Climate continues to change.

[Beco]

cold as shit out, is all I know....

 

[sigh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gaJJtS_WDmI

 

[VaticanAssassin]

There doesn't seem to be any pressing reason to believe the temperature of the sun isn't mostly static. You've got the GW deniers but that's really about it.

As there is no reason to belive that 450,000 years of history is not repeating itself..... For the fith time.

 

[TwoShades]

Y'all have my permission to wring your hands on my behalf.


EDIT:

The Sun's output is not entirely constant. Nor is the amount of sunspot activity. There was a period of very low sunspot activity in the latter half of the 17th century called the Maunder Minimum. It coincides with an abnormally cold period in northern Europe sometimes known as the Little Ice Age. Since the formation of the solar system the Sun's output has increased by about 40%.

The Sun is about 4.5 billion years old. Since its birth it has used up about half of the hydrogen in its core. It will continue to radiate "peacefully" for another 5 billion years or so (although its luminosity will approximately double in that time). But eventually it will run out of hydrogen fuel. It will then be forced into radical changes which, though commonplace by stellar standards, will result in the total destruction of the Earth (and probably the creation of a planetary nebula).

Fuck. We ARE doomed.

 

[thør]

cold as shit out, is all I know....

Cooling off here, so it will warm up, there.

 

[Sean Renaud]

As there is no reason to belive that 450,000 years of history is not repeating itself..... For the fith time.

Except the fact that it doesn't appear to be.

 

[Beco]

Cooling off here, so it will warm up, there.

yeah, and not soon enough. 45 tomorrow, will feel like 80 after freezing temps down this away

 

[phrodeau]

Australia's now getting their second extreme heat wave of the year.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/28/fire-danger-temperatures-sa-victoria-soar

But hey, it was hotter forty million years ago, so who needs to care?

 

[leftie]

On article forty years old does not equal a near unamious agreement amongst scientific experts.

97% agreement in about 7,500 research papers:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

[Sean Renaud]

If it were a poll it would be within the margin of error of 100%. ^^^^

But lets not split hairs.

 

[TwoShades]

..."We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,.....Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Margin of error?? Did you read the article?

So your article and my math (97.1% x 32.6%) show that 31.65% of published papers "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

 

[StrangeLife]

Australia's now getting their second extreme heat wave of the year.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/28/fire-danger-temperatures-sa-victoria-soar

But hey, it was hotter forty million years ago, so who needs to care?

It's not about whether we care. It's about whether we should flagellate ourselves and wallow in guilt over being the cause of it.


"OMG! First we murdered the penguins and now we're slow-cooking the poor Aussies"

But the truth of the matter is, that Australia has - and always did have - some seriously hot places...

Melbourne summers are notable for occasional days of extreme heat. This occurs when the synoptic pattern is conducive to the transportation of very hot air from central Australia over to the south east corner of the continent. The inland deserts of Australia are amongst the hottest areas on earth, particularly the inland parts of north-west Australia. Every summer, intense heat builds starting in the Pilbara district of Western Australia around October/November and spreading widely over the tropical and subtropical inland parts of the continent by January. In the summer months, the southern part of the continent straddles the westerly wind belt to the south and the subtropical high pressure ridge to the north. The intense heat buildup occurs where high pressure is highly dominant in the upper levels of the atmosphere over the tropics and subtropics of Australia in summer allowing for a huge area of stable atmospheric conditions to predominate.

 

[StrangeLife]

..."We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,.....Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Of course we are partly causing it. Considering that we are large mammals, our population is huge. A 7 billion population of large mammals in an ecosystem of around 148,300,000 sq km of land surface? Duh.

So yes - we will have some sort of impact on that ecosystem, as were the case of any other dominant species through the history of the planet. The real question however is, wether that's a bad thing. Who says what we have now is the best we can get?

 

[doctor_insanus]

Yeah, I'll take the research of 9,000 peer-reviewed scientists over the opinions of a few morons on a message board.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change

 

[StrangeLife]

Yeah, I'll take the research of 9,000 peer-reviewed scientists over the opinions of a few morons on a message board.

There was a time when 9000 out of 9001 would swear that the earth was flat.


Luckily they were wrong. Especially for the Aussies - Down Under sounds so much cooler than Over There...

 

[Liar]

..."We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,.....Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Margin of error?? Did you read the article?

So your article and my math (97.1% x 32.6%) show that 31.65% of published papers "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Your math is based on an erroneous interpretation of the numbers. That's not 66.4% of studies saying AGW it's inconclusive. That's 66.4% of studies not asking that question, and therefore irrelevant to the topic at hand. There are other things to study when it comes to climate change than that, you know.

 

[RobDownSouth]

****Yawn****

Crisis du jour

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974
TIME MAGAZINE ^ | June 24, 1974/2006 | Time Magazine

Climate Denier Talking Point 11:When Retards Say "But but Time magazine in 1974 said..."

 

[TwoShades]

Your math is based on an erroneous interpretation of the numbers. That's not 66.4% of studies saying AGW it's inconclusive. That's 66.4% of studies not asking that question, and therefore irrelevant to the topic at hand. There are other things to study when it comes to climate change than that, you know.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

This retard can read, at least.

 

[TwoShades]

Yeah, I'll take the research of 9,000 peer-reviewed scientists over the opinions of a few morons on a message board.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change

AWESOME Graphs!!!! OMG we are doomed. Spend all your money!

 

[TwoShades]

Climate Denier Talking Point 11:When Retards Say "But but Time magazine in 1974 said..."

I am merely pointing out that this isn't the first time the media screams "the sky is falling."

And yes... color me a denier. Hate me all you want. LOL.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I am merely pointing out that this isn't the first time the media screams "the sky is falling."

And yes... color me a denier. Hate me all you want. LOL.

As a liberal democrat, I am obviously incapable of hatred.

I will, however, mercilessly mock your trite little talking points.

And I'll pray for Jesus to deliver you from your ignorance.

 

[phrodeau]

It's not about whether we care. It's about whether we should flagellate ourselves and wallow in guilt over being the cause of it.


"OMG! First we murdered the penguins and now we're slow-cooking the poor Aussies"

But the truth of the matter is, that Australia has - and always did have - some seriously hot places...

Wow, the concept of stewardship must be completely alien to you. I bet your mother still picks up your room.

 

[zipman]

Gif of global warming from NASA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJJtS_WDmI&feature=player_embedded

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Stupid Humans.....

Humans have only existed for 50,000 years? For reals!!!!?????

Lets forget the fact that was my sarcastic point.
Let me explain the pretty colors and relevance for ya.

The chart shows a clear weather pattern of inter-glacial periods from the present period to the four preceding periods with the much longer glacial periods in between. All four past periods are seen to be warmer than today's period. These inter-glacial periods tend to last about 10k to 15K years before peaking out and sliding in to a glacial period. The current period has lasted 11.6K years. Shame none of us will be here for the next glacial period.

Whats even more interesting is each inter glacial period has peaked out with corresponding rises in Co2. The only thing different about this current period is that the CO2 spike is actually higher than the corresponding temperature spike. This is despite the fact that this period is 2 degrees colder than any other peak.

Except the fact that it doesn't appear to be.

I mean I guess you could make the argument that because this warming period is 2 degrees colder than historic warming periods so it doesn't "appear to be".

I mean if you hated science.

#factsareconfusing

 

[RobDownSouth]

I mean I guess you could make the argument that because this warming period is 2 degrees colder than historic warming periods so it doesn't "appear to be".

I mean if you hated science.

#factsareconfusing

Show whar the data points on your graph come from.

Let's see you do some science.

We'll wait right here.