subby
2014-02-13 03:30:03 PM  
5 votes:
Now days, when it's hot out and people are frying eggs on the sidewalk, it's "Global Warming", everybody panic and cut CO2 emissions!!!! Who can we blame for this?

When it's cold out and people are crashing their cars all over the south in ice storms, it's "Climate Change", what are we going to do? Who can we blame for this?

Back in the 1900's it was simply called, "A hot summer" or a "A cold winter". And that was that.
2014-02-13 03:05:19 PM  
5 votes:

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.
2014-02-13 02:33:38 PM  
4 votes:
Silly Subby, this is only weather.  When it's hotter than normal it's called climate.
2014-02-13 06:03:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:03:55 PM  
2 votes:
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
2014-02-13 03:32:53 PM  
2 votes:
If we had devices which could convert CO2 into gold dust, then conservatives would be screaming about there being too much CO2.
So we need to find a selfish motivation directly related to profit and hurting poor people to get them onboard.
2014-02-13 03:31:14 PM  
2 votes:

rkiller1: ...exactly as predicted by global climate models

Citation needed, or you be a troll, Subby.


www.theindiepedant.com

Get yourself checked.
2014-02-13 03:26:35 PM  
2 votes:
o.onionstatic.com
HA HA HA.  I for one am glad this fad is almost over.  Up next, blue jeans, rap music, and miniskirts.
2014-02-13 03:26:34 PM  
2 votes:
Hrm, the news people said we might have a cooler summer because of this.

And possibly not having Summerfest with 95 degree days.

i2.kym-cdn.com
2014-02-14 12:07:15 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Surpheon: What a shock, a confident Internet Expert knows far more than all the folks who study this for a living.Yeah, he may well know better.   The so-called "experts" have booted every prediction they've made so far.  Not only that, they've booted them in the same direction, and by approximately the same factor, and in over 25 years haven't managed to correct their error.  And, in fact, if the gentleman you are insulting here is being honest, he is ahead of much of the climatology community.  Pretty much the entire "leadership" of the climatology community is selling their "consensus" to politicians, who are buying results favorable to draconian new measures with a 20-fold increase in research money as a Quid-Pro-Quo.
[www.climatedialogue.org image 607x342]



Comparing a temperature record to the  averages from model runsis misleading.

It's the exact same faulty reasoning that mandated this response:
img.fark.net

No matter how it's presented, shorter term changes may not accurately reflect longer-term ones. It's a simple concept that I hope others can grasp, even if GeneralJim (and subby) cannot.
2014-02-14 11:34:18 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: LouDobbsAwaaaay: gretzkyscores: Someone tell reality to start conforming to the models NOW, dammit!

Or we could just tell you that a single year doesn't equate to a trend that you can compare to model projections.  You idiots chase every data point like you're scoring points in a game against someone, and completely ignore the trend.
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x402]


people.virginia.edu

Heh. GeneralJim is inadvertently providing an example of exactly the sort of cherry-picking that LouDobbsAwaaaay is arguing against. Instead of chasing a single data point in a temporal sense, GeneralJim has done so in a spatial sense.  A single temperature record from Greenland does not somehow disprove global trends.

That out of the way, a more robust holocene record from Marcott et al. 2013,  taking 73 records instead of just one, looks more like this:

img.fark.net
2014-02-14 11:13:11 AM  
1 votes:

AngryDragon: Farking Canuck: What is obvious is the whole "L-l-l-look at China! Our doing anything can never help so do nothing!!!" is a cornerstone of the denier agenda. Congratz if you came up with it independently of a industry funded blog

So the fact that our emissions are dropping means that we're doing nothing.


Not at all. Much progress has been made in spite of the denier mantra of "do nothing". But the denier campaign to spread misinformation and to convince everyone to take a "sit back and wait" position has negatively impact progress towards cleaner power.


AngryDragon: Farking Canuck: The point is that China is taking action. We will see how effective it is ... but at least they acknowledge the science and evidence and they are trying

But China is "trying" so that means what again?


It means that they've recognized that there is a problem and they are moving forward with the very difficult task of trying to bring power to their massive population in a cost-effective manner while simultaneously trying to reduce pollution. A daunting task that they are only starting out at. It will be decades before we see any positive movement from them. But they are trying. Deniers say that because they are not making huge leaps forward today we should do nothing.

AngryDragon: Agenda.  I think you have one.


I most certainly have an agenda:

Item 1: Reduce Pollution: Cleaner air, less negative impact on AGW, long term health benefits for the population, reduced long term health costs

Item 2: Reduce Dependence on Middle East Oil: Stop funneling money to people who want to kill us.

Item 3: Attack Anti-Science: Science has been the force that pulled us out of the dark ages. These politically motivated attacks on science and scientists ("They're all lying for grant money") are pathetic, obvious and despicable. They need to be countered at every opportunity.


Deniers are not on board with this agenda. They invent ridiculous talking points like:

- "They want to destroy the economy" - Who the fark wants to destroy their own economy? This is epic stupidity.

- "They want to redistribute wealth" - While there is certainly an anti-1% movement out there it is not related to the science of AGW. They conflate these two to sew confusion and to misdirect away from the science.

- "The UN is going to take over our government" - They are claiming that the organization that they eternally mock for being impotent and only able to send out "strongly worded letters" is now going to take over the world. Real Dr. Evil stuff here folks.

These idiot statements represent the intense stupidity of the denier movement.

Personally I prefer cleaner air, less money to terrorists and support for science. But you keep going with the idiotic lies if that suits you better.
2014-02-14 08:22:18 AM  
1 votes:

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

I thought it was funny, subby


Laughter is still allowed, but only mocking laughter directed at ideological opponents. By making all other forms of humor too "insensitive" to tolerate, two goals are accomplished: First, to suppress all undirected humor that stands any chance of causing damage to the Inner Party's reputation for infallibility and the unchallenged authority that derives from it, and second, to provide an outlet that can be channeled by the Inner Party into a powerful ideological weapon, for use in the engineered never-ending war that we call "Peace."

/picture a boot stamping on a human face, forever
2014-02-13 11:58:23 PM  
1 votes:

Jakesta: It's media and politics that distort the message.


Which is exactly why I suggested you not get your science from the media.

Let's be clear here. There are two completely different subjectsin play: the science of AGW and the politics of what to do about it. The deniers like to conflate the two because their position is 100% political and they cannot honestly argue the science.

I don't fight the politics fight as I know all politicians are dumber than science reporters and will never get anything right. But I will argue against the weapons-grade stupidity that is the denier "all climate scientists in the world are dirty liars scamming for juicy grants and the oil exec are the good guys who will steer us safely into the future" propaganda.

The fact is this: The overwhelming majority of publishing climate scientists working in the field believe that AGW is correct and is a serious threat to our way of life. Full stop.

All the arm-chair, brain-dead, green-text, internet "scientists" with their unsupported arguments and blatantly dishonest, repeatedly debunked graphs cannot change this and cannot challenge this. Their politics does not trump science.
2014-02-13 11:17:25 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: And I don't have kids.

We have THAT going for us, which is nice.
2014-02-13 11:13:33 PM  
1 votes:

Surpheon:

What a shock, a confident Internet Expert knows far more than all the folks who study this for a living.
Yeah, he may well know better.   The so-called "experts" have booted every prediction they've made so far.  Not only that, they've booted them in the same direction, and by approximately the same factor, and in over 25 years haven't managed to correct their error.  And, in fact, if the gentleman you are insulting here is being honest, he is ahead of much of the climatology community.  Pretty much the entire "leadership" of the climatology community is selling their "consensus" to politicians, who are buying results favorable to draconian new measures with a 20-fold increase in research money as a Quid-Pro-Quo.

www.climatedialogue.org

2014-02-13 08:54:06 PM  
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay:

gretzkyscores: Someone tell reality to start conforming to the models NOW, dammit!

Or we could just tell you that a single year doesn't equate to a trend that you can compare to model projections.  You idiots chase every data point like you're scoring points in a game against someone, and completely ignore the trend.

1.bp.blogspot.com

2014-02-13 08:13:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:05:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:56:43 PM  
1 votes:
imgs.xkcd.com
2014-02-13 06:46:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:46:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:22:35 PM  
1 votes:
I don't know if the slight global warming we've noticed is man-made or not.  But what's interesting is the ferocity in which the Alarmists defend their position no matter what.

It's almost like they are desperately wishing it to be true, so that they can press for a global re-distribution of wealth to "combat" it.

And there's lots of hypocrisy flying around to boot.

/Flame on.  I put on my asbestos underwear
2014-02-13 04:13:45 PM  
1 votes:
Miss Alexandra:

From Miss Alexandra's profile:

http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

Yes, she is promoting Geo-centrism.
You are now free to ignore her.
2014-02-13 04:06:33 PM  
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: I predict this thread to contain many graphs and charts.


i.imgur.com

Dr. Thinkwik's climate altering tugboat is clearly to blame for this.
2014-02-13 04:00:30 PM  
1 votes:

LordJiro: You mean like weather becoming extreme due ? to warming ocean currents and farked up atmospheric currents?


How many time have you said that weather and climate are not the same thing?
How many times has weather been extreme, by your standards, in the last million years?
How come when you run your outcome models in reverse we don't end up with todays climate?

When you make predictions that come true more people will pay attention, quit wasting your breath predicting wrong, we're going to stop paying attention..
2014-02-13 03:58:42 PM  
1 votes:
fark you deniers.
2014-02-13 03:55:27 PM  
1 votes:

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: You mean the climate models that predict that weather will become increasingly extreme and unpredictable


Must be why we've been experiencing historic lows in tornadoes, hurricanes, and forest fires. Someone tell reality to start conforming to the models NOW, dammit!
2014-02-13 03:48:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

I thought it was funny, subby


Nah, it's because the other side has such morons behind it we can't tell if they're joking or not.
2014-02-13 03:47:23 PM  
1 votes:
My father told me about driving across Lake Ontario from New York to Canada when he was a boy (the 1920's or 30's).  I can remember driving out on the bays of Lake Ontario regularly as a kid and teen in the 1970's. but by the time the 80's rolled around I can remember people getting stuck out there and the media warning folks not to use the bays anymore, once while walking across my friends and I encountered open water when things should have been long frozen.

One freak winter does not mean much, especially since the records go back only a short way, lets see a few years of this.  Even with this winter the snowfall totals are way down from what I remember as a kid.
2014-02-13 03:44:59 PM  
1 votes:

Tyee: I predict that one day the alarmist will make a prediction that actually happens but nobody will be paying attention because they have yet to be correct and are looked at as the little boy who cries wolf.


You mean like weather becoming extreme due to warming ocean currents and farked up atmospheric currents?
Bf+
2014-02-13 03:44:03 PM  
1 votes:

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?



Not a barista, but I'm guessing they were getting at the idea that less exposed coffee means it cools more slowly, but that completely disregards the amount of coffee mug surface area, which also contributes to cooling.  If the mug has a closing lid, then the shape of the mug would matter quite a bit.  I believe old coffee cans (and oil cans) used as little material while maximizing volume. If the mug doesn't have to be cylindrical to be a "mug", a spherical mug would keep the heat in the best, due to the minimal surface-area-to-volume ratio.
2014-02-13 03:34:50 PM  
1 votes:
I wonder if global warming refers to the entire globe or only a portion of one country?
2014-02-13 03:32:12 PM  
1 votes:

Pick: Now days, when it's hot out and people are frying eggs on the sidewalk, it's "Global Warming", everybody panic and cut CO2 emissions!!!! Who can we blame for this?

When it's cold out and people are crashing their cars all over the south in ice storms, it's "Climate Change", what are we going to do? Who can we blame for this?

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


Agrees

www.farmersalmanac.com
2014-02-13 03:31:41 PM  
1 votes:

Semper IvXx: So did they really predict it? Or was this sarcasm?


gifrific.com
2014-02-13 03:28:32 PM  
1 votes:

What_do_you_want_now: THE REASONABLE DEBATE ENDED AT THIS POST!!!!


I'm pretty sure it was over well before that point.
2014-02-13 03:28:32 PM  
1 votes:
So did they really predict it? Or was this sarcasm?
2014-02-13 03:28:26 PM  
1 votes:
...exactly as predicted by global climate models

Citation needed, or you be a troll, Subby.
2014-02-13 03:27:25 PM  
1 votes:
Meanwhile we have record highs and extended droughts in the Southwest.

But let's pretend these constant Noreasters are perfectly normal.
2014-02-13 03:26:12 PM  
1 votes:
You mean the climate models that predict that weather will become increasingly extreme and unpredictable, like massive cold in the middle of the country while the Arctic is 45 degrees? Or maybe subby's definition of "global" is a circle of land 50 miles across.
2014-02-13 03:24:59 PM  
1 votes:

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?


IDK, less surface area to radiate heat?
2014-02-13 03:22:59 PM  
1 votes:
I predict this thread to contain many graphs and charts.
2014-02-13 03:17:56 PM  
1 votes:
The big lake they call Gitchigoomee
2014-02-13 02:22:38 PM  
1 votes:
Psssst - note to Canuckians: the US invasion starts next week.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 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