Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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)   The long winter can be blamed on one thing: a changing jet stream   (nation.time.com ) divider line
    More: PSA, jet streams, middle latitudes, winter  
•       •       •

6815 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:07 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-02-16 12:06:29 PM  
CONTRAILS!
/Adjusts tinfoil hat
 
2014-02-16 12:16:46 PM  
Well, as a positive benefit on climate change, this winter has been absolutely beautiful in FL this year.  We've had a few nice chilly days to remind us that different seasons exist, but it hasn't dipped below freezing (well, at least here) to endanger any of the landscaping or crops.

Plus, my AC has had to run a lot less.  My electric bill was only $45 last month, that's a little more than half of the normal winter level and a fifth of the normal summer level.

Of course, the downside is if this shiat keeps up eventually the ice caps are going to melt and my house is going to be under water, so hopefully the storms up north keep driving folks south so I can sell it for a nice profit and move to a higher elevation before that happens.
 
2014-02-16 01:09:22 PM  
Oh, now you're going to tell me that the jet stream is related to climate?  Nice try libs.
 
2014-02-16 01:10:32 PM  

vudukungfu: CONTRAILS!
/Adjusts tinfoil hat


you mean chemtrails

/FALSE FLAG! FALSE FLAG!!
//puts back on dropped tin foil hat
 
2014-02-16 01:10:46 PM  
Iblame(shakes magic 8 ball) El Niño
 
2014-02-16 01:12:06 PM  
But, but, I heard from people who hate Al Gore as the inventor of climate that the ever-changing climate can't change now!
 
2014-02-16 01:13:36 PM  
Change.
Things change.
Like climate and weather.
 
2014-02-16 01:14:28 PM  
The Winter is the same duration every year.
 
2014-02-16 01:14:53 PM  
img.fark.net tag on holday, subby?  Like somewhere warm, maybe?
 
2014-02-16 01:14:53 PM  
Change?! Unpossible!
 
2014-02-16 01:14:53 PM  
Today, in my part of the world, it was farking spring. Clear skies, warm breeze - we went to the park all day. Of course, last year around this time, we had thirty centimeters of snow.
 
2014-02-16 01:17:27 PM  
It rained here last night, so the California drought is over now

/that's a relief
 
2014-02-16 01:20:42 PM  
It's been great for Colorado. Spectacular snow year.
 
2014-02-16 01:22:28 PM  
Bring on "Climate Change"...  cold snowy winters can only get better...

"Climate Change" isn't necessarily a bad thing... it is bad for some beach front property... and good for northern farming which now has a longer growing season
 
2014-02-16 01:22:49 PM  

HighZoolander: But, but, I heard from people who hate Al Gore as the inventor of climate that the ever-changing climate can't change now!


I blame Al Gore. If he'd won the vote, we'd be doing something about this.
 
2014-02-16 01:23:19 PM  

vudukungfu: CONTRAILS!
/Adjusts tinfoil hat


Hand in you tinfoil, Son, and let me show you how it's done.


The Obama Administration wants us more reliant on government bailouts, so they have fired up the HAARP!  It only gets worse from here, but DON'T FALL FOR IT!
 
2014-02-16 01:23:32 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
I thought that the long winter follows the long summer.
 
2014-02-16 01:23:37 PM  

RoyHobbs22: The Winter is the same duration every year.


Not in leap years.

/your mind = blown!
 
2014-02-16 01:24:40 PM  
Looking forward to a debate on Meet the Press over whether or not there is a Jet Stream.
 
2014-02-16 01:25:28 PM  
Thanks Obama!
 
2014-02-16 01:25:40 PM  

Type random string here: [img.fark.net image 128x26] tag on holday, subby?  Like somewhere warm, maybe?


THIS. Get a brian, dumbmitter.
 
2014-02-16 01:26:21 PM  
so if anything happens, you can blubber about global warming  climate change  climate instability

/ climate instability
// that's the ticket
 
2014-02-16 01:26:33 PM  
Right around 80 all week. Couple cold spells, but overall pretty tame, though it looks like the last cold snap may have killed my lime tree, Boo.
 
2014-02-16 01:27:47 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well, as a positive benefit on climate change, this winter has been absolutely beautiful in FL this year.  We've had a few nice chilly days to remind us that different seasons exist, but it hasn't dipped below freezing (well, at least here) to endanger any of the landscaping or crops.

Plus, my AC has had to run a lot less.  My electric bill was only $45 last month, that's a little more than half of the normal winter level and a fifth of the normal summer level.

Of course, the downside is if this shiat keeps up eventually the ice caps are going to melt and my house is going to be under water, so hopefully the storms up north keep driving folks south so I can sell it for a nice profit and move to a higher elevation before that happens.


I'm a "northerner" who just moved to Florida, and am looking to make friends. You near the Tampa area?
 
2014-02-16 01:29:14 PM  
I sure hope it keeps changing, California will have to look more like Arizona if we keep getting this little rain.
 
2014-02-16 01:30:00 PM  
When are climatologists going to throw up their arms and just say "We don't know what the fark is going on"?
 
2014-02-16 01:30:06 PM  
The only thing that can save us is if Al Gore gets a much bigger house.
 
2014-02-16 01:30:29 PM  
You know what else the "long" winter can be blamed on?  It's farking February.
 
2014-02-16 01:33:58 PM  
How England got California's rain remains a mystery.

/is not actually a mystery.
 
2014-02-16 01:34:34 PM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Today, in my part of the world, it was farking spring. Clear skies, warm breeze - we went to the park all day. Of course, last year around this time, we had thirty centimeters of snow.


Centimeters?? Go back to Celisusvania comrade!!
 
2014-02-16 01:35:54 PM  

Type random string here: tag on holday, subby?  Like somewhere warm, maybe?


Holday Holday Holday Holday Holday
 
2014-02-16 01:37:42 PM  
I thought it was God, punishing us for twerking
 
2014-02-16 01:38:17 PM  
Long winter? We had a month of fall and then skipped directly to late spring.

/Californian
 
2014-02-16 01:38:31 PM  
No no no. The recent weather is part of a plot by the CIA to stop my hordes of followers from rising up and installing me as Inconceivable Potentate. Please make a note of it.
 
2014-02-16 01:41:43 PM  

listernine: Type random string here: tag on holday, subby?  Like somewhere warm, maybe?

Holday Holday Holday Holday Holday


Leave him alone, he's probably German.
i1.ytimg.com

"Let me take you far away, you'd like a hol-day..."
 
2014-02-16 01:41:48 PM  
thisishistorictimes.com
 
2014-02-16 01:42:31 PM  
Naesen:

I'm a "northerner" who just moved to Florida, and am looking to make friends. You near the Tampa area?

I'm a couple hours south of you.
 
2014-02-16 01:44:36 PM  
If current weather patterns are really part of a long-term shift then this will have horrific ramifications on America's food supply, as the current weather pattern is drought in the San Joaquin Valley.
 
2014-02-16 01:49:27 PM  
Look, I'm as much of a believer of science and evidence as anyone. So, let's see some. What the hell evidence is there that this is a "changing pattern" as opposed to an anomaly this year? One data point doesn't make a pattern.
 
2014-02-16 01:51:26 PM  
This is news? The jet stream has been shifting to these long-period longitudinal orientations for a few years now. Get stuck on one side and you're hot and dry, the other cold and wet. We used to call these cold and warm fronts and they'd sweep across the country, spreading the weather out. But lately, they look more like a goddamn standing wave and some place is getting repeatedly hammered, while some place else is bone dry.
 
2014-02-16 01:51:27 PM  

CruJones: Right around 80 all week. Couple cold spells, but overall pretty tame, though it looks like the last cold snap may have killed my lime tree, Boo.


I'm not your Boo, Sweetie.
 
2014-02-16 01:53:22 PM  
The winter isn't long, the winter is winter.   It's winter until March 21 or so.   Snow falls in winter.   Is our cultural memory so short that we don't remember previous epic winters?
 
2014-02-16 01:56:08 PM  

ZoSo_the_Crowe: If current weather patterns are really part of a long-term shift then this will have horrific ramifications on America's food supply, as the current weather pattern is drought in the San Joaquin Valley.


This pattern also results in a "Pineapple Express" stream of moisture from around Hawaii which has in the past been known to cause flooding, rather than drought. In 1850 one of these things destroyed a quarter of the taxable property, and after drowning 200,000 cattle the state switched over permanently from ranching to farming.

I wouldn't be surprised if a couple decades from now the climate will simply have shifted to one where California is dependent on the summer monsoons to water a real pineapple crop.
 
2014-02-16 01:56:22 PM  

MemeSlave: The winter isn't long, the winter is winter.   It's winter until March 21 or so.   Snow falls in winter.   Is our cultural memory so short that we don't remember previous epic winters?


Last year, especially late winter, sucked too. Same pattern. I went back and did some rough (anecdotal, really) analysis using weather station plots from the last thirty years or so of winters and I could not find a prolonged, stationary setup like this. And certainly not twice within 12 months.
 
2014-02-16 01:56:58 PM  

MemeSlave: The winter isn't long, the winter is winter.   It's winter until March 21 or so.   Snow falls in winter.   Is our cultural memory so short that we don't remember previous epic winters?


Yes
 
2014-02-16 01:58:50 PM  

Jarhead_h: You know what else the "long" winter can be blamed on?  It's farking February.


And the groundhogs.
 
2014-02-16 02:00:19 PM  
Any cave in Virginia is going to be about 55 degrees and dark all year long.
 
2014-02-16 02:04:12 PM  
Ravage:Try connecting to your home computer via FTP from some remote location after having set it all up on your end. Most ISPs will block (filter out) that protocol.
rpm: FTP isn't NAT friendly. It could be just as much a side effect of network topology as anything else.
/you should be using scp, not ftp

letrole: nat friendly? say what? side effect of network topology? say what?
rpm:  Way to sidestep the issue, but I'll bite.
I made the assumption that the person setting up the FTP server and firewall wasn't a complete idiot. I dont know that you are trying to say by "NAT friendly" but as long as either you configure your port forward in your firewall retains the source IP of the incoming dst 21/TCP connection so your server can open a new outbound data connection to that IP on src 20/TCP *or* your firewall is halfway decent and can statefully associate the two ports used by FTP into a single communication your FTP server will work fine.
That said, it is common practice for private companies to disallow various types of internet communications based on their needs and wants.



So you're suggesting somebody too dumb to choose passive FTP from the client settings should setup and run something esoteric like SCP. It's a shame you wasted all that technocrocity to make such a useless point.
 
2014-02-16 02:09:01 PM  

letrole: Ravage:Try connecting to your home computer via FTP from some remote location after having set it all up on your end. Most ISPs will block (filter out) that protocol.
rpm: FTP isn't NAT friendly. It could be just as much a side effect of network topology as anything else.
/you should be using scp, not ftp
letrole: nat friendly? say what? side effect of network topology? say what?
rpm:  Way to sidestep the issue, but I'll bite.
I made the assumption that the person setting up the FTP server and firewall wasn't a complete idiot. I dont know that you are trying to say by "NAT friendly" but as long as either you configure your port forward in your firewall retains the source IP of the incoming dst 21/TCP connection so your server can open a new outbound data connection to that IP on src 20/TCP *or* your firewall is halfway decent and can statefully associate the two ports used by FTP into a single communication your FTP server will work fine.
That said, it is common practice for private companies to disallow various types of internet communications based on their needs and wants.


So you're suggesting somebody too dumb to choose passive FTP from the client settings should setup and run something esoteric like SCP. It's a shame you wasted all that technocrocity to make such a useless point.


Wow. That was even less relevant than usual.
 
2014-02-16 02:21:36 PM  
It's the Government Farking with the weather. (see HAARP)
 
2014-02-16 02:23:03 PM  
The science is settled.
 
2014-02-16 02:26:11 PM  

TopoGigo: Look, I'm as much of a believer of science and evidence as anyone. So, let's see some. What the hell evidence is there that this is a "changing pattern" as opposed to an anomaly this year? One data point doesn't make a pattern.


While I suspect the first half of your post is not exactly genuine, I will give it a shot.

Nobody is saying that this is a long term change for sure. They are putting out possible explanations of this year's anomalies based on our understanding of how things work and our evidence of what has changed for sure.

The press will run with any extremist story so you really should ignore anything in the press. If something they say is interesting then look up the actual science ... the press always gets the science wrong.

What we know:
- the jet stream drives the polar vortex
- the polar vortex tends to hold the arctic air within itself - occasionally pockets of cold air escape
- the jet stream is created by a temperature difference between the polar region and the mid-latitudes
- the polar regions are heating up 2x to 3x times faster than the mid-latitudes

So the theory goes like this:
If the delta-T drops due to faster heating of the arctic then the velocity of the jet stream will drop. That in turn will reduce the intensity of the polar vortex. Which would then cause more events of arctic air escaping. Which could explain this winter.

Note that these are just preliminary theories. It is scientists' jobs to figure this stuff out and they do this by analyzing the the events and coming up with theories as to how they happened. The press and political web sites take these theories and fit them to their agenda. Scientists are not claiming anything as fact ... although individual scientists are free to hold personal opinions.

In a case like this it will take years to decide if the events of this winter are freak weather or are long term climate related with any real level of certainty. But it is natural to look at the long series of freak weather events and remember that one of the primary predictions of AGW/GCC is unpredictable, atypical weather.
 
2014-02-16 02:28:58 PM  

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: The science is settled.


The only people saying this are really, really stupid people.

No climate scientists are saying this.
 
2014-02-16 02:29:00 PM  

BluVeinThrobber: It's the Government Farking with the weather. (see HAARP)


So Obummer is playing with the weather Dominator?
 
2014-02-16 02:30:02 PM  
This is not a long winter. It's an unusually cold and snowy winter in a lot of the country, but it's not actually longer than usual.
 
2014-02-16 02:30:04 PM  

ZoSo_the_Crowe: If current weather patterns are really part of a long-term shift then this will have horrific ramifications on America's food supply, as the current weather pattern is drought in the San Joaquin Valley.


Hardly. It just means more seasonality of produce. Less, more expensive fresh veggies in winter, meaning a come back for canning and preserving.
 
2014-02-16 02:34:01 PM  

BluVeinThrobber: It's the Government Farking with the weather. (see HAARP)


One of the guys on my PhD committee was the PI for HAARP. He collected loony stories that people came up with that were supposedly due to HAARP. In addition to weather change, it made birds fly backwards (aerodynamically impossible) and was capable of mind control. My favorite was how HAARP was secretly moved to the east coast and made a rip in space-time there, allowing dinosaurs to roam New Jersey.

more on topic:
The jet stream has always controlled the local climate. Nothing new there. With the arctic ocean melting and absorbing more heat, I can see this new pattern becoming more frequent - even permanent (on human time scales). I wouldn't mind much, this has been the mildest winter for a long time in Fairbanks AK.
 
2014-02-16 02:35:57 PM  
I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.
 
2014-02-16 02:39:38 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well, as a positive benefit on climate change, this winter has been absolutely beautiful in FL this year.  We've had a few nice chilly days to remind us that different seasons exist, but it hasn't dipped below freezing (well, at least here) to endanger any of the landscaping or crops.

Plus, my AC has had to run a lot less.  My electric bill was only $45 last month, that's a little more than half of the normal winter level and a fifth of the normal summer level.

Of course, the downside is if this shiat keeps up eventually the ice caps are going to melt and my house is going to be under water, so hopefully the storms up north keep driving folks south so I can sell it for a nice profit and move to a higher elevation before that happens.


I'm gonna guess you're in Palm Beach County.

We've had freezing temps up here and a possibility of snow but no actual snow.
 
2014-02-16 02:39:48 PM  
Damnit I had aliens in the pool, now I'm out $50
 
2014-02-16 02:40:55 PM  

Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.


There has been no jargon change - Global warming and climate change are different things and we are talking about different things. Global warming is when the temperature, averaged over the whole planet, over the whole year goes up from one year to the next, or has an upward trend. This is a GLOBAL value. Climate change is when the long term weather patterns (and thus the plants and animals that can survive there) in a specific area changes. This is a LOCAL variable. Global warming drives climate change.

Being ignorant and not learning the vocabulary before you talk only makes you look stupid. It doesn't hurt Al Gore at all.
 
2014-02-16 02:42:18 PM  

NotARocketScientist: BluVeinThrobber: It's the Government Farking with the weather. (see HAARP)

One of the guys on my PhD committee was the PI for HAARP. He collected loony stories that people came up with that were supposedly due to HAARP. In addition to weather change, it made birds fly backwards (aerodynamically impossible) and was capable of mind control. My favorite was how HAARP was secretly moved to the east coast and made a rip in space-time there, allowing dinosaurs to roam New Jersey.

more on topic:
The jet stream has always controlled the local climate. Nothing new there. With the arctic ocean melting and absorbing more heat, I can see this new pattern becoming more frequent - even permanent (on human time scales). I wouldn't mind much, this has been the mildest winter for a long time in Fairbanks AK.


So youre not denying it? Those giant antenna arrays aren't there to pick up the top 40  countdown
 
2014-02-16 02:42:56 PM  
Two odd things about this winter : lots of 1-2 inch snows and no January thaw. Not really that cold. (2 days w/ long johns )
 
2014-02-16 02:44:02 PM  
   We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.
 
2014-02-16 02:46:39 PM  

FatherChaos: [thisishistorictimes.com image 787x542]


That's fantastic.
 
2014-02-16 02:47:10 PM  

Lee451: We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.


They would do that if you didn't keep kicking them off your lawn.
 
2014-02-16 02:49:27 PM  

Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.


A common denier lie.

The term Climate Change is commonly used in the scientific literature back in the 1970s (here is a reference from 1956). It is a correct term which describes some of the impact of Global Warming. The terms Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are still in common use. There has been no substitution.

The term Climate Change became more common during the G.W. Bush administration when they finally decided to admit that the average planetary temperature was rising but decided to set a policy to use the term Climate Change because they felt it was less scary.

Repeating denier lies makes you look like an idiot.

More details
 
2014-02-16 02:51:39 PM  
Farking Canuck:

While I suspect the first half of your post is not exactly genuine, I will give it a shot.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who changes the color of my text. I was merely saying that a single occurrence of a phenomenon was not indicative of a pattern.

The press will run with any extremist story so you really should ignore anything in the press.

Just because it's true doesn't mean I'm wrong to complain about it. You can point to a myriad of reasons--from the blindingly obvious to conspiracy theories--why science literacy is on the decline in the US. I will assert (and quite hypocritically, I'll do it with no evidence or data) that a measurable percentage of blame can be assigned to the fact that people who don't understand math or science so often end up as journalists and K-8 teachers, because their programs don't require them. My wife is a kindergarten teacher, and she fails to understand the most basic features of the solar system...like which bodies orbit which, why they do so, and which bodies are farther away than others. Electricity? Weather? Magnets? Television? A simple budget? All beyond her grasp. She is also smarter and more intellectually curious than most of her coworkers. Think on that and despair.
 
2014-02-16 02:53:05 PM  

grokca: Damnit I had aliens in the pool, now I'm out $50


Aliens don't really like the pool. Sure, they came here to steal our water, but they prefer it in ice form.
 
2014-02-16 02:54:24 PM  

Lee451: We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.


My father and I were just complaining about this the other day, and we both realized...if we had Xboxen when we were children, we damned sure wouldn't have been out in the snow, either.
 
2014-02-16 02:54:56 PM  

Oldiron_79: BluVeinThrobber: It's the Government Farking with the weather. (see HAARP)

So Obummer is playing with the weather Dominator?


Thanks Obamma
 
2014-02-16 02:57:32 PM  
Long winter?  Last I checked, we're in the middle of February, which is totally in what season again?
 
2014-02-16 03:01:20 PM  

IlGreven: Long winter?  Last I checked, we're in the middle of February, which is totally in what season again?


While I don't disagree, I think people are referring to the earlier than normal arrival of snow in many areas.
 
2014-02-16 03:02:30 PM  

MemeSlave: The winter isn't long, the winter is winter.   It's winter until March 21 or so.   Snow falls in winter.   Is our cultural memory so short that we don't remember previous epic winters?


IIRC January 1979 in central Maryland was so cold & blizzardy I felt lucky to be in a maximum security cottage in juvie. Warm, dry, people to play cards with, and they brought in food on trays.
 
2014-02-16 03:04:01 PM  

Oldiron_79: Iblame(shakes magic 8 ball) El Niño


www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkSRUf02gu8
 
2014-02-16 03:09:01 PM  

Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.


The first known use of the term "Global Warming" came 20 years after the first known use of "Climate Change". Stop repeating lies.
 
2014-02-16 03:10:07 PM  
So...global warming or ice age ?


/DRTFA
 
2014-02-16 03:15:39 PM  

TopoGigo: Lee451: We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.

My father and I were just complaining about this the other day, and we both realized...if we had Xboxen when we were children, we damned sure wouldn't have been out in the snow, either.


I don't know about the people I grew up with but I never got into video games. In the 1960's/1970's we would be outside from dawn past dusk and there were no fears of abduction. Now, with only one leg, I have a hell of a time getting through more than an inch or two of snow. Only fell once so far, though.
 
2014-02-16 03:16:49 PM  

Farking Canuck: IlGreven: Long winter?  Last I checked, we're in the middle of February, which is totally in what season again?

While I don't disagree, I think people are referring to the earlier than normal arrival of snow in many areas.


It didn't arrive earlier here. In fact, we were snow-free most of December. We had record amounts of snowfall in January, but December had little snow right up until Christmas.

/Abnormally cold and snowy, I'll give you.
//Long? No.
 
2014-02-16 03:21:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.

A common denier lie.

The term Climate Change is commonly used in the scientific literature back in the 1970s (here is a reference from 1956). It is a correct term which describes some of the impact of Global Warming. The terms Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are still in common use. There has been no substitution.

The term Climate Change became more common during the G.W. Bush administration when they finally decided to admit that the average planetary temperature was rising but decided to set a policy to use the term Climate Change because they felt it was less scary.

Repeating denier lies makes you look like an idiot.

More details


I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.  Prehistoric evidence indicates that warm periods have always been golden ages for those living then compared to cooler times before or after, an unalloyed boon to human survival, the development of agriculture, and civilization.

Still people pick out the likely fact that things will change and expect everyone to act as though Virginia orange juice and Iowa cotton and a Siberian breadbasket to the world would be horrible.

Act as though vastly rising sea levels are inevitable when Greenland and Antarctica are already assumed to be receiving more snowfall (see your own linked map), Greenland's ice cap being too high altitude and Antarctica too cold, warming or not, to likely do anything but accumulate ice. Ignore those big "more rainfall" regions and the lushness that warmth plus water will result in, because they aren't agriculturally usable now as they will be when it becomes drier in other regions.

It's like acting as if the major impact of penicillin is uncounted deaths from accidental allergic reactions.  It's time to begin determining how we will adapt to and gain benefits from this opportunity, not pretend that not doing so will somehow magically stop it.
 
2014-02-16 03:23:05 PM  

RottenEggs: So...global warming or ice age ?


/DRTFA


whynotboth.jpg
 
2014-02-16 03:28:14 PM  

SwiftFox: Prehistoric evidence indicates that warm periods have always been golden ages for those living


Who told you this?
 
2014-02-16 03:30:00 PM  

Lee451: TopoGigo: Lee451: We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.

My father and I were just complaining about this the other day, and we both realized...if we had Xboxen when we were children, we damned sure wouldn't have been out in the snow, either.

I don't know about the people I grew up with but I never got into video games. In the 1960's/1970's we would be outside from dawn past dusk and there were no fears of abduction. Now, with only one leg, I have a hell of a time getting through more than an inch or two of snow. Only fell once so far, though.


Understood.  When you have a Farker that smart, you don't want to eat him all at once.
 
jvl
2014-02-16 03:33:08 PM  
Uh... I understand that many of the models predicted an increase in the north-and-south swings in the Jet, but I don't recall any predictions that the Jet would remain in a stationary pattern, which is the real problem this winter.
 
2014-02-16 03:35:39 PM  

SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.


Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.
 
2014-02-16 03:36:22 PM  
zomg, zomg, zomg,  we're having weather, and it's different than last year! Everybody panic!!!
 
2014-02-16 03:39:20 PM  
Good to see HAARP is getting results.
 
2014-02-16 03:42:36 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-02-16 03:44:28 PM  
 
2014-02-16 03:47:21 PM  
Discontent during a long winter is merely a state of mind.
 
2014-02-16 04:12:12 PM  
Oh blah, climate scientist are probably all failed physicists, chemists, etc. probably even meteorologists.
 
2014-02-16 04:26:24 PM  
PDO
AMO
look them up
 
2014-02-16 04:26:27 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.

There has been no jargon change - Global warming and climate change are different things and we are talking about different things. Global warming is when the temperature, averaged over the whole planet, over the whole year goes up from one year to the next, or has an upward trend. This is a GLOBAL value. Climate change is when the long term weather patterns (and thus the plants and animals that can survive there) in a specific area changes. This is a LOCAL variable. Global warming drives climate change.

Being ignorant and not learning the vocabulary before you talk only makes you look stupid. It doesn't hurt Al Gore at all.


To be fair, most folks get their info from the media, a supposed expert that does their research to promote accurate data. The media has been using those phrases almost interchangeably, especially since the argument "What global warming, it's colder than crap here!" started popping up. 

/isn't sure why the media is still considered a credible source for papers and wiki isn't...
//at least wiki posts references so you can check against them.
 
2014-02-16 04:29:27 PM  
everybody wants some.
 
2014-02-16 04:29:54 PM  
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/4136.full

Pacific and Atlantic Ocean influences on multidecadal drought frequency in the United States
 
2014-02-16 04:34:04 PM  
Conclusions
Three rotated principal components explain 74% of the variance in 20-year moving frequencies of drought in the conterminous U.S. The first component is highly correlated with the PDO, and the second component is correlated with the AMO. These first two components explain nearly equal proportions of variance in the entire data set and, combined, explain 52% of the total variance. These results support previous research that has indicated the existence of a relation between these climate indices and drought variability in the U.S. The third component represents a complex pattern of positive and negative trends in U.S. drought frequency over the 20th Century, and its score time series is highly correlated with both a trend line and the inverse NH temperature time series. The inclusion of all three time series, the PDO, AMO, and a trending geophysical indicator like NH temperature, appears to be crucial in generating multiple regression equations that can accurately simulate the historical 20-year patterns of drought frequency. This research indicates that persistence of the current positive AMO state may lead to continuing above normal frequencies of U.S. drought in the near future, with the pattern of drought modulated by the sign of the PDO.
 
2014-02-16 04:38:49 PM  

Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.


Little problems with your doomsaying:
- Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain.  There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!

- Perhaps the Alpine Screw-tailed Marmot that only lives at high altitudes in already warm (at lower levels) regions will be blocked from finding more northerly mountains to live on, but "unable to migrate fast enough" isn't going to be common at the rate of climate change occurring, that is as stupid as blaming a particular winter on GCC or belittling GCC based on one.

- The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise, given the possibility of more precipitation at Greenland's ice cap altitude and in Antarctica) and changes will similarly be glacial (no pun intended) compared to the ability of man to build and adapt, or the financial impact of the infrastructure aging and having to be replaced. "Population shifts" taking advantage of the new climate could be good or bad overall, this is the "change must be bad" assumption I was pointing out. I would compare your "many more" prophesied "negative effects" to many more possible positive effects.

- "infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas" - wow, you're really reaching on this one.  You think railroads can't be built and silos erected as fast as the change is occurring enough? Silly as shiat, that one.

At this point the scientists have gotten the message.  Politically, to preserve their jobs they seem to have to take the "it will be a disaster" stance. At least keep their mouth shut and let people like you blow things like  "population shifts" and "replacing infrastructure" (which must be done anyway) into something so disastrous that any attempt to mitigate or take advantage of the opportunity is attacked as, incredibly, not addressing the problem and somehow supporting climate change deniers.
 
2014-02-16 04:42:20 PM  

stirfrybry: Conclusions
Three rotated principal components explain 74% of the variance in 20-year moving frequencies of drought in the conterminous U.S. The first component is highly correlated with the PDO, and the second component is correlated with the AMO. These first two components explain nearly equal proportions of variance in the entire data set and, combined, explain 52% of the total variance. These results support previous research that has indicated the existence of a relation between these climate indices and drought variability in the U.S. The third component represents a complex pattern of positive and negative trends in U.S. drought frequency over the 20th Century, and its score time series is highly correlated with both a trend line and the inverse NH temperature time series. The inclusion of all three time series, the PDO, AMO, and a trending geophysical indicator like NH temperature, appears to be crucial in generating multiple regression equations that can accurately simulate the historical 20-year patterns of drought frequency. This research indicates that persistence of the current positive AMO state may lead to continuing above normal frequencies of U.S. drought in the near future, with the pattern of drought modulated by the sign of the PDO.


Awesome shiat bro.

It only got up to the high 60's here today. Not sure if thats because of the PDO or the AMO, but its pissing me off.
 
2014-02-16 04:42:37 PM  

Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.


What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?
 
2014-02-16 04:56:29 PM  

cuzsis: What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?


Evidence attracts us to make realistic appraisals of where we are heading.

Denier exaggeration paints this as "end-of-the-world porn".
 
2014-02-16 04:58:54 PM  

linemanbear: Bring on "Climate Change"...  cold snowy winters can only get better...

"Climate Change" isn't necessarily a bad thing... it is bad for some beach front property... and good for northern farming which now has a longer growing season


Climate change will mean more energy in the atmosphere, so more extreme weather. Not good for farming when storms flatten or wash away crops or the ground is baked or frozen for extended periods.
 
2014-02-16 05:00:54 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: SwiftFox: Prehistoric evidence indicates that warm periods have always been golden ages for those living

Who told you this?




Denialist blogs.
 
2014-02-16 05:03:31 PM  

SwiftFox: Little problems with your doomsaying

It is not my "doomsaying". It is what the leading scientists in the field predict based on the evidence of what has already happened.

SwiftFox: - Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain. There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!

Fertilizers will not help you grow wheat on the canadian shield. You're "aw shucks", from the gut "science" is no replacement for the evidence based science that real researcher do.

SwiftFox: The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise

Yes, a hypothesis based on evidence. This is how science works. You can deny it all you want ... the thing about science is that it doesn't care what you think or what your politics are.

SwiftFox: Politically, to preserve their jobs they seem to have to take the "it will be a disaster" stance.

Ahh here it is. The idiotic "all scientists are lying to get juicy grants" crap. I knew your politics would show up eventually.

Anti-science people like you are trying to drag us back to the dark ages.
 
2014-02-16 05:03:42 PM  

SwiftFox: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

Little problems with your doomsaying:
- Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain.  There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!

- Perhaps the Alpine Screw-tailed Marmot that only lives at high altitudes in already warm (at lower levels) regions will be blocked from finding more northerly mountains to live on, but "unable to migrate fast enough" isn't going to be common at the rate of climate change occurring, that is as stupid as blaming a particular winter on GCC or belittling GCC based on one.

- The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise, given the possibility of more precipitation at Greenland's ice cap altitude and in Antarctica) and changes will similarly be glacial (no pun intended) compared to the ability of man to build and adapt, or the financial impact of the infrastructure aging and having to be replaced. ...


Climate myth #3 "It's not bad
 
2014-02-16 05:07:09 PM  
This isn't an unusual winter, it's a normal winter.
 
2014-02-16 05:09:06 PM  

MagicMissile: This isn't an unusual winter, it's a normal winter.




Not here in California it isn't. Unless this is the new normal, which would be very unfortunate.
 
2014-02-16 05:10:48 PM  
I wonder how long people will freak out over every season. Probably til they get older and realize its a fluctuating pattern. But then there will be more college kids getting scared by older people on TV.
 
2014-02-16 05:11:33 PM  

cuzsis: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?


As I noted, the scientists have no choice.  If they attempt to limit the exaggeration of the activists they get to anything like reality they get painted as deniers themselves, and they've learned their lesson from the scientists testifying before the US Congress more than a decade ago whose careers were virtually ruined because they said they weren't sure of the effects - versus both those thinking at the time global climate change was definite and those who vigorously denied it.
 
2014-02-16 05:15:18 PM  

SwiftFox: cuzsis: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?

As I noted, the scientists have no choice.  If they attempt to limit the exaggeration of the activists they get to anything like reality they get painted as deniers themselves, and they've learned their lesson from the scientists testifying before the US Congress more than a decade ago whose careers were virtually ruined because they said they weren't sure of the effects - versus both those thinking at the time global climate change was definite and those who vigorously denied it.




Citation needed.
 
2014-02-16 05:19:55 PM  
Ha, ha, screw you poor people in low lying countries!

Sea level rise (SLR) due to climate change is a serious global threat. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions and associated global warming could well promote SLR of 1m-3m in this century, and unexpectedly rapid breakup of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets might produce a 5m SLR. In this paper, the authors have assessed the consequences of continued SLR for 84 developing countries. Geographic Information System (GIS) software has been used to overlay the best available, spatially-disaggregated global data on critical impact elements (land, population, agriculture, urban extent, wetlands, and GDP) with the inundation zones projected for 1-5m SLR. The results reveal that hundreds of millions of people in the developing world are likely to be displaced by SLR within this century, and accompanying economic and ecological damage will be severe for many.
The impact of sea level rise on developing countries : a comparative analysis
 
2014-02-16 05:26:52 PM  

cuzsis: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?


It is a weird phenomenon. This is what we definitey something we know about warmer climate periods.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period This was a period where europe was able to support nearly its current population with primative farming because the climate was stable and supported agriculture much better than it currently does.

Is this exactly what is going to occur over the next 50-100 years? probably not exactly, but it's a pretty good sample. Are some areas going to suffer from climate change? Surely. Are other's going to benefit heavily? Of course. Is this the beginning of the apocalypse? Don't be naive. We're humans, we can adapt to climate change better than any species ever has, and we're crafty enough to help the planet survive whatever damage we've caused.
 
2014-02-16 05:32:48 PM  

MagicMissile: This isn't an unusual winter, it's a normal winter.


Not where I live.  Less than an inch of snow in the middle of February is not normal here.

/not that I am complaining as not having to shovel the driveway is nice
 
2014-02-16 05:35:11 PM  
Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: Little problems with your doomsaying
It is not my "doomsaying". It is what the leading scientists in the field predict based on the evidence of what has already happened.


No, you're doomsaying based on your interpretation of what they predict representing disaster rather than opportunity.

SwiftFox: - Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain. There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!
Fertilizers will not help you grow wheat on the canadian shield. You're "aw shucks", from the gut "science" is no replacement for the evidence based science that real researcher do.


This isn't a case of "evidence based science".  It's a case of you picking one area. Wheat-appropriate soil notwithstanding, there'll be a lot more hay and cattle in the clay regions where they are produced now given a longer growing season.  And high-latitude, long summer days. Note, of course, that the fertilizers are a fact of life in all modern farming.

SwiftFox: The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise
Yes, a hypothesis based on evidence. This is how science works. You can deny it all you want ... the thing about science is that it doesn't care what you think or what your politics are.


A hypothesis based on the conclusion that water will magically appear from nowhere to replace that lost to deposits in still-cold, now wetter regions.  You can deny it all you want. Yep, science won't care.  Those spreading your BS do.

SwiftFox: Politically, to preserve their jobs they seem to have to take the "it will be a disaster" stance.
Ahh here it is. The idiotic "all scientists are lying to get juicy grants" crap. I knew your politics would show up eventually.

Anti-science people like you are trying to drag us back to the dark ages.


Not lying. Just not saying that which will cause a tide of idiots to arise, demanding they be fired for actually advocating dealing with the climate change which will occur rather than supporting those who don't. "97% consensus" against being skeptical is a blaring alarm bell, and not in favor of scientific inquiry.
 
2014-02-16 05:38:39 PM  

dirkfunk: cuzsis: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?

It is a weird phenomenon. This is what we definitey something we know about warmer climate periods.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period This was a period where europe was able to support nearly its current population with primative farming because the climate was stable and supported agriculture much better than it currently does.

Is this exactly what is going to occur over the next 50-100 years? probably not exactly, but it's a pretty good sample. Are some areas going to suffer from climate change? Surely. Are other's going to benefit heavily? Of course. Is this the beginning of the apocalypse? Don't be naive. We're humans, we can adapt to climate change better than any species ever has, and we're crafty enough to help the planet survive whatever damage we've caused.




Yeah, who cares about all of the other species? Can I tell all of the soon to be displaced Bangladeshis that they can bunk at your place?
 
2014-02-16 05:40:23 PM  

Repo Man: SwiftFox: cuzsis: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?

As I noted, the scientists have no choice.  If they attempt to limit the exaggeration of the activists they get to anything like reality they get painted as deniers themselves, and they've learned their lesson from the scientists testifying before the US Congress more than a decade ago whose careers were virtually ruined because they said they weren't sure of the effects - versus both those thinking at the time global climate change was definite and those who vigorously denied it.

Citation needed.


It was idiotic enough that the defunct print version of the Journal of Irreproducable Results, which I subscribed to, parodied the episode with hilarious articles at the time, describing the destruction of the careers of a fictional group of scientists called "Non-Extremists for Moderate Change".
 
2014-02-16 05:45:09 PM  

SwiftFox: Repo Man: SwiftFox: cuzsis: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

What is it about climatology that attracts the folks into end-of-the-world porn?

As I noted, the scientists have no choice.  If they attempt to limit the exaggeration of the activists they get to anything like reality they get painted as deniers themselves, and they've learned their lesson from the scientists testifying before the US Congress more than a decade ago whose careers were virtually ruined because they said they weren't sure of the effects - versus both those thinking at the time global climate change was definite and those who vigorously denied it.

Citation needed.

It was idiotic enough that the defunct print version of the Journal of Irreproducable Results, which I subscribed to, parodied the episode with hilarious articles at the time, describing the destruction of the careers of a fictional group of scientists called "Non-Extremists for Moderate Change".




Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected.
 
2014-02-16 05:54:58 PM  

MagicMissile: This isn't an unusual winter, it's a normal winter.


Not here.

I'm a lifelong Toledo resident. I've never seen a winter like this. That 2 weeks in January where 0 Fahrenheit was unreachably high is the only one I've ever seen, and only approached in living memory by the blizzard of 1978. As an example, my undergrad prides itself on never closing. It didn't, 2000-2008. One day for weather on valentine's day 2008. This year they're at 6, after 1 in 13 years.

According to the data I've found, it's been colder and stayed cold longer than normal.
 
2014-02-16 05:59:47 PM  

Repo Man: Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected


Yup. Lies and unsupported allegations.

He's a typical denier.
 
2014-02-16 06:06:41 PM  

Repo Man: MagicMissile: This isn't an unusual winter, it's a normal winter.

Not here in California it isn't. Unless this is the new normal, which would be very unfortunate.


The analog to this winter, especially in California, is the winter of 1917-1918.  Rest of the country cold, Cali warm and almost identically dry.
Same pattern was 1918-1919. The drought on the west coast was wider spread than this year.
 
2014-02-16 06:10:07 PM  
Isaac Asimov once said "The purpose of crying doom is to avert it." No one wants AGW to be true (though it would serve some of the denialist crowd right), but if it is happening, and we are causing it, it's the responsibility of those who dedicate their lives to to the thankless task of studying the climate to get the word out. If we choose to do nothing to slow or stop it, at least they did their best to warn us.
 
2014-02-16 06:13:32 PM  

Repo Man: Isaac Asimov once said "The purpose of crying doom is to avert it." No one wants AGW to be true (though it would serve some of the denialist crowd right), but if it is happening, and we are causing it, it's the responsibility of those who dedicate their lives to to the thankless task of studying the climate to get the word out. If we choose to do nothing to slow or stop it, at least they did their best to warn us.


Also tried to warn his people:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-16 06:18:39 PM  
Conveniently left out of the linked article:

"Our data to look at this effect is very short and so it is hard to get very clear signal," Jennifer Francis, a climate expert at Rutgers University said.
 
2014-02-16 06:20:36 PM  
They made a documentary about this in the 80's. There's some emo king sitting on a magic throne having a stroke and it's pushing a glacier South.

Don't worry, we'll just open the lava gates and send some crazy-ass hatchet murderer to fark him up.
 
2014-02-16 06:22:34 PM  
LesserEvil:

Also tried to warn his people:

img.fark.net

Yeah, but he was doing crystal. Look at the size of that thing.  Dude was out of his mind.
 
2014-02-16 06:23:51 PM  

Charlie Freak: I went back and did some rough (anecdotal, really) analysis using weather station plots from the last thirty years or so of winters and I could not find a prolonged, stationary setup like this. And certainly not twice within 12 months.


What do you get for 1993-1994? Nothing similar?
 
2014-02-16 06:39:40 PM  

Farking Canuck: Repo Man: Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected

Yup. Lies and unsupported allegations.

He's a typical denier.


OK, well, fine, if that is how you define someone who feels that the climate change is certain to happen.

What is your proposal for dealing with anthropogenic climate change, beyond your own denial that it is something that, since it will happen, should be adapted to and the benefits enjoyed as well as the detrimental effects mitigated?
 
2014-02-16 07:02:43 PM  

Repo Man: Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected.


Look up "James Hansen".  He was the bombast-specialist who impressed the Senate committee by claiming in 1988 that it was 99 percent certain that that specific year's heat and drought was caused by global warming, which of course no single year's climate is valid evidence of, and made himself the darling and champion of environmental activists with such pap.  Those scientists stating the truth, that it was more likely largely caused by year-to-year variations, were the ones who found themselves under the hammer.

That "99 percent certain", of course, was nothing more than a baldfaced lie by a scientist who had recently had his funding cut. Yet, somehow, he is still a hero for shoveling his manure.
 
2014-02-16 07:30:00 PM  

jamspoon: linemanbear: Bring on "Climate Change"...  cold snowy winters can only get better...

"Climate Change" isn't necessarily a bad thing... it is bad for some beach front property... and good for northern farming which now has a longer growing season

Climate change will mean more energy in the atmosphere, so more extreme weather. Not good for farming when storms flatten or wash away crops or the ground is baked or frozen for extended periods.


Re: AGW and farrming

Temps aren't the only factor in agriculture. Northern soils are pretty much crap. Thin, acidic, low on nutrients.
 
2014-02-16 07:30:47 PM  

SwiftFox: Repo Man: Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected.

Look up "James Hansen".  He was the bombast-specialist who impressed the Senate committee by claiming in 1988 that it was 99 percent certain that that specific year's heat and drought was caused by global warming, which of course no single year's climate is valid evidence of, and made himself the darling and champion of environmental activists with such pap.  Those scientists stating the truth, that it was more likely largely caused by year-to-year variations, were the ones who found themselves under the hammer.

That "99 percent certain", of course, was nothing more than a baldfaced lie by a scientist who had recently had his funding cut. Yet, somehow, he is still a hero for shoveling his manure.


I'm not saying you're wrong -- or just lying -- but give us a cite for that claim, please.
 
2014-02-16 07:52:29 PM  
Winter Hell!
I just came in from doing yard work in my sleeveless t-shirt.
 
2014-02-16 07:53:05 PM  

yakmans_dad: Northern soils are pretty much crap. Thin, acidic, low on nutrients.


In other farming news, Canada is reporting a record wheat crop in 2013
 
2014-02-16 07:55:47 PM  

reubendaley: Lee451: TopoGigo: Lee451: We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.

My father and I were just complaining about this the other day, and we both realized...if we had Xboxen when we were children, we damned sure wouldn't have been out in the snow, either.

I don't know about the people I grew up with but I never got into video games. In the 1960's/1970's we would be outside from dawn past dusk and there were no fears of abduction. Now, with only one leg, I have a hell of a time getting through more than an inch or two of snow. Only fell once so far, though.

Understood.  When you have a Farker that smart, you don't want to eat him all at once.


I apologize but I have no idea as to what that means
 
2014-02-16 08:12:03 PM  

yakmans_dad: SwiftFox: Repo Man: Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected.

Look up "James Hansen".  He was the bombast-specialist who impressed the Senate committee by claiming in 1988 that it was 99 percent certain that that specific year's heat and drought was caused by global warming, which of course no single year's climate is valid evidence of, and made himself the darling and champion of environmental activists with such pap.  Those scientists stating the truth, that it was more likely largely caused by year-to-year variations, were the ones who found themselves under the hammer.

That "99 percent certain", of course, was nothing more than a baldfaced lie by a scientist who had recently had his funding cut. Yet, somehow, he is still a hero for shoveling his manure.

I'm not saying you're wrong -- or just lying -- but give us a cite for that claim, please.


Well, the Worldwatch Institute's "A Climate Hero: The Early Years" page describes the hearings, among other places.  There's something called "the Internet" which provides all sorts of data.  There's plenty of mention of NEMC ("an organization whose goal is expressed by its name. In every country except Finland, NEMC members have been greeted with scorn, projectiles, violent attack, and police arrest") attendance at the Ig Nobel ceremonies (where IIRC they were mock attacked in a staged incident). The Journal of Irreproducable Results seems to have been replaced with the Annals of Improbable Research BTW.

You should also be able to easily determine that the cause of the 1988-1989 heat/drought was determined to be the 1988 La Niña, the normal Pacific ocean oscillation. Even at the page of James Hansen's NASA research sponsor it is admitted he was 99% wrong at the 1988, Al Gore and Tim Wirth-organized hearings.

Citing anyone not fawning over or supporting him will cause them to be attacked by the econuts, so I'll refrain from other than those references.
 
2014-02-16 08:17:00 PM  
The Sun is tired. It's going to take a nap. For a few decades. You're going to need a sweater.
 
2014-02-16 08:19:09 PM  

SVenus: yakmans_dad: Northern soils are pretty much crap. Thin, acidic, low on nutrients.

In other farming news, Canada is reporting a record wheat crop in 2013.


So, what was the yield for the tundra?
 
2014-02-16 08:21:25 PM  

Lee451: reubendaley: Lee451: TopoGigo: Lee451: We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.

My father and I were just complaining about this the other day, and we both realized...if we had Xboxen when we were children, we damned sure wouldn't have been out in the snow, either.

I don't know about the people I grew up with but I never got into video games. In the 1960's/1970's we would be outside from dawn past dusk and there were no fears of abduction. Now, with only one leg, I have a hell of a time getting through more than an inch or two of snow. Only fell once so far, though.

Understood.  When you have a Farker that smart, you don't want to eat him all at once.

I apologize but I have no idea as to what that means


OK so I was wrong.
 
2014-02-16 08:21:40 PM  

SwiftFox: yakmans_dad: SwiftFox: Repo Man: Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected.

Look up "James Hansen".  He was the bombast-specialist who impressed the Senate committee by claiming in 1988 that it was 99 percent certain that that specific year's heat and drought was caused by global warming, which of course no single year's climate is valid evidence of, and made himself the darling and champion of environmental activists with such pap.  Those scientists stating the truth, that it was more likely largely caused by year-to-year variations, were the ones who found themselves under the hammer.

That "99 percent certain", of course, was nothing more than a baldfaced lie by a scientist who had recently had his funding cut. Yet, somehow, he is still a hero for shoveling his manure.

I'm not saying you're wrong -- or just lying -- but give us a cite for that claim, please.

Well, the Worldwatch Institute's "A Climate Hero: The Early Years" page describes the hearings, among other places.  There's something called "the Internet" which provides all sorts of data.  There's plenty of mention of NEMC ("an organization whose goal is expressed by its name. In every country except Finland, NEMC members have been greeted with scorn, projectiles, violent attack, and police arrest") attendance at the Ig Nobel ceremonies (where IIRC they were mock attacked in a staged incident). The Journal of Irreproducable Results seems to have been replaced with the Annals of Improbable Research BTW.

You should also be able to easily determine that the cause of the 1988-1989 heat/drought was determined to be the 1988 La Niña, the normal Pacific ocean oscillation. Even at the page of James Hansen's NASA research sponsor it is admitted he was 99% wrong at the 1988, Al Gore and Tim Wirth-organized hearings.

Citing anyone not fawning over or supporting him will cause them to be attacked by the econuts, so I'll refrain from other than those references.


Do you know the difference between being wrong and lying? I just want to make sure.
 
2014-02-16 08:45:05 PM  
I would have figured it was because it's winter
 
2014-02-16 09:08:42 PM  
Long winter? What's that? It was effin' hot today. Had to open the windows. Got up to 81 in the house, 83 outside. I'm worried I might have to turn the AC on early this. So what the hell is this talk of a "long winter"?
 
2014-02-16 09:09:00 PM  

yakmans_dad: Do you know the difference between being wrong and lying? I just want to make sure.


Unfortunately the US Senate and environmentishy correct forces ensure that scientists must pretend to be certain - or "99% certain", even when those who at all understand statistics know that they aren't Cassandras. Is that lying?
 
2014-02-16 09:19:42 PM  
static.guim.co.uk
Comparison of the observed NASA temperature record (black) with temperature predictions from Dr. James Hansen's 1988 modeling study (red), and with my reconstructed temperature prediction by Dr. Richard Lindzen based on statements from his talk at MIT in 1989 (blue). Hansen's Scenario B projection has been adjusted to reflect the actual observed greenhouse gas concentrations since 1988.

How do Lindzen and The Weekly Standard justify dismissing the 97 percent expert climate consensus? With conspiracy theories, of course.

"[Lindzen] says it mostly comes down to the money-to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open."

Lindzen would have us believe that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world are all tossing their ethics aside and falsifying data in order to keep the research money flowing, even though contrarian climate scientists like Lindzen have had no trouble obtaining government research grants. Is this more plausible than the alternative explanation that 97 percent of climate research is correct, and Lindzen, whose claims have consistently been disproved by observational data, is wrong?


Puffing Lindzen
 
2014-02-16 09:32:01 PM  

SwiftFox: yakmans_dad: Do you know the difference between being wrong and lying? I just want to make sure.

Unfortunately the US Senate and environmentishy correct forces ensure that scientists must pretend to be certain - or "99% certain", even when those who at all understand statistics know that they aren't Cassandras. Is that lying?


The two things you conflated about what Hansen and climate are very different things. I just wanted you to commit to the interpretation that Hansen was a liar. That kind of personal attack  has worked out so well for Mark Steyn and his remarks about Michael Mann.
 
2014-02-16 10:25:05 PM  

yakmans_dad: SVenus: yakmans_dad: Northern soils are pretty much crap. Thin, acidic, low on nutrients.

In other farming news, Canada is reporting a record wheat crop in 2013.

So, what was the yield for the tundra?


Trick question! Once you grow things on the tundra, it ceases being tundra!


/The Canadian tundra gets about 16.1 miles to the gallon.
//Wait, they measure gasoline different up there, don't they.
 
2014-02-16 10:26:54 PM  

Farking Canuck: Repo Man: Well, that sounds legit. I stand corrected

Yup. Lies and unsupported allegations.

He's a typical denier.


More like he just revealed himself as a troll.
 
2014-02-16 10:30:43 PM  

SwiftFox: Not lying. Just not saying that which will cause a tide of idiots to arise, demanding they be fired for actually advocating dealing with the climate change which will occur rather than supporting those who don't. "97% consensus" against being skeptical is a blaring alarm bell, and not in favor of scientific inquiry.


Are you actually trying to suggest that scientists aren't skeptical? Because out of all the stupid things you've said in this thread, that may be the dumbest (if that's what you're actually trying to say - your sentence was  phrased a bit oddly for me).

The fact is that scientists are vigorously skeptical, but they're equally tough on their own skepticism - meaning that they hold their criticisms of an idea to the same high standards of logic and evidence that they hold the idea they're criticizing, rather than just spouting off uninformed and clearly wrong bullshiat when they hear an idea that they don't like (how deniers try to be "skeptical").
 
2014-02-16 10:34:53 PM  

HighZoolander: SwiftFox: Not lying. Just not saying that which will cause a tide of idiots to arise, demanding they be fired for actually advocating dealing with the climate change which will occur rather than supporting those who don't. "97% consensus" against being skeptical is a blaring alarm bell, and not in favor of scientific inquiry.

Are you actually trying to suggest that scientists aren't skeptical? Because out of all the stupid things you've said in this thread, that may be the dumbest (if that's what you're actually trying to say - your sentence was  phrased a bit oddly for me).

The fact is that scientists are vigorously skeptical, but they're equally tough on their own skepticism - meaning that they hold their criticisms of an idea to the same high standards of logic and evidence that they hold the idea they're criticizing, rather than just spouting off uninformed and clearly wrong bullshiat when they hear an idea that they don't like (how deniers try to be "skeptical").


This dude is owning you guys. Even after he states he gets his data from here  http://www.jir.com/, y'all keep biting.  (The print version of, but still the same thing)
 
2014-02-16 10:42:09 PM  

dirkfunk: It is a weird phenomenon. This is what we definitey something we know about warmer climate periods.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period This was a period where europe was able to support nearly its current population with primative farming because the climate was stable and supported agriculture much better than it currently does.


From your link:

upload.wikimedia.org

Do you not understand that current temperatures are above all reconstructions for that time period and that they are continuing to rise or are you just here to broadcast your own ignorance?
 
2014-02-16 10:56:10 PM  
Put a pot of water on a slow burner & throw in various small objects, like pepper, chopped onions, meat, noodles..
as it sits there, things start moving around faster & faster, circulating around.

Eventually, it gets "ingested"
 
2014-02-16 11:20:32 PM  

ccundiff: HighZoolander: SwiftFox: Not lying. Just not saying that which will cause a tide of idiots to arise, demanding they be fired for actually advocating dealing with the climate change which will occur rather than supporting those who don't. "97% consensus" against being skeptical is a blaring alarm bell, and not in favor of scientific inquiry.

Are you actually trying to suggest that scientists aren't skeptical? Because out of all the stupid things you've said in this thread, that may be the dumbest (if that's what you're actually trying to say - your sentence was  phrased a bit oddly for me).

The fact is that scientists are vigorously skeptical, but they're equally tough on their own skepticism - meaning that they hold their criticisms of an idea to the same high standards of logic and evidence that they hold the idea they're criticizing, rather than just spouting off uninformed and clearly wrong bullshiat when they hear an idea that they don't like (how deniers try to be "skeptical").

This dude is owning you guys. Even after he states he gets his data from here  http://www.jir.com/, y'all keep biting.  (The print version of, but still the same thing)


dammit.
 
2014-02-16 11:47:31 PM  
Not a single coment from the warmer crowd on my link about ocean dominance of the climate.
you folks are lame
 
2014-02-16 11:52:56 PM  
ccundiff: This dude is owning you guys. Even after he states he gets his data from here  http://www.jir.com/, y'all keep biting.  (The print version of, but still the same thing)

Where would you get information about what that organization finds absurd enough to satirize, in this case the hearings results?
 
2014-02-17 01:01:14 AM  

SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.  Prehistoric evidence indicates that warm periods have always been golden ages for those living then compared to cooler times before or after, an unalloyed boon to human survival, the development of agriculture, and civilization.

Still people pick out the likely fact that things will change and expect everyone to act as though Virginia orange juice and Iowa cotton and a Siberian breadbasket to the world would be horrible.


What is more frustrating is the idiocy of people who can't understand that it is not a warmer earth that will cause the problems, but the process of change towards that warmer world. It's really not that difficult to understand. The problem isn't that we couldn't live in a warmer world, the problem is the transition itself and the speed of the change.  The change isn't really smooth but comes with bumps.

Changing weather patterns will mean failed crops, because you can't really move the production of certain crops north or south until the situation is more stable. Most of the world's ecosystems are already under severe stress caused by humans with a lot of species close to extinction,they won't be able to cope with change like they could in days before our modern age . Equally, you can't move coastal cities inwards without great cost and preparation, and a lot of flooding will happen before countries even start doing, etc. etc.
 
2014-02-17 01:33:28 AM  

SwiftFox: OK, well, fine, if that is how you define someone who feels that the climate change is certain to happen.

What is your proposal for dealing with anthropogenic climate change, beyond your own denial that it is something that, since it will happen, should be adapted to and the benefits enjoyed as well as the detrimental effects mitigated?


So, how are you going prevent that countries that suddenly find themselves without water or food start attacking other countries? How are you going to pay for massive new infrastructure projects and movement of entire cities and countries, all over the world, towards other regions without putting the global economy in a crisis? How are you going to deal with massive cross border migration  around the world and all the political and cultural turmoil that will lead to? How are you going to prepare new lands for new forms of agriculture fast enough, and again where do you get the money without causing a global economic crisis? You can't borrow from China or Europe, because China and Europe will have even worse problems to deal with. How are you going to keep an already polluted and overfished sea from become completely dead and empty? How are you going to prevent further plant and animal extinction as their ways for migration is blocked by humans and their numbers are already fragile? How are you going to prevent, in the transitional period, that people make things work by depleting valuable farmland and aquifers?

I am sure we are going to manage somehow  and an adapt we start early enough, but to think that adaptation will be a piece of cake is incredibly moronic. And by saying it all won't be problem you are not really helping to get people started on preparing for it, aren't you?
 
2014-02-17 03:03:26 AM  

bikkurikun: SwiftFox: OK, well, fine, if that is how you define someone who feels that the climate change is certain to happen.

What is your proposal for dealing with anthropogenic climate change, beyond your own denial that it is something that, since it will happen, should be adapted to and the benefits enjoyed as well as the detrimental effects mitigated?

So, how are you going prevent that countries that suddenly find themselves without water or food start attacking other countries? How are you going to pay for massive new infrastructure projects and movement of entire cities and countries, all over the world, towards other regions without putting the global economy in a crisis? How are you going to deal with massive cross border migration  around the world and all the political and cultural turmoil that will lead to? How are you going to prepare new lands for new forms of agriculture fast enough, and again where do you get the money without causing a global economic crisis? You can't borrow from China or Europe, because China and Europe will have even worse problems to deal with. How are you going to keep an already polluted and overfished sea from become completely dead and empty? How are you going to prevent further plant and animal extinction as their ways for migration is blocked by humans and their numbers are already fragile? How are you going to prevent, in the transitional period, that people make things work by depleting valuable farmland and aquifers?

I am sure we are going to manage somehow  and an adapt we start early enough, but to think that adaptation will be a piece of cake is incredibly moronic. And by saying it all won't be problem you are not really helping to get people started on preparing for it, aren't you?


Oh, I'm not saying it won't be the proverbial Chinese "interesting times".  The problems you mention will no doubt be worse than they currently are where there is a lack of food, water, infrastructure, and so on.  About everything you mention the world has to deal with anyway, at least some places.

Maybe we can start by working at ways to solve those problems before the, what, century or so in which they will manifest, instead of pretending they won't occur if everyone gets on board and shakes a disapproving finger at reality and all non-finger-shakers. I'm sure there will be squealing just because President Obama approved the first billion dollars towards dealing with the fact instead of trying to magick it out of existence, like those who think even clean, low carbon impact energy production shouldn't be allowed because it "feeds the addiction" (which is rather like complaining allowing people to drink fluids feeds a troublesome water addiction).  There will still be some who would consider a few hundred cases of treatable thyroid cancer worldwide reason enough to abandon what is needed to save millions or billions of people.
 
2014-02-17 09:57:26 AM  
It is just a terrible shame that the 1% has to put up with all these dirty, clamoring humans.
W/o them, it would be a much nicer world.
 
2014-02-17 10:43:45 AM  

Notabunny: HighZoolander: But, but, I heard from people who hate Al Gore as the inventor of climate that the ever-changing climate can't change now!

I blame Al Gore. If he'd won the vote, we'd be doing something about this.


Yes: wasting a lot of money on a complete lie.  The irony is that this lie was constructed to do two things:

1.  Make money for corporations
2.  Accrue political capital for the left

If the right engaged in this behavior, even on the same topic, the left would scream bloody murder about greedy capitalists and political shenanigans.  But because the left packaged their lie in the bubble wrap known as the environment, that makes it ok.
 
2014-02-17 10:48:51 AM  

Scattershot: Yes: wasting a lot of money on a complete lie. The irony is that this lie was constructed to do two things:

1. Make money for corporations
2. Accrue political capital for the left

If the right engaged in this behavior, even on the same topic, the left would scream bloody murder about greedy capitalists and political shenanigans. But because the left packaged their lie in the bubble wrap known as the environment, that makes it ok.


So you are saying that scientists from around the world are involved in a grand conspiracy to help an American political party? And you actually believe this?? Seriously, you are so blinded by your politics that this actually seems like a reasonable position to take?
 
2014-02-17 12:33:59 PM  

Farking Canuck: Scattershot: Yes: wasting a lot of money on a complete lie. The irony is that this lie was constructed to do two things:

1. Make money for corporations
2. Accrue political capital for the left

If the right engaged in this behavior, even on the same topic, the left would scream bloody murder about greedy capitalists and political shenanigans. But because the left packaged their lie in the bubble wrap known as the environment, that makes it ok.

So you are saying that scientists from around the world are involved in a grand conspiracy to help an American political party? And you actually believe this?? Seriously, you are so blinded by your politics that this actually seems like a reasonable position to take?


Don't forget, said conspiracy started in the 1800's. It's the Illuminati man.
 
2014-02-17 01:02:29 PM  

Scattershot: Notabunny: HighZoolander: But, but, I heard from people who hate Al Gore as the inventor of climate that the ever-changing climate can't change now!

I blame Al Gore. If he'd won the vote, we'd be doing something about this.

Yes: wasting a lot of money on a complete lie.  The irony is that this lie was constructed to do two things:

1.  Make money for corporations
2.  Accrue political capital for the left

If the right engaged in this behavior, even on the same topic, the left would scream bloody murder about greedy capitalists and political shenanigans.  But because the left packaged their lie in the bubble wrap known as the environment, that makes it ok.


Sociopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian troll thread is over there.
 
2014-02-17 05:35:32 PM  
Neither "the Left" or "the Right" give a crap about you, the citizen.

We are getting tag teamed by them and have been for a long long time now.

The facts are.... they will say and do anything to achieve what they want, and that is absolute control over everything that happens.

Yes, they want everything hooked up to smart technology that would allow them to shut off or limit energy use down to the single outlet or light fixture... they want to be able to regulate neighborhoods, towns, cities, regions.

Yes they want satellites and drones filling the skies taking real time video of everything and storing it in a central database, they want to record every human interaction and store it so that they can apply a highly advanced search engine to it.

Watch lists, video cameras on telephone poles, video cameras in your house, in your bathroom, watching you wank off. They want to know what turns you on and off.

All of this is part of the grand master plan, and in order to do that, they have to convince the American public to accept all of their lies first. The reason why is our Constitution was designed to preserve individual freedom.

So, little by little they tag team back and forth and chip away at it. Meanwhile the less aware of us, argue with each other, fling poop and find any reason we can to fill our lives up with hatred of our neighbor who we are all so certain is the reason for all of our problems in life.

Anyway, continue on.
 
2014-02-17 07:02:41 PM  

MagicMissile: Neither "the Left" or "the Right" give a crap about you, the citizen.

We are getting tag teamed by them and have been for a long long time now.

The facts are.... they will say and do anything to achieve what they want, and that is absolute control over everything that happens.

Yes, they want everything hooked up to smart technology that would allow them to shut off or limit energy use down to the single outlet or light fixture... they want to be able to regulate neighborhoods, towns, cities, regions.

Yes they want satellites and drones filling the skies taking real time video of everything and storing it in a central database, they want to record every human interaction and store it so that they can apply a highly advanced search engine to it.

Watch lists, video cameras on telephone poles, video cameras in your house, in your bathroom, watching you wank off. They want to know what turns you on and off.

All of this is part of the grand master plan, and in order to do that, they have to convince the American public to accept all of their lies first. The reason why is our Constitution was designed to preserve individual freedom.

So, little by little they tag team back and forth and chip away at it. Meanwhile the less aware of us, argue with each other, fling poop and find any reason we can to fill our lives up with hatred of our neighbor who we are all so certain is the reason for all of our problems in life.

Anyway, continue on.


Is it safe to say that this is what you would do if you were in power and that is why you're projecting this paranoid fantasy on to the existing government?
 
2014-02-17 07:43:23 PM  

Farking Canuck: MagicMissile: Neither "the Left" or "the Right" give a crap about you, the citizen.

We are getting tag teamed by them and have been for a long long time now.

The facts are.... they will say and do anything to achieve what they want, and that is absolute control over everything that happens.

Yes, they want everything hooked up to smart technology that would allow them to shut off or limit energy use down to the single outlet or light fixture... they want to be able to regulate neighborhoods, towns, cities, regions.

Yes they want satellites and drones filling the skies taking real time video of everything and storing it in a central database, they want to record every human interaction and store it so that they can apply a highly advanced search engine to it.

Watch lists, video cameras on telephone poles, video cameras in your house, in your bathroom, watching you wank off. They want to know what turns you on and off.

All of this is part of the grand master plan, and in order to do that, they have to convince the American public to accept all of their lies first. The reason why is our Constitution was designed to preserve individual freedom.

So, little by little they tag team back and forth and chip away at it. Meanwhile the less aware of us, argue with each other, fling poop and find any reason we can to fill our lives up with hatred of our neighbor who we are all so certain is the reason for all of our problems in life.

Anyway, continue on.

Is it safe to say that this is what you would do if you were in power and that is why you're projecting this paranoid fantasy on to the existing government?


Whats odd is that people like you keep saying "You're Paranoid!"  "You're Paranoid!" and then our government comes out and is like " eh guys... not really paranoid actually, we really are doing all of this sort of thing"

What I don't get is how while evidence keeps mounting to support my argument, people like you keep your heads buried firmly in the sand. What are you afraid of?
 
2014-02-17 08:11:31 PM  

MagicMissile: Whats odd is that people like you keep saying "You're Paranoid!" "You're Paranoid!" and then our government comes out and is like " eh guys... not really paranoid actually, we really are doing all of this sort of thing"

What I don't get is how while evidence keeps mounting to support my argument, people like you keep your heads buried firmly in the sand. What are you afraid of?


Nobody is saying that there are not departments in the government that feel that they can better defend the country if they have more surveillance powers. They are probably right that they could be more effective if they knew everything.

Then again, I and many others feel that their curtailing of citizen's rights are not justified by the actual danger. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

My issue with you and those like you is not that you oppose the very real things like NSA surveillance, It is that you add in paranoid delusions of great conspiracies across all government parties. That all members of government are so evil that they willingly participate in these conspiracies and none break their silence.

There are enough evil people out there attempting to screw us over for their own gains ... we do not need you preaching about your fantasy Dr. Evil organizations.
 
2014-02-17 08:17:04 PM  

SVenus: Charlie Freak: I went back and did some rough (anecdotal, really) analysis using weather station plots from the last thirty years or so of winters and I could not find a prolonged, stationary setup like this. And certainly not twice within 12 months.

What do you get for 1993-1994? Nothing similar?


Sure, there have been deep, prolonged cold snaps, but nothing this widespread with this amplitude and frequency.

Today was the first day without a below-zero temp since Jan 19th and the eighth overall since Dec 6th. Unreal cold. Smaller towns around here are asking residents to run their taps so the underground pipes don't freeze, the frost level is that low. Nobody can remember that ever happening.
 
2014-02-17 08:31:13 PM  

MagicMissile: Neither "the Left" or "the Right" give a crap about you, the citizen.

We are getting tag teamed by them and have been for a long long time now.

The facts are.... they will say and do anything to achieve what they want, and that is absolute control over everything that happens.

Yes, they want everything hooked up to smart technology that would allow them to shut off or limit energy use down to the single outlet or light fixture... they want to be able to regulate neighborhoods, towns, cities, regions.

Yes they want satellites and drones filling the skies taking real time video of everything and storing it in a central database, they want to record every human interaction and store it so that they can apply a highly advanced search engine to it.

Watch lists, video cameras on telephone poles, video cameras in your house, in your bathroom, watching you wank off. They want to know what turns you on and off.

All of this is part of the grand master plan, and in order to do that, they have to convince the American public to accept all of their lies first. The reason why is our Constitution was designed to preserve individual freedom.

So, little by little they tag team back and forth and chip away at it. Meanwhile the less aware of us, argue with each other, fling poop and find any reason we can to fill our lives up with hatred of our neighbor who we are all so certain is the reason for all of our problems in life.

Anyway, continue on.


So when did the government go from the noblest of the noble framers of the constitution, to the current evil geniuses who just want to watch *you* masturbate?
 
2014-02-17 11:08:32 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Naesen:

I'm a "northerner" who just moved to Florida, and am looking to make friends. You near the Tampa area?

I'm a couple hours south of you.


Rats. Oh well, was working during the Arlington Fark Party, maybe we'll have a local one.
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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