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.

(Some Guy)   Global warming researchers forgot one tiny variable in their models: the Atlantic Ocean. Oops   (wallstreetotc.com) divider line 101
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

3962 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Aug 2014 at 12:45 PM (3 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-24 11:18:04 AM
Gee, did someone finally notice that this is a water world?

Is it possible that the water is more of a climate generator than the atmosphere?
I think Al finally got the message, he bought a bigger boat.
 
2014-08-24 11:32:15 AM
Ouch. That is some painfully bad writing in whatever the fark website that is. And I'm not just talking about the comments.
 
2014-08-24 11:39:28 AM
We have been long hearing about global warming and its adverse impacts including climatic imbalances but now researchers say that our Earth is currently in the global warming hiatus and they call Atlantic and Southern Oceans responsible for this event.

Holy run-on sentences, Batman!
 
2014-08-24 12:26:25 PM
Is that vaiable designated "r"?  Coz it looks like you fogot it, too, submitte.
 
2014-08-24 12:52:34 PM
We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause," study author Ka-Kit Tung  Ma-Kit Tup, a professor of applied mathematics at UW, said in a statement.
 
2014-08-24 12:54:02 PM
Ah, I see we have found the proper English version of the article down page.
 
2014-08-24 12:56:18 PM

snocone: I think Al finally got the message


DRINK!
 
2014-08-24 01:02:42 PM
I suppose it's progress that deniers are acknowledging that the earth's surface extends beyond the United States.
 
2014-08-24 01:03:10 PM
So, they finally found the 2+ Billion Hiroshima bombs worth of heat, eh?
 
2014-08-24 01:04:30 PM
If you believe that:

* the oceans are not part of the globe
* and therefore ocean warming is not global warming,
* and furthermore that ocean warming can have no adverse effects on, say, ocean currents,
  * such as the Gulf Stream, which is the only thing that makes much of Europe habitable,

then you might be a wingnut.
 
2014-08-24 01:07:46 PM

snocone: Gee, did someone finally notice that this is a water world?

Is it possible that the water is more of a climate generator than the atmosphere?
I think Al finally got the message, he bought a bigger boat.


Deep-water-thoughts-with-snocone.jpg?
 
2014-08-24 01:25:50 PM
I'm assuming this article was originally in Japanese and got run through Google Translate via Finnish, Xhosa and Tamil before getting to English.
 
2014-08-24 01:27:04 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: If you believe that:

* the oceans are not part of the globe
* and therefore ocean warming is not global warming,
* and furthermore that ocean warming can have no adverse effects on, say, ocean currents,
  * such as the Gulf Stream, which is the only thing that makes much of Europe habitable,

then you might be a wingnut.


Yeah, I don't know how stupid TFA assumes its target audience is, but I'd guess "pretty goddamn".

Global warming isn't real because the oceans - which are 3/4 of our planet's surface are warming... how the fark is that supposed to make any sense? And have these people also never heard of ocean currents moving heat around our world which is important to maintaining our climate as well? So much stupid...
 
2014-08-24 01:31:03 PM
Does this mean that arctic ice is not actually melting?
 
2014-08-24 01:34:18 PM

knight_on_the_rail: snocone: Gee, did someone finally notice that this is a water world?

Is it possible that the water is more of a climate generator than the atmosphere?
I think Al finally got the message, he bought a bigger boat.

Deep-water-thoughts-with-snocone.jpg?


Here's a fun quote from the IPCC's 2007 report   http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html

"The troposphere adjusts to changes in its boundary conditions over time scales shorter than a month or so. The upper ocean responds over time scales of several years to decades, and the deep ocean and ice sheet response time scales are from centuries to millennia. When the radiative forcing changes, internal properties of the atmosphere tend to adjust quickly. However, because the atmosphere is strongly coupled to the oceanic mixed layer, which in turn is coupled to the deeper oceanic layer, it takes a very long time for the atmospheric variables to come to an equilibrium. During the long periods where the surface climate is changing very slowly, one can consider that the atmosphere is in a quasi-equilibrium state, and most energy is being absorbed by the ocean, so that ocean heat uptake is a key measure of climate change."

I think with further observations, we'll see the deep ocean responding quicker than centuries.

/we're boned.
 
2014-08-24 01:47:13 PM

whither_apophis: I think with further observations, we'll see the deep ocean responding quicker than centuries.
/we're boned.


But this is fantastic! We can kill off entire oceans and never even notice, since we don't live there. I mean, the fishermen might notice, but they've already caught all the fish anyway. But our beaches will be really nice and the air and water will be warmer year round. Just watch out for the jellyfish.
 
2014-08-24 01:52:15 PM
Wow ... for the last few years we've had all the typical anti-science crowd crying that "GW has stopped".

The response from the pro-science crowd has been "Nothing has stopped. The atmosphere represents only a small part of the system. Look at the heat build-up in the oceans."

Today the cry from the anti-science crowd is "Ha ha. They forgot about the oceans." Do these idiots think that all their posts and the responses have been deleted? Well they haven't. The denier stupidity and ever-changing positions are recorded forever.

I expect a few of them will be switching to new accounts over the next few years as things continue to sideways around the world.
 
2014-08-24 02:05:51 PM
I'm getting enormously rich from the drought in the US and elsewhere the scarcity of different foods, so you just believe what you want.
 
2014-08-24 02:16:20 PM
This article gets greenlit twice but not interested in the russian trans-gay wedding? For shame, green light, shame.
 
2014-08-24 02:18:17 PM

tira: This article gets greenlit twice but not interested in the russian trans-gay wedding? For shame, green light, shame.


That was greenlit on Friday IIRC
 
2014-08-24 02:18:50 PM
Pave Atlantic Ocean and put up a parking lot.
 
2014-08-24 02:19:08 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: If you believe that:

* the oceans are not part of the globe
* and therefore ocean warming is not global warming,
* and furthermore that ocean warming can have no adverse effects on, say, ocean currents,
  * such as the Gulf Stream, which is the only thing that makes much of Europe habitable,

then you might be a wingnut.


If
* your climate model isn't in agreement with observed reality
* and you still want to use its results to drive policy,

then you might be a dishonest pseudo-science-whoring dingbat.
 
2014-08-24 02:34:19 PM
Anyone ever hear of Wall Street OTC before today?
 
2014-08-24 02:35:25 PM
Ah, yes. "some guy".
It's always "some guy".
 
2014-08-24 02:37:46 PM

Farking Canuck: Wow ... for the last few years we've had all the typical anti-science crowd crying that "GW has stopped".

The response from the pro-science crowd has been "Nothing has stopped. The atmosphere represents only a small part of the system. Look at the heat build-up in the oceans."

Today the cry from the anti-science crowd is "Ha ha. They forgot about the oceans." Do these idiots think that all their posts and the responses have been deleted? Well they haven't. The denier stupidity and ever-changing positions are recorded forever.

I expect a few of them will be switching to new accounts over the next few years as things continue to sideways around the world.


Complete bullshiat

Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate. The only ones changing their tune are alarmist morons who now are up to 38 excuses for the pause in global warming, which they claim is non-existent anyways. Earlier this year, they said the heat was hiding in the Pacific Ocean, while they prayed for a super El Nino to bump up temps. Since that's not happening, they need to divert attention elsewhere
 
2014-08-24 02:40:18 PM
This is why I ripped the catalytic converters off my car and run my A/C at a constant 59 degrees
/suck it global warming alarmist libtardos
 
2014-08-24 02:44:15 PM
Can we not put corporate spin/denialist bullshiat in the Geek tab?  kthxbai!
 
2014-08-24 02:46:00 PM
jjorsett:
If
* your climate model isn't in agreement with observed reality
* and you still want to use its results to drive policy,

then you might be a dishonest pseudo-science-whoring dingbat.


Are there any models we base policy on that are in complete agreement with observations?  In economics?  Social science?  Natural disaster preparation?  Anything?

You're no longer arguing whether climate change is happening, now you're saying that since we can't predict how it will turn out we shouldn't do anything about it.  It's like refusing to stop poking a sleeping bear because I can't predict exactly how it will kill you when it wakes up.
 
2014-08-24 02:58:16 PM

DubyaHater: This is why I ripped the catalytic converters off my car and run my A/C at a constant 59 degrees
/suck it global warming alarmist libtardos


I bought two new a/c units for my living room. Run 'em full time, widows open, to help cool the planet.
Just doin' my part.
 
2014-08-24 03:01:26 PM

DesertDemonWY: Complete bullshiat
Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate. The only ones changing their tune are alarmist morons who now are up to 38 excuses for the pause in global warming, which they claim is non-existent anyways. Earlier this year, they said the heat was hiding in the Pacific Ocean, while they prayed for a super El Nino to bump up temps. Since that's not happening, they need to divert attention elsewhere


Yes, the scientists are saying that maybe they can't model every single thing into their computers, because we've never dealt with anything like this, and they aren't exactly sure what it might do. The very same reason that people like you have been claiming all along for them not knowing what the fark they're talking about because global warming isn't happening--their models are all wrong. You.....have a problem with that?
 
2014-08-24 03:04:15 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-24 03:09:08 PM

DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: Wow ... for the last few years we've had all the typical anti-science crowd crying that "GW has stopped".

The response from the pro-science crowd has been "Nothing has stopped. The atmosphere represents only a small part of the system. Look at the heat build-up in the oceans."

Today the cry from the anti-science crowd is "Ha ha. They forgot about the oceans." Do these idiots think that all their posts and the responses have been deleted? Well they haven't. The denier stupidity and ever-changing positions are recorded forever.

I expect a few of them will be switching to new accounts over the next few years as things continue to sideways around the world.

Complete bullshiat

Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate. The only ones changing their tune are alarmist morons who now are up to 38 excuses for the pause in global warming, which they claim is non-existent anyways. Earlier this year, they said the heat was hiding in the Pacific Ocean, while they prayed for a super El Nino to bump up temps. Since that's not happening, they need to divert attention elsewhere


Uh oh, citing Anthony Watts on Fark will get you tarred and feathered...at least metaphorically speaking.
 
2014-08-24 03:09:20 PM

DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: Wow ... for the last few years we've had all the typical anti-science crowd crying that "GW has stopped".

The response from the pro-science crowd has been "Nothing has stopped. The atmosphere represents only a small part of the system. Look at the heat build-up in the oceans."

Today the cry from the anti-science crowd is "Ha ha. They forgot about the oceans." Do these idiots think that all their posts and the responses have been deleted? Well they haven't. The denier stupidity and ever-changing positions are recorded forever.

I expect a few of them will be switching to new accounts over the next few years as things continue to sideways around the world.

Complete bullshiat

Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate. The only ones changing their tune are alarmist morons who now are up to 38 excuses for the pause in global warming, which they claim is non-existent anyways. Earlier this year, they said the heat was hiding in the Pacific Ocean, while they prayed for a super El Nino to bump up temps. Since that's not happening, they need to divert attention elsewhere


"...During the long periods where the surface climate is changing very slowly, one can consider that the atmosphere is in a quasi-equilibrium state, and most energy is being absorbed by the ocean, so that ocean heat uptake is a key measure of climate change."  IPCC 2007 report

/skeptics have long argued that global warming isn't happening, it's happening at a rate slower that past ice age recoveries, it isn't being caused by man, the heat is going into the ocean haha dumb scientists forgot about the oceans.
//"they didn't factor in radiation from Radon gas!"
 
2014-08-24 03:12:53 PM

TheOther: We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause," study author Ka-Kit Tung  Ma-Kit Tup, a professor of applied mathematics at UW, said in a statement.


He's a fellow researcher with Kli Ma Chang.

/Window seat for ethnic joke!
 
2014-08-24 03:14:39 PM

Stone Meadow: Uh oh, citing Anthony Watts on Fark will get you tarred and feathered...at least metaphorically speaking.


Well, when you are claiming that the vast majority of climate scientists who are working and publishing in the field are wrong, you really need a better source than a weatherman who failed to complete an undergraduate engineering degree.
 
2014-08-24 03:31:27 PM

DesertDemonWY: Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate.


New to climate change discussions, aren't you? Deniers have been arguing that the sun is the primary driver of climate. Get with the program.

Climate change deniers arguments:
- Al Gore lives in a house
- It snowed somewhere in May
- It's not happening
- If it is happening, humans aren't responsible
- It's a conspiracy by greedy scientists looking for grant money
- Alarmists want us to abandon all technology
- Warmer weather will be good for us
- Climate scientists forgot about the sun
- Climate science is junk science
- The computer models are wrong
- Temperature collecting methodology is flawed
- Newsweek magazine predicted cooling in the 1970's
- It's now "climate change" instead of "global warming"
- Al Gore lives in a house

It's hilarious that climate change deniers constantly say that climate science is a bunch of nonsense, right up until the moment scientists support the deniers' argument. Then, suddenly, AS IF BY MAGIC, climate science becomes valid and the scientific method unquestionable! How wonderfully convenient!

Arguing with climate change deniers is the intellectual equivalent of trying to catch a greased pig. They are fundamentally dishonest, and if by chance you ever corner one in a discussion, then they'll claim they were just trolling.
 
2014-08-24 03:58:51 PM
When I was a kid in the 70's,global cooling was the rage.,,just say'in  img.fark.net
 
2014-08-24 03:58:52 PM
So now the koolaid has gotten so bad that it's not "not happening", it's now in "hiatus".

"Boss, I'm making just as many sales as I used to, I'm just in hiatus now. It means the same thing as when I was performing well".
 
2014-08-24 03:58:52 PM

DesertDemonWY: Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate.


Natural cycles. What'cha gonna do?
 
2014-08-24 04:05:47 PM

sure haven't: So now the koolaid has gotten so bad that it's not "not happening", it's now in "hiatus".

"Boss, I'm making just as many sales as I used to, I'm just in hiatus now. It means the same thing as when I was performing well".


Well you sure didn't think too hard about that one! Amirite?
 
2014-08-24 04:10:55 PM

topcat68: When I was a kid in the 70's,global cooling was the rage.,,just say'in  [img.fark.net image 299x400]


When I was a kid in the 70's I knew better than to get my science from news magazines.

Maybe that is why, as an adult, I choose to get my science from scientists instead of from politicians.
 
2014-08-24 04:11:26 PM

snocone: DubyaHater: This is why I ripped the catalytic converters off my car and run my A/C at a constant 59 degrees
/suck it global warming alarmist libtardos

I bought two new a/c units for my living room. Run 'em full time, widows open, to help cool the planet.
Just doin' my part.


See this joke isn't that funny because I believe that might actually make sense to you.
 
2014-08-24 04:38:50 PM

Farking Canuck: Stone Meadow: Uh oh, citing Anthony Watts on Fark will get you tarred and feathered...at least metaphorically speaking.

Well, when you are claiming that the vast majority of climate scientists who are working and publishing in the field are wrong, you really need a better source than a weatherman who failed to complete an undergraduate engineering degree.


there's a 97% 100% chance you're a climate moron if you dismiss anything from weatherman Anthony Watts, but constantly cite and take for the gospel truth everything a cartoonist has to say
 
2014-08-24 04:50:41 PM

DesertDemonWY: cartoonist has to say


A cartoonist who actually understands enough science to obtain a degree in physics and learned how post detailed references for the sources for all the information collected on the site.

In the end it is really the sources that are important ... and Watts has a long history of not posting sources or blatantly misrepresenting the sources.

So yes, I will freely take information from a cartoonist with a physics degree who cites sources vs. a weatherman and failed engineering student who posts opinions backed by either nothing or with lies.
 
2014-08-24 05:19:03 PM

topcat68: When I was a kid in the 70's,global cooling was the rage.,,just say'in


Because "Milankovitch cycles might put us into a glacial period in 10,000 years" and "greenhouse gases put us at risk of climate change in 100 years" are totally the same level of threat.

  [img.fark.net image 299x400]

Dude, everyone knows that Time cover is photoshopped.

www.graphicsdb.com
 
2014-08-24 05:23:06 PM

thatguyoverthere70: DesertDemonWY: Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate.

New to climate change discussions, aren't you? Deniers have been arguing that the sun is the primary driver of climate. Get with the program.

Climate change deniers arguments:

- It's now "climate change" instead of "global warming"


It has always been climate change, alarmists are the ones that came up with the global warming bullshiat
 
2014-08-24 05:34:02 PM

chitownmike: thatguyoverthere70: DesertDemonWY: Skeptics have long argued that ocean cycles are the biggest drivers of climate.

New to climate change discussions, aren't you? Deniers have been arguing that the sun is the primary driver of climate. Get with the program.

Climate change deniers arguments:

- It's now "climate change" instead of "global warming"

It has always been climate change, alarmists are the ones that came up with the global warming bullshiat


No junior, it was always global warming until sane people started to point out that cooler temperatures were being used to support global warming theories.
 
2014-08-24 05:46:31 PM

ginandbacon: Ouch. That is some painfully bad writing in whatever the fark website that is. And I'm not just talking about the comments.


Amazing that two articles green lit on this are shiattily written yet none of the actual research articles have been linked.
 
2014-08-24 05:54:23 PM
Lee Jackson Beauregard:

topcat68: When I was a kid in the 70's,global cooling was the rage.,,just say'in

Because "Milankovitch cycles might put us into a glacial period in 10,000 years" and "greenhouse gases put us at risk of climate change in 100 years" are totally the same level of threat.

[img.fark.net image 299x400]

Dude, everyone knows that Time cover is photoshopped.

www.graphicsdb.com


Now, now... He did succeed at one thing; At showing how little research he was willing to do to support his argument.

Let's ask the guy who wrote the article from the actual Time cover story.

img.timeinc.net
 
2014-08-24 06:01:55 PM
There is a lot of spin, not just in TFA but also some from one of the authors of the paper. Disappointing.

If you actually look at the paper, it confirms the work that Meehl et al. have been doing for years on so-called "hiatus decades" (e.g. Meehl et al., 2011) in which deeper ocean sinks in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans absorb relatively more heat, as does the upper level of the tropical Pacific. This behavior in climate models resembles the negative phase of ENSO, and not coincidentally, we've seen a run of La Ninas since the monster El Nino in 1998. This ties into a large and growing body of work (e.g. England et al., 2014; Risbey et al., 2014; Huber and Knutti, 2014) showing that the purported lack of warming is largely due to natural variation in the Pacific ocean, and that the system as a whole continues to accumulate heat due to the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.

The authors of this paper are trying to lay claim to a novel insight, and that's fine as far as it goes, but they're doing the public a disservice by not connecting back to the work that came before them to show how this is yet another piece of the puzzle that we have put together over the past few years.

Oh, and this is no way challenges the reality of anthropogenic warming, nor the expectations for the longterm consequences of increased GHGs, as the authors themselves (and common sense given the timescales in question) make clear.

[I'll completely set aside the fact that this is basically a totally climate model- and ocean reanalysis model- based study, yet denialists are somehow totes fine with models today.]
 
Displayed 50 of 101 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