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.

(Fox News)   Researchers map all 200,000 glaciers on Earth. Or as they will be called in 200 years, puddles   (foxnews.com) divider line 34
    More: Interesting, Earth, hydrology, natural hazard, glaciers, meltwaters, University of Zurich, Alps  
•       •       •

565 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 May 2014 at 11:55 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-15 09:04:34 AM

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

 
2014-05-15 11:25:51 AM
I'm glad we're taking data to catalog them and show our evil ways... because clearly the world was put in place in several days and didnt evolve through speciation which was caused by variations in climate over short and long periods of time.  Evolutionary forces are what the devil wants you to believe.  This is just the Garden of Eden part II.
 
2014-05-15 01:01:35 PM

me texan: I'm glad we're taking data to catalog them and show our evil ways... because clearly the world was put in place in several days and didnt evolve through speciation which was caused by variations in climate over short and long periods of time.  Evolutionary forces are what the devil wants you to believe.  This is just the Garden of Eden part II.


"Short" doesn't mean decades in the history of the planet.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:45 PM
Before some doofus claims that their cousin has a photo of a glacier that was bigger than it was a couple decades ago:

nsidc.orgData are courtesy of NSIDC.  Black marks show the annual change in global average glacier thickness, in meters per year.  Brown squares show the cumulative change since 1960, which was 8 meters (~25 feet) a decade ago.

Here's the total mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet in gigatons (billions of tons), courtesy of NOAA:
www.arctic.noaa.gov
And here's the amount of Arctic sea ice, showing how scientists interpret it, vs. how Fark Independents interpret it:
www.skepticalscience.com

Antarctic sea ice is slowly increasing, but the rate of loss in the Arctic is three times as fast:

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2014-05-15 01:41:06 PM

SquiggsIN: Can someone find me a map of Florida with Mexico city on it?


Duh.  What map of Florida wouldn't include Mexico City?
 
2014-05-15 01:45:42 PM
I love how everyone pretends to have the 'real' data.
 
2014-05-15 02:22:03 PM

diaphoresis: I love how everyone pretends to have the 'real' data.


Um.

NASA kind of does have the "real" data on ice mass, what with the GRACE satellites and soon ICESat-2.  They fly over the glacier, they measure the glacier, they repeat for all glaciers on the planet's surface.

How is NASA "pretending" to have the "real" data? Or is this one of those "my cousin's meth dealer said glaciers are growing, so teach the controversy" things?
 
2014-05-15 02:30:49 PM

SquiggsIN: Can someone find me a map of Florida with Mexico city on it?


www.bestplaces.net
 
2014-05-15 02:31:58 PM
200K for 282K sq/miles?   I think some should get a  lesson in Pluto
 
2014-05-15 02:35:05 PM

diaphoresis: I love how everyone pretends to have the 'real' data.


Better than arbitrarily doubting carefully sampled data because the conclusion of those data implies an action you don't want to take is a good idea.
 
2014-05-15 02:37:35 PM
It's a good thing data can't be manipulated or misinterpreted.
 
2014-05-15 02:47:37 PM

diaphoresis: It's a good thing data can't be manipulated or misinterpreted.


Repeatedly by numerous fully distinct groups of scientists all for the sake of fooling you, right?
 
2014-05-15 03:00:57 PM

chimp_ninja: Before some doofus claims that their cousin has a photo of a glacier that was bigger than it was a couple decades ago:

Data are courtesy of NSIDC.  Black marks show the annual change in global average glacier thickness, in meters per year.  Brown squares show the cumulative change since 1960, which was 8 meters (~25 feet) a decade ago.

Here's the total mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet in gigatons (billions of tons), courtesy of NOAA:

And here's the amount of Arctic sea ice, showing how scientists interpret it, vs. how Fark Independents interpret it:


Antarctic sea ice is slowly increasing, but the rate of loss in the Arctic is three times as fast:


Don't forget that Antarctic land ice is melting as well, which is probably why the sea ice is increasing due to fresher water having a higher freezing point.
 
2014-05-15 03:34:10 PM

diaphoresis: It's a good thing data can't be manipulated or misinterpreted.


Evidence or GTFO.
 
2014-05-15 03:52:32 PM

SquiggsIN: I don't expect Fox Parrots to comprehend their views because their views weren't reached via comprehension of any facts.


What can we do to speed up the whole process? I mean at this rate, we have to wait 200 years or so? Ungh...

...We're what... trying to save the Earth?  Oh. Hmmm. Really, at this point its easier to destroy it. Lets just do that instead...

:-)
 
2014-05-15 04:29:18 PM

diaphoresis: I love how everyone pretends to have the 'real' data.


I love how these threads reveal moronity. 'Real' moronity.
 
2014-05-15 05:04:17 PM
God, they always just leave after being humiliated.  They never farking admit to shiat.
 
2014-05-15 05:13:45 PM

SquiggsIN: diaphoresis: It's a good thing data can't be manipulated or misinterpreted.

Not mine, props to whichever farker posted this in another sea-level rise /climategate thread recently :
[img.fark.net image 607x819]

I don't expect Fox Parrots to comprehend their views because their views weren't reached via comprehension of any facts.


sigh
occam's razor completely agrees with you
 
2014-05-15 05:16:51 PM

Destructor: SquiggsIN: I don't expect Fox Parrots to comprehend their views because their views weren't reached via comprehension of any facts.

What can we do to speed up the whole process? I mean at this rate, we have to wait 200 years or so? Ungh...

...We're what... trying to save the Earth?  Oh. Hmmm. Really, at this point its easier to destroy it. Lets just do that instead...

:-)


MEH
200 years ....

TBH, chaos theory and the ice core records show that things could change MUCH faster than 200 years.
One last straw and a LOT more ice could melt, raising the sea levels a LOT. Changing the salinity of the north atlantic, stopping the circulator, causing the next ace ige.

One of the AWESOME things that the ice core climate records showed us, is that climate change can happen a LOT faster than we are used to.

FFS, the last 10,000 years have been UNUSUALLY stable. There is supposed to me more variance!
 
2014-05-15 05:37:06 PM
Let's get down to brass tax...

What does the US Citizen have to do stop the catastrophic events of "Global Warming"? I need this info so I know how to vote.
Since this is a scientific issue, I would like to know which US specific things (taxes, regulations, behaviors etc) will prevent which specific global catastrophe. Of course these "solutions" should pass the scientific method.

For example, If I stop eating steak that will mean how many hurricanes per year as opposed to if I eat the occasional steak? If I drive a Prius will that prevent glaciers from melting? I may be OK with winter being a few degrees warmer if that means I can still BBQ in the summer on occasion. We need these scientific facts as Americans so we know what to support. If I have take a pay cut so my company can buy "carbon credits" I need to know how many polar bears I am saving. I really like my PC and smartphone. How much time used equates to how many wildfires? If my fellow citizens get put out of a job and can no longer support their families, I need to know how many penguins are going to go from being inconvenienced to happy.

I'm sure know one would try to impose their will and beliefs onto someone else unless this data is available. After all, it's science, right?
 
2014-05-15 05:41:12 PM

MilesTeg: Let me JAQ off...



The $4 Trillion Mistake: Climate Action Delayed Is Climate Action Denied
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/14/3437715/climate-action-d el ayed-is-climate-action-denied/


Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed- gr owing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html?_r=0
 
2014-05-15 05:42:34 PM
Tea baggers, deniers, and Koch brothers.
 
2014-05-15 05:43:35 PM
Or as they will be called in 200 years, puddles

Boy are you guys going to be embarrassed when 200 years from now that doesn't happen. I'll expect an apology.
 
2014-05-15 06:20:53 PM

MilesTeg: Let's get down to brass tax...


I don't think a tax on copper or zinc would produce a significant impact on energy consumption.  If anything, we should encourage the use of high-quality, durable goods like brass tacks over disposable plastic junk.

MilesTeg: What does the US Citizen have to do stop the catastrophic events of "Global Warming"? I need this info so I know how to vote.
Since this is a scientific issue, I would like to know which US specific things (taxes, regulations, behaviors etc) will prevent which specific global catastrophe. Of course these "solutions" should pass the scientific method.


A simple exercise from Princeton University to get things started.

I don't necessarily agree that their 15 choices (pick any 8) are the best 15 to move forward with, but it's a useful example of the scope of the effort required, restricted to technologies that are either in hand now, or low-risk for development.  We can stabilize greenhouse gas levels with sufficient political willpower.  It's not a massive technical risk like the Apollo Program or Manhattan Project was.

MilesTeg: If my fellow citizens get put out of a job and can no longer support their families, I need to know how many penguins are going to go from being inconvenienced to happy.


False dilemma.

The fundamental conclusion from the major economic studies on the topic is that doing nothing and reacting to consequences as they appear (adaptation) is more expensive than pre-emptive action by reduction of greenhouse emissions (mitigation).  Mitigation also comes with improvements to air quality and water quality beyond preventing the baseline problems of ocean acidification, sea level rise, agricultural failures, etc.

You're also misinformed if you expect an answer with high precision in terms of regional and temporal resolution.  A big part of the problem is that there is uncertainty about the range of outcomes, and the right tail of the probability distribution would be extremely bad.  See this exercise from MIT for a quantitative example.

Do you buy home insurance?  I'd bet that your insurer can't tell you how many fires, break-ins, etc. you're going to address with your premiums.  But they can tell you that over time, they expect an aggregate impact of $X (+/- a good bit, because your insurance company can't predict trends in crime rates, fire safety improvements, etc.) for all their customers similar to you, and that's how they set your premium.

Not coincidentally, you might want to look at how the insurance and reinsurance industries are reacting to climate change information.  They have tens of billions on the line annually, and they're behaving like climate change is a real threat that they have to account for.  If they estimate high, they elevate their premiums unnecessarily and lose money to competitors.  If they estimate low, they lose money to to excessive claims filed against them.  They're in the business of estimating correctly, and they have massive teams of statisticians, subject matter experts, and economists whose only job is to forecast climate change impacts.

I'll close with a useful quote from an executive at Munich Re, one of companies with the aforementioned tens of billions per year on the line:

"Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought.  It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought."
 
2014-05-15 06:22:43 PM

namatad: FFS, the last 10,000 years have been UNUSUALLY stable. There is supposed to me more variance!


Perhaps that's our sole purpose for existence: To wreck up the joint.

In which case:
www.quickmeme.com

High fives, everyone!
 
2014-05-15 08:08:34 PM
www.upl.co
 
2014-05-15 08:39:46 PM
I'll simplify,

1. Suggest legislation
2. Prove or at least show by evidence or scientific "consensus" what the outcome of the suggested new US laws and regulations will be in terms of preventing global climate disaster. Just saying "it will lower C02" means nothing if eventual event outcome on a global scale is unknown or unaffected.

If this can be done. I will be 1st in line to support it. Everything else is just static. This is the crux of the issue. And obviously many people have the same concerns as I do. It would behoove the movement to address those type of concerns instead of just throwing up juvenile insults and acting more like religious zealots.
 
2014-05-15 08:44:45 PM

SquiggsIN: diaphoresis: It's a good thing data can't be manipulated or misinterpreted.

Not mine, props to whichever farker posted this in another sea-level rise /climategate thread recently :
[img.fark.net image 607x819]

I don't expect Fox Parrots to comprehend their views because their views weren't reached via comprehension of any facts.


Regional environmental groups? You missed what the IPCC has been doing with global environmental group literature?
 
2014-05-15 09:43:27 PM
Climate change has a huge marketing problem. Too many outlandish claims, too many predictions that failed to materialize, too many seemingly unrelated things being "caused" by climate change. It needs a simple, consistent message
 
2014-05-15 09:48:30 PM

MilesTeg: I'll simplify,

1. Suggest legislation
2. Prove or at least show by evidence or scientific "consensus" what the outcome of the suggested new US laws and regulations will be in terms of preventing global climate disaster. Just saying "it will lower C02" means nothing if eventual event outcome on a global scale is unknown or unaffected.


The blue text in my post above gives links which provide technical solutions, the range of possible climate outcomes, and economic projections of mitigation vs. adaptation.  Federal legislation and funding has historically had a massive influence on our energy portfolio.  You could read those.

Or you can admit that you decided on the political message you wanted before you learned anything about the situation, and you're only interested in playing the martyr and stirring the pot without contributing any facts or evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.
 
2014-05-15 09:52:42 PM

WelldeadLink: Regional environmental groups? You missed what the IPCC has been doing with global environmental group literature?


As cited above, globally, glaciers are in geologically rapid decline.  We have direct satellite observation via GRACE and other high-resolution instruments.  Extrapolating from one region in the Himalayas is a distraction.

But you know that.  You're just playing a character.
 
2014-05-16 07:35:08 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Climate change has a huge marketing problem. Too many outlandish claims, too many predictions that failed to materialize, too many seemingly unrelated things being "caused" by climate change. It needs a simple, consistent message


The first problem you have is thinking climate change is an actual person or group. The second problem you have is thinking that what news media writes is official IPCC literature.

In order for that message to be controlled, we'd have to control the media, and I don't think that's going to be happening any time soon.
 
2014-05-16 11:40:04 AM

Shakin_Haitian: The first problem you have is thinking climate change is an actual person or group. The second problem you have is thinking that what news media writes is official IPCC literature.


No, it's environmentalist group literature which becomes official IPCC literature.
 
2014-05-16 10:33:01 PM

WelldeadLink: Shakin_Haitian: The first problem you have is thinking climate change is an actual person or group. The second problem you have is thinking that what news media writes is official IPCC literature.

No, it's environmentalist group literature which becomes official IPCC literature.


Next you're going to inform us all about science just now catching up to the Urantia book I bet.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report