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.

(io9)   What does global warming and the fact that it always rains on your weekend off have in common? Here comes the science   (io9.com) divider line 128
    More: Sad, global warming, Convection, dust storms, cloud seeding, ozone layer, thunderstorms, Jane Fonda, cold spots  
•       •       •

1807 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Mar 2014 at 6:45 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-10 06:48:52 PM
We've known about pollution induced weekend rain for... 30 years? 20 years? A long time.
 
2014-03-10 07:11:33 PM
In before people with terminal solastalgia.
 
2014-03-10 07:14:41 PM
Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!
 
2014-03-10 07:18:05 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!


Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California.
 
2014-03-10 07:22:45 PM

MyRandomName: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California.


Please learn the difference between climate and weather.
 
2014-03-10 07:40:32 PM
AGW doesn't cause rain on weekends, a Quasi Supernormal Incremental Precipitation Inducer just came into town for the day.
 
2014-03-10 07:51:45 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Please learn the difference between climate and weather.


Climate is weather, is it not?

Even NASA says so.
 
2014-03-10 07:55:18 PM

Zeppelininthesky: MyRandomName: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California.

Please learn the difference between climate and weather.

For the sake of clarity, I will restate:

Please learn that climate is weather over time.

If you break down his comment, it actually pans out legit.

A climate change would also mean different weather.

Whether or not it would cause rain in California, I cannot attest as to what the modelling claims without reference, and I'm just too tired.
 
2014-03-10 07:55:18 PM
In before HAARP reference.
 
2014-03-10 08:40:16 PM

Zeppelininthesky: MyRandomName: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California.

Please learn the difference between climate and weather.


No one tell name that it predicts drier weather/ worse droughts in the American SW. It's funny watching someone pretend a large state like California would get wetter everywhere in the state.
 
2014-03-10 09:02:58 PM
Politics therefore bond vibration doesn't exist.
 
2014-03-10 09:35:10 PM

omeganuepsilon: Zeppelininthesky: MyRandomName: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California.

Please learn the difference between climate and weather.
For the sake of clarity, I will restate:

Please learn that climate is weather over time.

If you break down his comment, it actually pans out legit.

A climate change would also mean different weather.

Whether or not it would cause rain in California, I cannot attest as to what the modelling claims without reference, and I'm just too tired.


Yes, climate is weather over a period of years or decades. You cannot change that around.
 
2014-03-10 09:37:24 PM
Too bad people drive less on weekends.
Article logic fail.
 
2014-03-10 09:38:04 PM
Hell could open up a fissure in the middle of my town to spray sulfur and brimstone all over my neighborhood, and I would still be happy to have two days away from the office. So rain on the weekend would be less than a minor inconvenience.
 
2014-03-10 09:50:50 PM

Baryogenesis: No one tell name that it predicts drier weather/ worse droughts in the American SW.


Does it predict, say, warmer temperatures over, say, the whole surface of the earth? I guess I mean to say, does it predict a "global warming"? Just curious.
 
2014-03-10 09:52:33 PM
I thought it only rained on wedding days?
 
2014-03-10 09:54:41 PM
This is about global warming? Shouldn't "science" be in quotes?
 
2014-03-10 10:06:27 PM
Condensation nuclei. Duh.
 
2014-03-10 10:21:42 PM

SevenizGud: Baryogenesis: No one tell name that it predicts drier weather/ worse droughts in the American SW.

Does it predict, say, warmer temperatures over, say, the whole surface of the earth? I guess I mean to say, does it predict a "global warming"? Just curious.


I notice you aren't posting your misleading graphs and cherry picked data anymore.

Why is that? Were you tired of them getting ripped to shreds every thread?
 
2014-03-10 10:31:52 PM
 SevenizGud: Baryogenesis: No one tell name that it predicts drier weather/ worse droughts in the American SW.

Does it predict, say, warmer temperatures over, say, the whole surface of the earth? I guess I mean to say, does it predict a "global warming"? Just curious.


Why dont we skip ahead to you making a direct and specific point that doesnt involve you cherry picking the starting year of a graph with one of the hottest years on record
 
2014-03-10 11:27:08 PM

SevenizGud: This is about global warming? Shouldn't "science" be in quotes?


When it comes from unsourced blogs, yes.

When it comes from the scientists working in the field, backed by data and peer-reviewed papers: no.

Ask yourself, which do you endlessly post?
 
2014-03-10 11:27:59 PM

grumpfuff: Why is that? Were you tired of them getting ripped to shreds every thread?


Baryogenesis: Why dont we skip ahead to you making a direct and specific point that doesnt involve you cherry picking the starting year of a graph with one of the hottest years on record


Dear Farkers,

See "hiatus" in your dictionary.

Sincerely,

The IPCC
 
2014-03-10 11:41:20 PM

SevenizGud: grumpfuff: Why is that? Were you tired of them getting ripped to shreds every thread?

Baryogenesis: Why dont we skip ahead to you making a direct and specific point that doesnt involve you cherry picking the starting year of a graph with one of the hottest years on record

Dear Farkers,

See "hiatus" in your dictionary.

Sincerely,

The IPCC


The "hiatus" does not in any way mean global warming is not real. It is an effect of the natural changes that already occur. There are other changes that are happening other than air temperature.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-hiatus-tied-coole r- temps-pacific
 
2014-03-10 11:41:51 PM

SevenizGud: grumpfuff: Why is that? Were you tired of them getting ripped to shreds every thread?

Baryogenesis: Why dont we skip ahead to you making a direct and specific point that doesnt involve you cherry picking the starting year of a graph with one of the hottest years on record

Dear Farkers,

See "hiatus" in your dictionary.

Sincerely,

The IPCC


Hey, back for more lying with charts?  You never did say which oil company is paying you.
 
2014-03-10 11:42:20 PM

SevenizGud: Dear Farkers,

See "hiatus" in your dictionary.

Sincerely,

The IPCC


Dear moron,

You have endlessly posted the same cherry picked graph with the caption "What Global Warming?".

It was idiotic every time you posted it and, as pointed out above, you were ripped to shreds with lessons on proper statistical sampling every single time.

You can change your tune now if you like ... but the incredible volume of your past stupidity is recorded on the internet forever.

Sincerely,
People who get their science from scientists.
 
2014-03-10 11:49:00 PM

Farking Canuck: SevenizGud: Dear Farkers,

See "hiatus" in your dictionary.

Sincerely,

The IPCC

Dear moron,

You have endlessly posted the same cherry picked graph with the caption "What Global Warming?".

It was idiotic every time you posted it and, as pointed out above, you were ripped to shreds with lessons on proper statistical sampling every single time.

You can change your tune now if you like ... but the incredible volume of your past stupidity is recorded on the internet forever.

Sincerely,
People who get their science from scientists.


HEs gonna come back with that same 10 year chart he always does, that ignores 100 years of warming for a slight downtrend at the end.  They all do.  Then he wont respond back about it.  Watch.
 
2014-03-11 12:20:33 AM
Working the whole damn week, watching the sun go by
And then the rainy weekend comes, and you're stuck inside.
Isn't it Ironic, don't you think?
 
2014-03-11 12:23:58 AM

Farking Canuck: People who get their science from scientists.


You mean like the HADCRUT data?

Just checking.
 
2014-03-11 12:30:33 AM

Zeppelininthesky: SevenizGud: grumpfuff: Why is that? Were you tired of them getting ripped to shreds every thread?

Baryogenesis: Why dont we skip ahead to you making a direct and specific point that doesnt involve you cherry picking the starting year of a graph with one of the hottest years on record

Dear Farkers,

See "hiatus" in your dictionary.

Sincerely,

The IPCC

The "hiatus" does not in any way mean global warming is not real. It is an effect of the natural changes that already occur. There are other changes that are happening other than air temperature.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-hiatus-tied-coole r- temps-pacific


Yup, more heat is being drawn into the oceans and less into land/air.
 
2014-03-11 12:31:21 AM

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: People who get their science from scientists.

You mean like the HADCRUT data?

Just checking.



Yes, but they tend not to make false inferences from cherry-picked parts of the data, as you tend to do.
 
2014-03-11 12:45:13 AM

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: People who get their science from scientists.

You mean like the HADCRUT data?

Just checking.


The date are just fine. What you deniers do is only pick the data that fits your preconceived notion, and ignore anything else that refutes your claim.
 
2014-03-11 12:48:57 AM

Zeppelininthesky: The date are just fine. What you deniers do is only pick the data that fits your preconceived notion, and ignore anything else that refutes your claim.


The the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report?

Just checking.
 
2014-03-11 12:52:43 AM

SevenizGud: Zeppelininthesky: The date are just fine. What you deniers do is only pick the data that fits your preconceived notion, and ignore anything else that refutes your claim.

The the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report?

Just checking.


Anything that you cherrrypick out of that report. The rest of the world will read the entire report and use all of the given data. Not just the data that you want to use.
 
2014-03-11 01:10:33 AM

New Farkin User Name: AGW doesn't cause rain on weekends, a Quasi Supernormal Incremental Precipitation Inducer just came into town for the day.


Nope, this time it was a Spontaneous Para-Causal Meteorological Phenomenon.
 
2014-03-11 01:13:21 AM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!


I live in the Everett, WA and it doesn't just rain on the weekend, it rains 7 farking days a week.
 
2014-03-11 01:23:31 AM
rs255.pbsrc.com
 
2014-03-11 01:29:17 AM
"Alway rains on the weekend" might be explained by dust and particulates in a few places, but I'd bet confirmation bias plays a greater role. With so many people working deep inside buildings, a little rain won't make a big impact on your weekday.

I still look for rainy Saturdays. I work in the field on Saturdays but I'd rather stay home than roam around in the rain. Not many rainy Saturdays in Dallas, according to my mileage logs.
 
2014-03-11 03:02:07 AM

SevenizGud: Zeppelininthesky: The date are just fine. What you deniers do is only pick the data that fits your preconceived notion, and ignore anything else that refutes your claim.

The the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report?

Just checking.


I'd love to see you blunder across an actual scientist from the IPCC.  Pretty sure it would go something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
 
2014-03-11 03:59:14 AM

Zeppelininthesky: The rest of the world will read the entire report and use all of the given data

miss the word "hiatus" because Chicken Littles have a blind spot where that word appears.

FTFY
 
2014-03-11 05:02:49 AM

Zeppelininthesky: omeganuepsilon: Zeppelininthesky: MyRandomName: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California.

Please learn the difference between climate and weather.
For the sake of clarity, I will restate:

Please learn that climate is weather over time.

If you break down his comment, it actually pans out legit.

A climate change would also mean different weather.

Whether or not it would cause rain in California, I cannot attest as to what the modelling claims without reference, and I'm just too tired.

Yes, climate is weather over a period of years or decades. You cannot change that around.


Yes you can, Sparky.  Here, watch closely.

Weather over a period of time is climate.

See?  It doesn't matter which comes first, one equals the other, it's a logical statement.
 
2014-03-11 08:26:39 AM

omeganuepsilon: Zeppelininthesky: omeganuepsilon: Zeppelininthesky: MyRandomName: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Jokes on you, I live in Southern California and we've only gotten 4 days of rain in the last year, and only one of those was on a weekend!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California.

Please learn the difference between climate and weather.
For the sake of clarity, I will restate:

Please learn that climate is weather over time.

If you break down his comment, it actually pans out legit.

A climate change would also mean different weather.

Whether or not it would cause rain in California, I cannot attest as to what the modelling claims without reference, and I'm just too tired.

Yes, climate is weather over a period of years or decades. You cannot change that around.

Yes you can, Sparky.  Here, watch closely.

Weather over a period of time is climate.

See?  It doesn't matter which comes first, one equals the other, it's a logical statement.


Don`t try to stop them, they are on a roll. They have things they must say, like parrots, even if it is not relevant to the quote they are responding to.

Climate is weather over time, yes?

You even say "Climate is weather" with a qualifier.

So a particular climate will indicate the chance of particular weather at particular times of year, yes? If that indication is generally for wetter weather then the statement "Global catastrophe modeling claims global climate change causes wetter weather in California." can be true or not depending on the particulars of the global catastrophe modeling.

It`s not hard to understand. Unless you are stupid or a troll of course. Then everything is hard to understand.
 
2014-03-11 08:41:15 AM

SevenizGud: miss the word "hiatus" because Chicken Littles have a blind spot where that word appears.


I love it.

This is how a denier evolves. He is finally understanding that the flat spot that he has been harping on for literally years is meaningless over the longer term. So now he is trying to hide behind a new word he's learned: hiatus.

If you had been saying hiatus for the last few years people might not have had to go to all the effort to explain to you how statistics work (over and over ... you're a slow learner apparently). But you didn't and there are literally hundreds of examples where you denied warming is happening by cherry-picking a sample. And each time you did not say "hiatus" .... you said "what warming?".

This is why I love the internet. People like you cannot escape your history of denial of science and a complete lack of understanding of statistics. It will always haunt you ... maybe you should let this handle fade away and start the new one now. A clean start. You can become the "hiatus" guy instead of the "denier who does not understand statistics" guy.
 
2014-03-11 08:55:31 AM

SevenizGud: Zeppelininthesky: The rest of the world will read the entire report and use all of the given data miss the word "hiatus" because Chicken Littles have a blind spot where that word appears.

FTFY


No, it's right there in Chapter 9 of the Physical Science Basis, where they discuss how temperatures have been rising, but not as fast as they have been rising in the previous decades:
"In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998-2012 as compared to the trend during 1951-2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing. The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle."

"The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model-observation GMST trend difference during 1998-2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998-2012. The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15-year periods than over 1998-2012, because 1998-2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing."

Now, since you claim to use the IPCC report, you'll surely use the full report, and not just quoting the word "hiatus" like it's meaningful to your argument, right?

(Of course not, because you're a proven liar.)
 
2014-03-11 08:59:00 AM

Farking Canuck: This is how a denier evolves. He is finally understanding that the flat spot that he has been harping on for literally years is meaningless over the longer term. So now he is trying to hide behind a new word he's learned: hiatus.


FWIW, the "flat spot" he's discussing, even if you cherry-pick 1998 as the starting point, isn't a flat spot:
"Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998-2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951-2012. For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04ºC per decade over 1998-2012, compared to 0.11ºC per decade over 1951-2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter. Even with this "hiatus" in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST."

It's just warming that is slower than the warming we've become used to in recent decades.
 
2014-03-11 09:04:11 AM

SevenizGud: Dear Farkers,

See "hiatus" in your dictionary.

Sincerely,

The IPCC


SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: People who get their science from scientists.

You mean like the HADCRUT data?

Just checking.


SevenizGud: Zeppelininthesky: The date are just fine. What you deniers do is only pick the data that fits your preconceived notion, and ignore anything else that refutes your claim.

The the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report?

Just checking.


grumpfuff: I notice you aren't posting your misleading graphs and cherry picked data anymore.

Why is that? Were you tired of them getting ripped to shreds every thread?

 
2014-03-11 09:15:51 AM
I thought it would be fun to continue this from the prior thread.

Feepit What exactly are you trying to sell me?

Jon Snow Respect for the scientific method, the scientific community, and evidence-based consensus the scientific community reaches.

I have a deep respect for the scientists. I don't have respect for someone like you, who is so pompous as to accuse anyone who cracks a joke about conspiracies, in a thread were both sides were espousing a belief in global disinformation plots backed by everything short of the Vatican, of being anti-science.


Feepit Can we do monthly installments of 19.95?

Jon Snow It doesn't cost money. It does require you let go of certain partisan/ideological blinders you seem to have on, however.

It is interesting of you to call me partisan and anti-science when all I did was laugh at both conspiracies. The idea that "big oil", which routinely funds studies that provide evidence in support of global warming, is pumping billions of dollars into a public misinformation program in an effort to maintain the status quo is just as incredible as the idea that scientists are being forced by "big government" to make up evidence in support of global warming.

How can you claim to be grounded in any sort of sanity when you leap on me with accusations galore for having the temerity to laugh at such claims? They are both bogus and convoluted. Anyone who cares to know "big oil's" view on climate change can simply go to their websites and read. Guess what? They say they support the position of AGW. Why would they publicly claim to support AGW and simultaneously pump millions into convincing the public of the opposite position? Hanlon's razor suggests that there is no conspiracy -- people are just stupid and believe what they want to believe.
 
2014-03-11 09:26:18 AM

Feepit: The idea that "big oil", which routinely funds studies that provide evidence in support of global warming,


The only place I've ever heard this is from denialist websites, and it's never backed by solid data.

Feepit: they support the


Not what it sounds like to me. Reading the whole page, it sounds like someone who's trying to not state an actual position. Lots of weasel words and indirect answers to questions. They can take almost any position on AGW, for or against, and still have it fall within the bounds of what they have stated there.
 
2014-03-11 09:32:36 AM

grumpfuff: Not what it sounds like to me. Reading the whole page, it sounds like someone who's trying to not state an actual position. Lots of weasel words and indirect answers to questions. They can take almost any position on AGW, for or against, and still have it fall within the bounds of what they have stated there.


"There is a widespread view that the increase in GHGs is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment."

"Our multifaceted response to climate change involves seeking ways to reduce GHGs from the use of fossil fuels, expanding the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, and improving energy efficiency "

Are you reading the same thing I am reading? Because what I just read is firmly in support of AGW. They are acknowledging that climate change is real and that they are taking action to reduce their impact on the environment. What more do you want?
 
2014-03-11 10:14:37 AM

grumpfuff: Feepit: The idea that "big oil", which routinely funds studies that provide evidence in support of global warming,


The only place I've ever heard this is from denialist websites, and it's never backed by solid data.


I may be wrong about the routinely part, and for all I know it could just be a handful of studies, but they have been pointed to repeatedly. Here is one  example of how a study funded by big oil or coal or whatever demonstrates AGW.
 
2014-03-11 10:19:40 AM
Feepit:  I don't have respect for someone like you, who is so pompous as to accuse anyone who cracks a joke about conspiracies...of being anti-science.

Where did I accuse you of being anti-science?

It is interesting of you to call me partisan and anti-science when all I did was laugh at both conspiracies.

Ah. I think I see the problem. Because I called you partisan you assume that I meant you were of a political persuasion that you're saying you aren't?

Let me clarify: the stance that "both sides are equally bad" when there is an enormous asymmetry in the relative distance to reality is itself an ideological blinder and a partisan position.

The idea that "big oil", which routinely funds studies that provide evidence in support of global warming, is pumping billions of dollars into a public misinformation program in an effort to maintain the status quo is just as incredible

I would be very skeptical of "billions". Industry interests have certainly funded denial groups, easily in the hundreds of millions. Far from being "incredible" (in the sense that it's not believable), this is pretty well documented.

having the temerity to laugh at such claims?

It's a false equivalence.

They are both bogus and convoluted.

You think that industry funding of denialism is "bogus"? Seriously?

Whenever we get a glimpse at internal documents, it's right there in black and white. Pat Michaels is a token "expert" for denialism. In just one memo, we can see he received a six-figure payment in a single month alone from a coal organization, and the memo talks about securing him additional payments from other fossil fuel organizations, and setting up meeting between him, denial "think tanks", and the Koch brothers.

Anyone who cares to know "big oil's" view on climate change can simply go to their websites and read. Guess what? They say they support the position of AGW.

I'm actually well aware of the recent change that some fossil fuel companies have undergone with respect to publicly acknowledging the consensus. That in no way obviates their role in prior years in bankrolling denialist groups and seeking to undermine treaties like Kyoto. In fact, their recent volte-face is an admission of their prior position of funding denialism, which you seem to think didn't happen!

Why would they publicly claim to support AGW and simultaneously pump millions into convincing the public of the opposite position? Hanlon's razor suggests that there is no conspiracy -- people are just stupid and believe what they want to believe.

Are you so ignorant of public policy so as to believe that industries don't simultaneously recognize a health or environmental problem while funding efforts to undermine or block regulation? Seriously?

Look. The denial funding issue isn't something I particularly want to waste a lot of time talking about. But the facts are that industry interests heavily funded misinformation campaigns, directly fund individual denialist token "experts", and have recently ramped down their direct contribution to denial groups while ramping up their dark money spending so that their donations can't be traced.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report