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.

(The Atlantic)   Okay, so the US government's prediction for "above normal" temperatures this winter was a bit off, but their climate-change research is rock-solid. Like that seven-foot snowbank at the end of your driveway   (theatlantic.com) divider line 206
    More: Fail, temperatures, Climate Prediction Center, climate change, polar vortex, predictions, rocks, driveway, weather forecasts  
•       •       •

1574 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Feb 2014 at 12:22 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-19 12:07:51 PM
To accept same-sex unions as 'marriage' is thus to commit officially to the proposition that there is no meaningful difference between a married man and woman conceiving a child naturally, two women conceiving a child with the aid of donor semen and IVF, or two men employing a surrogate to have a child together

Okay, done.
 
2014-02-19 12:18:30 PM
Gay marriage and IVF babbies are causing global warming. Which is not happening, but if it were that would be why.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-19 12:25:00 PM
So it was right for half of the country and some parts were warmer than normal?

Obviously this means there is no global warming!

cdn.theatlantic.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-19 12:25:44 PM
vpb: So it was right for half of the country and some parts were warmer than normal  predicted?

Obviously this means there is no global warming!

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 800x500]
 
2014-02-19 12:29:39 PM
imgs.xkcd.com

/oblig?
 
2014-02-19 12:30:08 PM
hey, look - more people confusing weather with climate!
 
2014-02-19 12:30:08 PM
We are supposed to ignore the "real" weather outside and door and simply belief the climate change nutbags.
 
2014-02-19 12:31:47 PM

vpb: So it was right for half of the country and some parts were warmer than normal?

Obviously this means there is no global warming!

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 800x500]


Well, it was only the commie part of America that was as predicted.

Where Real Mericans live were lower than perdicted, so that proves God hates book learnin'.
 
2014-02-19 12:31:50 PM
Apparently the Fail tag in this case is for the subby's headline.
 
2014-02-19 12:33:59 PM
Luckily, the United States is the only place in the world....
 
2014-02-19 12:34:50 PM
dammit... just realized I posted in the wrong thread.  Thanks, kid_icarus, for the heads up.
 
2014-02-19 12:35:43 PM
Yesterday it snowed. Today I could go outside without a coat. If it warms up much more I could comfortably slip into some shorts.
 
2014-02-19 12:36:38 PM

vpb: vpb: So it was right for half of the country and some parts were warmer than normal  predicted?

Obviously this means there is no global warming!

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 800x500]


Think you are wrong here.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/tools/briefi ng /seas_veri.grid.php
 
2014-02-19 12:38:28 PM
Yeah, we've been hitting the 50s for the last 2 weeks, so there's that, subby.
 
2014-02-19 12:38:32 PM

HoustonNick: We are supposed to ignore the "real" weather outside and door and simply belief the climate change nutbags.


Can you translate that to English for us?
 
2014-02-19 12:39:21 PM
A: Economists, meteorologists, politicians

Q: What are three professions who can fail 100% of the time and still keep their jobs?
 
2014-02-19 12:45:29 PM
I think that it would be easier to calculate long term climate changes, then predict short term weather patterns.
 
2014-02-19 12:46:30 PM
From NASA press release of 3 22 2012 says CO2 is a COOLENT

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere 3 22 2012
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_sabe r/
March 22, 2012:
  A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles.  NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth's upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.
"This was the biggest dose of heat we've received from a solar storm since 2005," says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center.  "It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet."

Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012. A ScienceCast video explains the physics of this phenomenon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEFQHDSYP1I" target="_blank">Play it!
Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA's TIMED satellite.  SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth's upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet's surface.
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,"
explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.  "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
That's what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth's magnetic field.  (On the "Richter Scale of Solar Flares," X-class flares are the most powerful kind.)  Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit.  The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
"The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree," says Russell.  "It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in."
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

A surge of infrared radiation from nitric oxide molecules on March 8-10, 2012, signals the biggest upper-atmospheric heating event in seven years. Credit: SABER/TIMED. See also the CO2 data.
In human terms, this is a lot of energy.  According to the New York City mayor's office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years.
"Unfortunately, there's no practical way to harness this kind of energy," says Mlynczak.  "It's so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth's surface.  Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO."
During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites.  This is both good and bad.  On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit.  On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.

The storm is over now, but Russell and Mlynczak expect more to come.
"We're just emerging from a deep solar minimum," says Russell.  "The solar cycle is gaining strength with a maximum expected in 2013."
More sunspots flinging more CMEs toward Earth adds up to more opportunities for SABER to study the heating effect of solar storms.
"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says Mlynczak, "and the data we're collecting are unprecedented."
Stay tuned to Science@NASA for updates from the top of the atmosphere.


Author:Dr Tony Phillips| Production editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

 
2014-02-19 12:46:38 PM
My question has always been, for both sides: What if you are wrong?

For the CC proponents, "What if you are wrong?" Then we have cleaned up the atmosphere, increased the global health and removed a significant monetary flow to countries that hate the vast majority of the world at the cost of forcing companies and industries to innovate and change.

For the CC deniers, "What if you are wrong?" Then we will lose millions (?) of square miles of habitable land to rising oceans, desertified mass swathes of farm land and essentially doomed millions to death.

Which is worse?
 
2014-02-19 12:46:44 PM

nyseattitude: HoustonNick: We are supposed to ignore the "real" weather outside and door and simply belief the climate change nutbags.

Can you translate that to English for us?


I may not have the nuance exactly right, but something on the order of "WHAR LORD ALGORE NOW"
 
2014-02-19 12:47:34 PM
Um ... it has been close to 90 here, subs.

FlashHarry: hey, look - more people confusing weather with climate!


Pretty much this.
 
2014-02-19 12:55:04 PM
LOL its cold outside today. WHAR GLOBAL WARMING WHAR
 
2014-02-19 12:55:24 PM

timujin: dammit... just realized I posted in the wrong thread.  Thanks, kid_icarus, for the heads up.


Funny. It's a derp article, so I just assumed they'd worked homos and marriage into it somehow. I'm a victim of Poe's Law.
 
2014-02-19 12:56:24 PM

eiger: Luckily, the United States is the only place in the world....


You have to remember that a climate denier's universe is described by a circle 100 miles in diameter.
 
2014-02-19 12:57:49 PM

OPUS2014: COOLENT


COOLENT?
 
2014-02-19 12:58:35 PM

Witty_Retort: My question has always been, for both sides: What if you are wrong?

For the CC proponents, "What if you are wrong?" Then we have cleaned up the atmosphere, increased the global health and removed a significant monetary flow to countries that hate the vast majority of the world at the cost of forcing companies and industries to innovate and change.

For the CC deniers, "What if you are wrong?" Then we will lose millions (?) of square miles of habitable land to rising oceans, desertified mass swathes of farm land and essentially doomed millions to death.

Which is worse?


TLDR version:
climatesanity.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-19 01:00:26 PM

Witty_Retort: My question has always been, for both sides: What if you are wrong?

For the CC proponents, "What if you are wrong?" Then we have cleaned up the atmosphere, increased the global health and removed a significant monetary flow to countries that hate the vast majority of the world at the cost of forcing companies and industries to innovate and change.

For the CC deniers, "What if you are wrong?" Then we will lose millions (?) of square miles of habitable land to rising oceans, desertified mass swathes of farm land and essentially doomed millions to death.

Which is worse?


Why do you hate America?
 
2014-02-19 01:01:02 PM
www.drroyspencer.com

Might have been a bit off in the US, but January 2014, global, was warmest Jan on record.
 
2014-02-19 01:04:08 PM

OPUS2014: From NASA press release of 3 22 2012 says CO2 is a COOLENT


Your interpretation of that article is like saying putting a lid on a pot of boiling water cools it down because it makes it harder to pour more hot water into the pot.
 
2014-02-19 01:06:27 PM
media.adn.com
media.adn.com
 
2014-02-19 01:06:53 PM

FlashHarry: hey, look - more people confusing weather with climate!


This.
 
2014-02-19 01:08:00 PM

OPUS2014: From NASA press release of 3 22 2012 says CO2 is a COOLENT

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.  "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."


The tiny amount of CO2 in the thermosphere radiates a tiny amount of heat back into space (and toward the ground). The thermosphere is something like 0.002% of the total atmosphere.

But I'm guessing that you aren't listening.
 
2014-02-19 01:10:07 PM

OPUS2014: From NASA press release of 3 22 2012 says CO2 is a COOLENT

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere 3 22 2012
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_sabe r/
March 22, 2012:  A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles.  NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth's upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.
"This was the biggest dose of heat we've received from a solar storm since 2005," says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center.  "It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet."

Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012. A ScienceCast video explains the physics of this phenomenon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEFQHDSYP1I" target="_blank">Play it!
Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA's TIMED satellite.  SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth's upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet's surface.
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.  "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
That's what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth's magnetic field.  (On the "Richter Scale of Solar Flares," X-class flares are the most powerful kind.)  Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit.  The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all aroun ...


Luckily, they are talking about the outer most layer of the atmosphere, and not the one that actually counts when it comes to CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
 
2014-02-19 01:11:36 PM
in Western Washington, back in the 60's we had cold snaps every winter that would last a month and cause all of the small lakes to freeze.  I had ice skates and would go to Angle Lake or Steel lake to skate.
in the early 70's it stopped getting cold enough, for a long enough time to freeze any of the small lakes, and has not since.

before 1950 it was not unusual for Seattle to get 4' of snow and the snow stayed around through most of the winter.  in the 90's we had a winter where it rained 1/10" or more ever single day, but no snow.

this year we have had snow twice, melted in the afternoon.  our rain has stopped being days and days of light rain and has changed to a few days of deluge, but too early in the fall and too late in the winter for our ski industry.  Our weather science people believe that the Cascade Ski Slopes will all have to close in 5-10 years because there will stop being enough snow!
 
2014-02-19 01:11:44 PM

Target Builder: Witty_Retort: My question has always been, for both sides: What if you are wrong?

For the CC proponents, "What if you are wrong?" Then we have cleaned up the atmosphere, increased the global health and removed a significant monetary flow to countries that hate the vast majority of the world at the cost of forcing companies and industries to innovate and change.

For the CC deniers, "What if you are wrong?" Then we will lose millions (?) of square miles of habitable land to rising oceans, desertified mass swathes of farm land and essentially doomed millions to death.

Which is worse?

Why do you hate America?


Because Jesus and because god wanted us to be rulers over the earth. And all that.

I'm reminded of India. In India, the rivers are sacred. As such, they don't believe the waters are dangerous. This is one reason why they don't clean them up. Disgusting.

But the real answer is the wealthy of this nation don't want to spend a dime on anything that isn't for them.
 
2014-02-19 01:12:02 PM

Witty_Retort: Which is worse?


The one where they have to admit they're wrong.
 
2014-02-19 01:13:57 PM
Except for the fact that Arizona almost hit 90 in farking February and Californians are pissing in Evian bottles in case they have to pull a Bear Grylls when the water runs out. But only the East Coast matters anyway.
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-19 01:20:55 PM

Mikey1969: Yeah, we've been hitting the 50s for the last 2 weeks, so there's that, subby.


It was pushing 70 in the middle of January in Kansas for like a week, before this last storm front blew threw and dumped like 12 inches of snow, along with ~10 degree temperatures.

Back up to 60-some today.
 
2014-02-19 01:24:05 PM
Has Fark ever put a ban on a subject for headline submissions? This is the tiredest, boringest, dumbest "argument" ever. Subby should be taken out back and left there in what is apparently a very cold winter for him. Same goes for all the subbies who sub their Sun-goes-around-the-flat-earth articles.
 
2014-02-19 01:24:17 PM
http://science.time.com/2014/01/22/average-temperatures-in-january-wa r m-despite-cold/

The hot bits are hotter than the cold bits are colder. It averages out to a less dramatic season than you might think.

What is more, the "cold" weather we have been having was perfectly normal 40 or 50 years ago. We're just not used to "normal" any more. If you are less than 37 years old, you have never experienced a cold month by 20th century standards.

The polar vortex has simply shifted the usual winter snow and lows towards the East, leaving the West Coast and Rockies warmer and drier.

Despite "Showpocalpyse" in 2013, 2013 was a warm year like all the others since the late 1970s.

Back then we didn't have 24-hour weather to blow even normal bad weather out of proportion. And people had camping equipment like Coleman stoves and lamps to give them heat, light, safe drinking water, and an ability to cook small meals when the power goes out. People don't even remember simple things like, if your freezer shuts down, take the food out and put in boxes and put the boxes on the ground outdoors where it is well below freezing.

Putting your food in your unheated garage until the power comes back on will probably be enough to keep it from thawing.

In any case, the USA is not big enough to matter in the grand scheme of things when it comes to global warming. The US is tiny compared to the Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic, let alone the world. Even the US and Canada combined don't reflect the global temperature means.

Let me put it this way:  if a giant asteroid hit the Earth and wiped out the US, Canada and Mexico but spared the rest of the world, the world would scarcely lose a single human gene. The Africans are in Africa, the Europeans are in Europe and the Asians are in Asia. There are native Americans from Canada to Terra del Fuego.

We would lose nothing of importance as a species.

In the same way you can just dump all the US and Canadian weather stations and look at the world data without them and it won't change the truth value of anthropogenic climate change by a dried fig.

While the Eastern US freezes, the Western US continues to experience drought and warmth which does not bode well for the crop this Summer.

I'd stock up on almonds, figs and other California produce while I can if I were you. Their price may be set to rise dramatically, the way the cost of chocolate has due to turmoil in the Ivory Coast and a few other countries that grow much of the world's chocolate.
 
2014-02-19 01:26:07 PM
oh-look-it's-THIS-thread-again.jpg
 
2014-02-19 01:27:25 PM

Fast Moon: OPUS2014: From NASA press release of 3 22 2012 says CO2 is a COOLENT

Your interpretation of that article is like saying putting a lid on a pot of boiling water cools it down because it makes it harder to pour more hot water into the pot.


Thermoses keep cold stuff cold AND hot stuff hot.  You can't explain that, man!

But seriously, how hard is it to realize that, if CO2 reflects heat from the sun back into space, it also reflects heat from the surface back to the surface?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-19 01:29:42 PM

commieprogressive: vpb: vpb: So it was right for half of the country and some parts were warmer than normal  predicted?

Obviously this means there is no global warming!

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 800x500]

Think you are wrong here.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/tools/briefi ng /seas_veri.grid.php


Yes, that's where the image I posted came from.  The red areas were warmer than predicted.
 
2014-02-19 01:34:16 PM
Why the fark do people continue to think that this old, tired, completely debunked argument has any merit whatsoever?
 
2014-02-19 01:36:18 PM

qorkfiend: Why the fark do people continue to think that this old, tired, completely debunked argument has any merit whatsoever?


Is it bad that I can't even tell what you're referring to, or even if you're a denialist thinking well-demonstrated data is "debunked"?  I honestly can't tell.
 
2014-02-19 01:36:22 PM
Wait, so you mean to tell me that heavily polluting industries are spending millions of dollars to muddy the issue in order to protect their profits?  Nah, it's way more likely all scientists everywhere are incompetent and silly.  When's the last time those guys did ANYTHING right, amirite?
 
2014-02-19 01:39:14 PM
it was 90 degrees in Phoenix the other day. IN FEBRUARY. That's way above normal.
 
2014-02-19 01:43:44 PM

qorkfiend: Why the fark do people continue to think that this old, tired, completely debunked argument has any merit whatsoever?


Because they want this argument to have merit.  They would rather incinerate the planet than admit liberals were right.
 
2014-02-19 01:44:12 PM

vpb: commieprogressive: vpb: vpb: So it was right for half of the country and some parts were warmer than normal  predicted?

Obviously this means there is no global warming!

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 800x500]

Think you are wrong here.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/tools/briefi ng /seas_veri.grid.php

Yes, that's where the image I posted came from.  The red areas were warmer than predicted.


I think the picture above that one is the prediction and the one you posted is the actual. In the prediction they show much more being above normal which it isn't in the Observation image. In the Observation image much of the east coast was below normal.  Perhaps I'm just confused as to what you meant.  Or something.
 
2014-02-19 01:44:40 PM

QU!RK1019: qorkfiend: Why the fark do people continue to think that this old, tired, completely debunked argument has any merit whatsoever?

Because they want this argument to have merit.  They would rather incinerate the planet than admit liberals were right.


*sigh*

Probably.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report