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.

(BBC-US)   If you had "withering Beijing smog" on your list of why the U.S. keeps getting its ass pounded with powerful storms, step up and collect your prize   (bbc.com) divider line 104
    More: Obvious, air pollution, Pacific Storm, Beijing, Pacific, Asian, U.S., University of Reading, Dr Yuan Wang  
•       •       •

7416 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2014 at 3:14 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 09:18:50 AM  

dready zim: So, not climate change this time either, eh?


Not. Even. Trying.
 
2014-04-15 09:34:30 AM  

meanmutton: To be fair, it took the US decades to get its shiat together on smog and aerosol air pollution. All that time, we were farking over Europe. It's kind of punishment for the sins of our fathers.


But that was after we freedomed them. So it doesn't count.
 
2014-04-15 09:37:47 AM  
img.fark.net

How are the Chinese people not dropping like flies?
 
2014-04-15 09:37:54 AM  

log_jammin: [i131.photobucket.com image 624x351]

that is insane


Otherwise known as "Republican regulation-free paradise"
 
2014-04-15 09:41:07 AM  
Well, now you see what would happen here, if our gasoline was not 10% ethanol, and our diesel fuel was not low sulphur. Such a small price to pay for clean air.
 
2014-04-15 09:42:04 AM  
But hey...the GOOD news is that all those aerosols are stalling the rise in global temperature. Woot!
 
2014-04-15 09:48:14 AM  

Pick: Well, now you see what would happen here, if our gasoline was not 10% ethanol, and our diesel fuel was not low sulphur. Such a small price to pay for clean air.


Yeah, no.
Most of that pollution is from factories.
 
2014-04-15 09:51:06 AM  
those slopes are going to ruin everything.
 
2014-04-15 09:51:21 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: dready zim: So, not climate change this time either, eh?

Not. Even. Trying.


I know. I was bored and look what happened!

I`d give myself 1/10 except for the bites...
 
2014-04-15 09:57:36 AM  

RussianPooper: SevenizGud: dready zim: So, not climate change this time either, eh?

As it turns out, few things are caused by something that is, you know, not happening.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

200+ months and counting....

/but I'm sure that warming is right around the corner, right, Chicken Libtard?

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]

Russianpooper-

I hate wading into this battle, but your graph doesn't disagree with what is shown in that graph you claim it disproves.... Your graph is from the 1970's forward, while the other graph only covers the period from 1996 to 2014. If you look at similar periods, you get similar readings.


In any case, I don't think you will find any scientist who doesn't believe that the climate changes ....the argument is over

why the climate changes. The argument that human-generated CO2causes climate change is a silly one at best:

Carbon dioxide is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere, or less than 4/100ths of one percent. At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects, such as catastrophic global warming. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 growing past 400 parts per million. But one percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. Moreover, human emissions of CO2 are only 4% to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes.

Further, it is ten times as likely that increasing atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting.

You might take a look at this regarding the sources of CO2in the atmosphere.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-co me s-from-natural-sources/#sthash.2jUwrKNi.dpuf


I will leave you with one parting thought to ponder... As the article which started this thread shows, the Chinese -the whole billion-plus of them- don't give a damn about any type of pollution, CO2 or otherwise, nor do the billion Indians, or the rest of the world's population outside North America, Europe, and Japan. So of the seven billion people on the planet only roughly one billion have any interest at all in limiting CO2.So, even if you were right, there's not a damn thing you could do to change it.
 
2014-04-15 10:00:50 AM  
"These damned environmental regulations are killing us. Last FY, it cost us a whopping 3 cents per unit to be in compliance!"

"Ok. Let's close the US plants and move them to China and India. We'll have the additional advantage of cutting our labor costs by 80%. Maybe one day, the goddamned government will learn not to burden us with their anti-business, touchy-feely, liberal crap."
 
2014-04-15 10:04:43 AM  

Elweasel: Ah China...come for the factory slaves, stay for the benzine


meanmutton: To be fair, it took the US decades to get its shiat together on smog and aerosol air pollution. All that time, we were farking over Europe. It's kind of punishment for the sins of our fathers.


and europe had no problem farking itself over (along with other neighbors). the great smog

when will these industrial revolutions end?!?!
 
2014-04-15 10:05:14 AM  
alrdesign.com
 
2014-04-15 10:10:31 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: dready zim: So, not climate change this time either, eh?

peanut OR jelly sandwich, right?


Sometimes, yes.

I know some people say that there is always peanut butter in jelly and jelly in peanut butter but I believe them to be two distinct things and you can, yes, have one without the other sometimes.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
 
2014-04-15 10:12:11 AM  
Wait, that's impossible.  Only the US and its evil SUV-loving road hogs, red-meat eating A/C cranking fatties, incandescent light bulb loving ignoramuses can cause pollution.  The rest of the world suffers because of our selfishness.  Their emissions are only pure O2, lightly scented with saffron blossoms.
 
2014-04-15 10:13:23 AM  

Lokkii: I will leave you with one parting thought to ponder... As the article which started this thread shows, the Chinese -the whole billion-plus of them- don't give a damn about any type of pollution, CO2 or otherwise, nor do the billion Indians, or the rest of the world's population outside North America, Europe, and Japan. So of the seven billion people on the planet only roughly one billion have any interest at all in limiting CO2.So, even if you were right, there's not a damn thing you could do to change it.


On that we agree. I think denying it is crazy with the amount of evidence. However, I think believing that buying a Prius is going to have any affect on it is ludicrous. The train has already left the station, and there's no turning it back now. The excessive predictions probably won't occur, but there will be increased effects, and hampering our economy is not going to change that.
 
2014-04-15 10:15:09 AM  
Getting ones ass pounded, if done properly, feels oooh sooo right!
 
2014-04-15 10:19:43 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Pick: Well, now you see what would happen here, if our gasoline was not 10% ethanol, and our diesel fuel was not low sulphur. Such a small price to pay for clean air.

Yeah, no.
Most of that pollution is from factories.


I will admit that China has done a fair job on tightening their automotive emissions regulations.  Fine they are not leading the 1st world but they have come from near zero restrictions to US and EU standards of just 5-10 years ago.   Though they will continue to have a problem with automotive emissions for about 10 more years (the timeline for a car to die).
 
2014-04-15 10:28:51 AM  
UNPOSSIBLE! Communism is the salvation of humanity and the most eco-friendly of all forms of government! This must be capitalist propaganda! Quickly! Alert Noam Chomsky!
 
2014-04-15 10:36:39 AM  

Uncle_Sam's_Titties: Hey, you mother-frakkin' China! It's SUMMER HERE! STOP MESSING WITH OUR SUMMER! We only get one month of it as it is!

/minnesotan


Minnesotan here.
6 months since last 60 degree or above daytime temp.
April and 6" of Global Warming in forecast for tomorrow.

Al, I am coming for you. I want a boat ride to somewhere warm.
 
2014-04-15 10:41:33 AM  
The public were never the solution. The only change large enough is business and getting them to change the products that we get sold. Buying a prius does nothing except ease middle class guilt. Same as turning down your heating/aircon or not throwing away food because people are hungry in Africa or saving water in England or Wales. No benefit except your guilt.

If results were cared about then you simply could not buy a petrol or diesel car. It would not be a product available for sale. The change has to happen in the store, not the home.

What, you expect people to make sensible decisions? HA HA!

People are dumb.

A person can be smart but people are dumb and they will stay living on the side of an active volcano and die before moving a few miles down the road.

This what you will have to deal with. They would rather adapt than mitigate WHATEVER THE COST.

Now explain the situation again and get ignored. Again and again.

How`s that `being right` working out for you? No? They still not getting it?

Being right doesn`t help very often at all if you look at history.

You need more than to be right, you need either government or business on your side and business is on nobodies side but its own and it has the government in its pocket.
 
2014-04-15 10:45:47 AM  

jso2897: dready zim: So, not climate change this time either, eh?

No willful ignorance like primate willful ignorance.
[i18.photobucket.com image 400x300]


Exactly. Posting silly pictures won`t change that though.
 I think you have the nail on the head.


That does not work though.

It`s been tried before and it seems that we will have to have firestorms across half the planet before anyone will change.

Now you may have to turn the hammer around and use the claw...
 
2014-04-15 10:46:12 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [img.fark.net image 624x351]

How are the Chinese people not dropping like flies?


They are.

Official numbers are about 600,000 people a year.  And since those are official numbers, you can bet it's a lot worse.

I have pictures i took in my hotel in Nanjing a few years back where the smog was that thick INSIDE THE LOBBY.

When you fly into China, you hit a wall of smog about 200 km offshore that just makes your blood run cold.
 
2014-04-15 10:50:30 AM  

divgradcurl: Elweasel: Ah China...come for the factory slaves, stay for the benzine

meanmutton: To be fair, it took the US decades to get its shiat together on smog and aerosol air pollution. All that time, we were farking over Europe. It's kind of punishment for the sins of our fathers.

and europe had no problem farking itself over (along with other neighbors). the great smog

when will these industrial revolutions end?!?!


It takes China forever to decide to do something, because of the centralization of government.

But when they DO, it takes them NO time to implement a change, because of the centralization of government.

One day they'll just decide to get rid of smog, and it will happen, even if they have to throw 14 million people with dustbusters at the problem.

And if you don't think that's possible, then baby, you don't know China.
 
2014-04-15 11:05:58 AM  
Pacific ocean storms hit China, Japan, etc. That is the effect studied here. The rest is one or two sentences of idle speculation in the article, not even attributed the study.
 
2014-04-15 11:06:01 AM  

snowshovel: log_jammin: [i131.photobucket.com image 624x351]

that is insane

Otherwise known as "Republican regulation-free paradise"


I came here to say this, although I was going to use much larger sentences.  So I'll do it anyway.

As long as the world continues to rely on cheap products (I'm looking at you, consumers), they will continue to avoid regulation for as long as possible.  And by that I mean, we are reaching the end of that length of time.  But we've become so reliant on the cheap products, that it would be a worldwide economic disaster to try and change it.

So, we have either worldwide economic collapse.  Or worldwide climate collapse.  And no one wants to make the hard choice, no matter how obvious it is.
 
2014-04-15 11:06:33 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [img.fark.net image 624x351]

How are the Chinese people not dropping like flies?


They probably are, you just can't see the bodies through the smog.
 
2014-04-15 11:32:26 AM  

Lokkii: The evil Chinese weather plot to kill us with big storms isn't working too well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/ 06 /extreme-weather-snoozer-no-hurricanes-and-low-tornado-numbers-in-2013 /


Yes, the article mentioned storms over the northern pacific ocean, not the US, so subby was stretching the truth by a wide margin
 
2014-04-15 11:38:39 AM  
It's all China's fault (RACIST!) but we need to crush our industry with regulations.  Tell me again why anybody takes American politicians seriously anymore
 
2014-04-15 11:48:12 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: It's all China's fault (RACIST!) but we need to crush our industry with regulations.  Tell me again why anybody takes American politicians seriously anymore


Um, what is the point you are tying to make?
 
2014-04-15 11:52:35 AM  

towatchoverme: One day they'll just decide to get rid of smog, and it will happen, even if they have to throw 14 million people with dustbusters at the problem. And if you don't think that's possible, then baby, you don't know China.


img.fark.net

/seems legit
 
2014-04-15 11:59:33 AM  

ladodger34: Smeggy Smurf: It's all China's fault (RACIST!) but we need to crush our industry with regulations.  Tell me again why anybody takes American politicians seriously anymore

Um, what is the point you are tying to make?


I'm going to pretend that you're not that dumb and see if you can make the connection
 
2014-04-15 12:10:31 PM  

divgradcurl: towatchoverme: One day they'll just decide to get rid of smog, and it will happen, even if they have to throw 14 million people with dustbusters at the problem. And if you don't think that's possible, then baby, you don't know China.

[img.fark.net image 488x544]

/seems legit


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-15 01:15:34 PM  
Article about smog and climate change...it's awfully quiet in here.  They must all be on Chinese forums extolling how man-made global warming is bringing in the next ice age since it's that important to them.
 
2014-04-15 01:17:07 PM  
That pollution is goddam terrifying. We won't have to go to war with the Chinese. We'll just wait for most of them to die of COPD in their 30s.
 
2014-04-15 01:21:21 PM  

towatchoverme: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [img.fark.net image 624x351]

How are the Chinese people not dropping like flies?

They are.

Official numbers are about 600,000 people a year.  And since those are official numbers, you can bet it's a lot worse.

I have pictures i took in my hotel in Nanjing a few years back where the smog was that thick INSIDE THE LOBBY.

When you fly into China, you hit a wall of smog about 200 km offshore that just makes your blood run cold.


Maybe that airplane IS in China somewhere, they just can't see it ...
 
2014-04-15 02:07:35 PM  
It's all Global warming "Climate Change". Any weather, good or bad, is the result of Global warming "Climate Change" . Because Global warming "Climate Change" .
 
2014-04-15 02:16:15 PM  

phlegmmo: Southern California: "Powerful storms?"


It's the new Global Warming Storms of Drought.
 
2014-04-15 02:17:21 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: I'm going to pretend that you're not that dumb and see if you can make the connection


Pretend I am that dumb and explain for it for me.  Your comment didn't make any sense to me.  Is pollution in China good or bad?  Are regulations in the US a good thing or bad thing?
 
2014-04-15 02:31:47 PM  

JeffDenver: It's all Global warming "Climate Change". Any weather, good or bad, is the result of Global warming "Climate Change" . Because Global warming "Climate Change" .


Hey look, another person who doesn't realize how long climate change has been in use in the scientific literature.
 
2014-04-15 02:40:09 PM  

tbeatty: phlegmmo: Southern California: "Powerful storms?"

It's the new Global Warming Storms of Drought.


It can do anything. Rain during drought, storms during sunshine.

Anything.

And you better not forget that.
 
2014-04-15 02:41:13 PM  

snocone: Uncle_Sam's_Titties: Hey, you mother-frakkin' China! It's SUMMER HERE! STOP MESSING WITH OUR SUMMER! We only get one month of it as it is!

/minnesotan

Minnesotan here.
6 months since last 60 degree or above daytime temp.
April and 6" of Global Warming in forecast for tomorrow.

Al, I am coming for you. I want a boat ride to somewhere warm.


I found it highly amusing that on MPR this morning, the hosts and weatherfolk were apologizing constantly for the forecast of snow. stinking commies.

/on a side note, i just checked out your profile and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
 
2014-04-15 03:21:19 PM  
 
2014-04-15 03:26:04 PM  
So does this cause Global Warming or Climate Change?  I'd like to get my moral outrage metered properly.
 
2014-04-15 03:54:17 PM  

Lokkii: RussianPooper: SevenizGud: dready zim: So, not climate change this time either, eh?

As it turns out, few things are caused by something that is, you know, not happening.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

200+ months and counting....

/but I'm sure that warming is right around the corner, right, Chicken Libtard?

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]

Russianpooper-

I hate wading into this battle, but your graph doesn't disagree with what is shown in that graph you claim it disproves.... Your graph is from the 1970's forward, while the other graph only covers the period from 1996 to 2014. If you look at similar periods, you get similar readings.


In any case, I don't think you will find any scientist who doesn't believe that the climate changes ....the argument is overwhy the climate changes. The argument that human-generated CO2causes climate change is a silly one at best:

Carbon dioxide is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere, or less than 4/100ths of one percent. At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects, such as catastrophic global warming. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 growing past 400 parts per million. But one percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. Moreover, human emissions of CO2 are only 4% to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes.

Further, it is ten times as likely that increasing atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting.

You might take a look at this regarding the sources of CO2in the atmosphere.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-co me s-from-natural-sources/#sthash.2jUwrKNi.dpuf


I will leave you with one parting thought to ponder... As the article which started this thread shows, the Chinese -the whole billion-plus of them- don't give a damn about any type of pollution, CO2 or otherwise, nor do the billion Indians, or the rest of the world's population outside North America, Europe, and Japan. So of the seven billion people on the planet only roughly one billion have any interest at all in limiting CO2.So, even if you were right, there's not a damn thing you could do to change it.


Phew talking points that have been debunked since the 90s. Old school.

You don't mind if I inject your body with lead so it's around 400 ppm per body weight do you? I mean it's so little. It can't possibly do any harm.
 
2014-04-15 04:01:12 PM  

divgradcurl: towatchoverme: One day they'll just decide to get rid of smog, and it will happen, even if they have to throw 14 million people with dustbusters at the problem. And if you don't think that's possible, then baby, you don't know China.

[img.fark.net image 488x544]

/seems legit


That's fantastic.  It's the American counter-jumps that really make it pop.
 
2014-04-15 05:51:18 PM  

log_jammin: [i131.photobucket.com image 624x351]

that is insane


You have any idea what London looked like back when they were going through their industrial revolution? The Chinese just need to time to move through the steps that everyone else in the first world moved through.
 
2014-04-15 07:08:01 PM  
Shakin' Hatian-

Nice snark, worthless comment.  If you know anything post some facts....  I don't believe you know much. Prove otherwise?
 
2014-04-16 09:34:35 AM  

Lokkii: Shakin' Hatian-

Nice snark, worthless comment.  If you know anything post some facts....  I don't believe you know much. Prove otherwise?


I was showing you how absolutely stupid your small percentage argument is.  It is so incredibly stupid that no one makes that argument any more.  It's a meaningless red herring.

Carbon from natural sources is neutral because it is used up in the carbon cycle, e.g. plants and phytoplankton reabsorb it all and it cycles through the animal kingdom.  We're digging up gigatons of carbon that has been isolated from the atmosphere and carbon cycle for millions of years, and effectively injecting it into the atmosphere.  Millions of years of naturally sequestered carbon.  You think the earth is going to be able to sequester millions of years of carbon in a few decades?

Yes, the carbon dioxide levels were higher in certain times in the past, most notably when billions of humans and the massive industrialized agriculture that keeps those billions alive didn't exist.

You're welcome for the third grade earth science lesson.
 
2014-04-16 10:19:31 AM  
What do you expect when shiating in the drinking water, evolves to pumping tons of toxins in the atmosphere.......
 
Displayed 50 of 104 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 »
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