Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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)   Study finds it is not 100% certain that humans contribute to global warming...only 99.999%   ( io9.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures, psychological testing, IPCC, CSIRO, solar radiation, average surface temperature, statistical model  
•       •       •

1092 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Sep 2014 at 7:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-09-04 04:32:38 PM  
Humans are also responsible for 99.99999% of all humans.
 
2014-09-04 04:38:44 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


so you're telling me there's a chance it's all liberal lies!
 
2014-09-04 04:47:03 PM  
There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.
 
2014-09-04 05:13:26 PM  
I have it on good authority that science is stupid. Therefor, I choose not to worry.

Also, the world is flat, yo.
 
2014-09-04 06:52:04 PM  
img.pandawhale.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-04 07:07:26 PM  

JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.


I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.
 
2014-09-04 07:11:22 PM  
I've always blamed TV remotes.

you know how those things work?  the emit infra-red light.  you know what infra-red light is?  it's HEAT.

I bet if you made a chart comparing the number of TV remotes in the world to global temperatures, you'd see ... I dunno, a lack of pirates, maybe.
 
2014-09-04 07:12:09 PM  

Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.



You're both wrong. It's pirates. To be more precise: the lack of pirates.

donhillson.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-04 07:12:54 PM  

FlashHarry: [img.fark.net image 400x300]

so you're telling me there's a chance it's all liberal lies!


My immediate thought was this image. Thank you.
 
2014-09-04 07:13:47 PM  

skyotter: I've always blamed TV remotes.

Ahh, so you're agreeing it's human activity!
 
2014-09-04 07:21:27 PM  

ParallelUniverseParking: To be more precise: the lack of pirates


see?  i KNEW it!   and they called me "mad" ...

Zombalupagus: skyotter: I've always blamed TV remotes.
Ahh, so you're agreeing it's human activity!


nah, human INactivity.  ;)
 
2014-09-04 07:23:21 PM  

ParallelUniverseParking: Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.


You're both wrong. It's pirates. To be more precise: the lack of pirates.

[donhillson.files.wordpress.com image 600x463]


but the massive increase in piracy in the last 15 years should have resulted in a massive decline in temperature. now you feel silly dont you?
 
2014-09-04 07:36:52 PM  

gaspode: ParallelUniverseParking: Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.


You're both wrong. It's pirates. To be more precise: the lack of pirates.

[donhillson.files.wordpress.com image 600x463]

but the massive increase in piracy in the last 15 years should have resulted in a massive decline in temperature. now you feel silly dont you?


It only slowed the progression. You can thank Somalia that your butt is not cooked like bacon...yet.
 
2014-09-04 07:38:14 PM  
Dear Louisiana,

Told you.

Sincerely,
Sane people
 
2014-09-04 07:39:26 PM  
When you come up with that many decimal points for a measurement that we can only measure to within a half-degree or so (at best), you're making shiat up as you go along.

Note, for example, that we're outside of the 95% confidence estimates of the vast majority of AGW scenarios - which means, in scientific terms, they failed.
 
2014-09-04 07:43:30 PM  
Since the Oil Industry exists, global warming must be a hoax. Once big oil is gone, global warming will cease to be a hoax.

Simple.
 
2014-09-04 07:43:46 PM  

FlashHarry: [img.fark.net image 400x300]

so you're telling me there's a chance it's all liberal lies!


Damn you.

Came here to post that very photo!
 
2014-09-04 07:45:43 PM  

cirby: When you come up with that many decimal points for a measurement that we can only measure to within a half-degree or so (at best), you're making shiat up as you go along.


If you read the article (hahaha yeah I know) you'd have seen this:

We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.
Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.
There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions.

What they did is they measured the probability of a particular event, which you CAN calculate to quite high degrees.  Standard statistical analysis, of the "roll a die 100 times, what's the probability you get all 6s?" type.

Note, for example, that we're outside of the 95% confidence estimates of the vast majority of AGW scenarios - which means, in scientific terms, they failed.

Citation needed.
 
2014-09-04 07:46:39 PM  

cirby: When you come up with that many decimal points for a measurement that we can only measure to within a half-degree or so (at best), you're making shiat up as you go along.

Note, for example, that we're outside of the 95% confidence estimates of the vast majority of AGW scenarios - which means, in scientific terms, they failed.


Is this you?

steve.cooleysekula.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-04 07:47:03 PM  

ParallelUniverseParking: gaspode: ParallelUniverseParking: Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.


You're both wrong. It's pirates. To be more precise: the lack of pirates.

[donhillson.files.wordpress.com image 600x463]

but the massive increase in piracy in the last 15 years should have resulted in a massive decline in temperature. now you feel silly dont you?

It only slowed the progression. You can thank Somalia that your butt is not cooked like bacon...yet.


How does internet piracy fit in, because a recent study determined that the carbon footprint of downloaded games may in fact be higher than that of ones on disc.
 
2014-09-04 07:52:16 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: ParallelUniverseParking: gaspode: ParallelUniverseParking: Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.


You're both wrong. It's pirates. To be more precise: the lack of pirates.

[donhillson.files.wordpress.com image 600x463]

but the massive increase in piracy in the last 15 years should have resulted in a massive decline in temperature. now you feel silly dont you?

It only slowed the progression. You can thank Somalia that your butt is not cooked like bacon...yet.

How does internet piracy fit in, because a recent study determined that the carbon footprint of downloaded games may in fact be higher than that of ones on disc.


Only if they are legally downloaded.
 
2014-09-04 07:56:26 PM  
FTA:
There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, new research shows.
...
with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn't be taking the chance of doing nothing.


Non sequitur

Those stats do not speak for whether we are a heavy or negligible contributor, only the likelihood that we did or did not contribute at all.

Yet, the second line I quoted, "the warming we are seeing IS human induced" does exactly that.  It is an absolute claim that the evidence does not support. Article writer doesn't logic very well.

Just sayin'

Based on the odds delivered in the first portion, what are the odds that we are the sole contributor to the warming?

I'll check back later and see if anyone can answer that honestly.
 
2014-09-04 07:57:35 PM  

Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.


What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
 
2014-09-04 08:01:37 PM  

cirby: When you come up with that many decimal points for a measurement that we can only measure to within a half-degree or so (at best), you're making shiat up as you go along.

Note, for example, that we're outside of the 95% confidence estimates of the vast majority of AGW scenarios - which means, in scientific terms, they failed.


One of these things is a measurement, the other is a standard deviation: I measure X to be 50 with a standard deviation of 1, which means I can state with 99.999% certainty that X is not 45.5 or less.

But you knew this of course... Do they pay you well? I know those who sold themselves out to the leaded gasoline and tobacco industries were well paid for spreading lies about TEL and cancer while we were knowingly poisoned in the name of profit.
 
2014-09-04 08:12:10 PM  
Here are a few infographics for those of us who may still be confused about the science:

img.fark.netView Full Size


img.fark.netView Full Size


img.fark.netView Full Size


img.fark.netView Full Size


and finally,

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-04 08:30:29 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-04 08:42:08 PM  
I don't think anyone doubts there is a LINK.... but the question is, how much the actual link is responsible for of the total amount.
 
2014-09-04 08:42:35 PM  
It's those fat cat scientists and their fancy grants. Grants!

/grants
 
2014-09-04 08:42:55 PM  

Farking Canuck: Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.

What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?


/golf clap to you both
 
2014-09-04 08:47:40 PM  

ParallelUniverseParking: Flappyhead: JerseyTim: There's a .001% chance it's the squirrels.

I've got a theory, I think it's bunnies.


You're both wrong. It's pirates. To be more precise: the lack of pirates.

[donhillson.files.wordpress.com image 600x463]


blogs.kcrw.comView Full Size


Eco warrior.
 
2014-09-04 08:52:37 PM  

omeganuepsilon: FTA:
There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, new research shows.
...
with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn't be taking the chance of doing nothing.

Non sequitur

Those stats do not speak for whether we are a heavy or negligible contributor, only the likelihood that we did or did not contribute at all.

Yet, the second line I quoted, "the warming we are seeing IS human induced" does exactly that.  It is an absolute claim that the evidence does not support. Article writer doesn't logic very well.

Just sayin'

Based on the odds delivered in the first portion, what are the odds that we are the sole contributor to the warming?

I'll check back later and see if anyone can answer that honestly.


It's cow farts, right?  Damn herbivores and their multi-chambered stomachs!!
 
2014-09-04 08:56:10 PM  
In before somebody posts a link to whatsupwiththat.com.
 
2014-09-04 10:03:08 PM  

T.rex: I don't think anyone doubts there is a LINK.... but the question is, how much the actual link is responsible for of the total amount.


Um, actually, we just spent several years listening to naysayers claim that there was little if any anthropogenic effects to climate change, with many saying - no, insisting - that there was no effect at all. Some folks, like Scott Brown, are still insisting that there is no link, that the evidence for anthropogenic effects is entirely incorrect.

In other words, the goalposts have moved once again.
 
2014-09-04 10:08:34 PM  

Flappyhead: omeganuepsilon: FTA:
There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, new research shows.
...
with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn't be taking the chance of doing nothing.

Non sequitur

Those stats do not speak for whether we are a heavy or negligible contributor, only the likelihood that we did or did not contribute at all.

Yet, the second line I quoted, "the warming we are seeing IS human induced" does exactly that.  It is an absolute claim that the evidence does not support. Article writer doesn't logic very well.

Just sayin'

Based on the odds delivered in the first portion, what are the odds that we are the sole contributor to the warming?

I'll check back later and see if anyone can answer that honestly.

It's cow farts, right?  Damn herbivores and their multi-chambered stomachs!!


No way man, Reagan told us it was all these damned trees everywhere...
 
2014-09-04 10:27:24 PM  

omeganuepsilon: FTA:
There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, new research shows.
...
with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn't be taking the chance of doing nothing.

Non sequitur

Those stats do not speak for whether we are a heavy or negligible contributor, only the likelihood that we did or did not contribute at all.

Yet, the second line I quoted, "the warming we are seeing IS human induced" does exactly that.  It is an absolute claim that the evidence does not support. Article writer doesn't logic very well.

Just sayin'

Based on the odds delivered in the first portion, what are the odds that we are the sole contributor to the warming?

I'll check back later and see if anyone can answer that honestly.


Over the past 50 years or so, humans are responsible for more than 100% of the warming, as natural factors are slightly negative over that time.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
 
2014-09-04 10:37:59 PM  

Baryogenesis: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57


Your blog sucks.
 
2014-09-04 10:53:49 PM  
"Contribute to" does not equal "cause".

The above simple statement of fact will label me a full-blown climate denier.

THAT is what's wrong with subject.
 
2014-09-04 10:55:36 PM  
5 Nines

I know that's my goal in IT.

Good job.
 
2014-09-04 11:01:35 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

Your blog sucks.


So does your reactionary ideological denialism. What's your point?

Honestly now, given what we have already seen, what is the level of evidence that would convince you? Following that question, what other disciplines do you hold to that standard of proof?

If your answer to either of those questions is "none", then you are not arguing from a rational position.
 
2014-09-04 11:04:23 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: "Contribute to" does not equal "cause".

The above simple statement of fact will label me a full-blown climate denier.

THAT is what's wrong with subject.


Aye.

However:
It is a good indicator for us to notice and tag(or ignore) those types as needed.  Kinda nice when people out themselves as intellectually dishonest right up front.
 
2014-09-04 11:09:30 PM  

KiltedBastich: So does your reactionary ideological denialism.


Ah, there's another one to mark.

KiltedBastich: Honestly now, given what we have already seen, what is the level of evidence that would convince you?


It depends on what you are trying to convince me of.

Your supposedly immense penis size?  I'll take your word for it.
The fairies that live in your back yard? A very high level of evidence here.
 
2014-09-04 11:15:23 PM  
Maybe we should prepare for the worst.
 
2014-09-04 11:53:11 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

Your blog sucks.


Here are the papers cited in the link.

"The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research."

Your question about human contribution has been answered with primary research. Do you have a counter point that isn't just moving the goal posts?
 
2014-09-04 11:56:04 PM  

omeganuepsilon: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: "Contribute to" does not equal "cause".

The above simple statement of fact will label me a full-blown climate denier.

THAT is what's wrong with subject.

Aye.

However:
It is a good indicator for us to notice and tag(or ignore) those types as needed.  Kinda nice when people out themselves as intellectually dishonest right up front.


Oh god, the irony, it hurts.
 
2014-09-04 11:58:50 PM  

cirby: When you come up with that many decimal points for a measurement that we can only measure to within a half-degree or so (at best), you're making shiat up as you go along.

Note, for example, that we're outside of the 95% confidence estimates of the vast majority of AGW scenarios - which means, in scientific terms, they failed.


Didn't read the article, did we?
 
2014-09-05 12:02:12 AM  

T.rex: I don't think anyone doubts there is a LINK.... but the question is, how much the actual link is responsible for of the total amount.


All of it.  Seriously. Natural drivers are currently biased towards cooling. The only thing causing warming is the human effects.
 
2014-09-05 12:05:36 AM  

Mugato: It's those fat cat scientists and their fancy grants. Grants!

/grants


The hilarious thing about the "scientists are just grubbing for grant money" argument is that the highest paying science position, by far, is geologist for an oil company.
 
2014-09-05 12:06:13 AM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: "Contribute to" does not equal "cause".

The above simple statement of fact will label me a full-blown climate denier.

THAT is what's wrong with subject.


You won't get that label if you change your stance based on seeing evidence that contradicts your position.

See my earlier comments about humans contributing more than 100% of observed warming over the past 50 years.

Deniers get that label because evidence doesn't matter to them. Look how omega didn't even consider the information provided to him before dismissing it.
 
2014-09-05 12:35:53 AM  

Hollie Maea: geologist for an oil company.


Don't forget the hookers and blow. Think about that the next time you pay your electric bill. "Someone snorted coke off a hooker's ass so I could keep the lights on..."
 
2014-09-05 12:36:00 AM  

Herb Utsmelz: In before somebody posts a link to whatsupwiththat.com.


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.comView Full Size

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


/you're welcome
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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