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  
•       •       •

6822 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


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