Its obvious that we are changing the climate change. That is why the world is experiencing a mass extinction right now. I don't know what to think about TKE. It's definitely not sarcasm-- look at his posting history, and you'll see that most of his comments are like that. He could, in theory, be a troll pretending to be a particularly foolish example of a 21st century conservative. But his posts number in the hundreds, so if he's a troll, he's a troll with an atypically long attention span.

6/17/2013 5:36:42 PM

Quote :

"IPCC’s Planned Obsolescence:"

I wonder if this is just some shitty "you didn't meet the deadline" BS. I imagine the IPCC folks need time to digest papers and work them into their models, etc etc. Maybe this recent research didn't make it. If not that, then what? The article doesn't really accuse the IPCC of wrongdoing. The article is right that releasing an important report that is out-of-date and incomplete is bush league. Its also concerning that the IPCC reports have been shown to be mostly conservative in their projections. Its pretty frustrating to me (such is the nature of science?)

Quote :

"Is the permafrost feedback mostly CO2 or methane?"

My understanding is this is actually a really important question. I think you already know how bad news methane is as a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that the ratio of methane/CO2 emitted from the permafrost could be one of the most significant current questions in climate science.

but figuring out that ratio is difficult because anaerobic decomposition is greatly influenced by temperature, oxygen availability, pH, etc. Then project those factors onto a landscape/regional scale and you can see why flying over the arctic in a plane, taking air samples, may be better than in-situ measurements.

6/17/2013 10:31:50 PM

Quote :

"eyewall, "Climate change" is a horrible term as well, b/c to the uninformed it implies that we humans are now making the climate change compared to before we had any impact, when it didn't change"

Actually it's just shorthand for "Anthropogenic Climate Change" and literally every single person discussing the topic knows this, and almost nobody on Earth believes climate has been invariant since the Earth was formed (except possibly some YEC's).

Quote :

"Warmists changed their preferred term from "global warming" to "climate change" after the warming stopped over a decade ago. The description no longer fit."

Exactly false, just conservative propaganda not based in reality: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Instances of "Climate Change" versus "Global Warming" according to Google Books:



According to Google Scholar:

Quote :

"the warming stopped over a decade ago."

Ah, the old Escalator-Argument for cooling:

Quote :

"It's also amusing how almost every weather event (of noteworthiness) is now extreme. Whereas before the AGW craze it was just weather."

Uh huh. It's not like plenty of "extreme weather events" have very objective properties like "setting a record on a plainly straightforward metric."






TKE, how many exactly-false things do you have to read or hear from conservative sources before you start to question their integrity and/or competence? How many times should we read or hear exactly-false things from you before we just stop reading your posts altogether?

And please, set us straight on what your assertions are, because they're not consistent. First, you appear to admit that the climate is changing when you try to justify it as business-as-usual, natural cycles, etc. Then you seem to deny it when you mock the assertion that extreme weather events are on the rise (which go hand in hand with a changing climate). As with aaron-burro, it seems as though you're most concerned with rebutting whatever the liberal in the room is saying about the climate at that exact moment, not having a consistent position on, well, anything.

[Edited on June 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/18/2013 10:43:33 AM

Quote :

"I wonder if this is just some shitty "you didn't meet the deadline" BS. I imagine the IPCC folks need time to digest papers and work them into their models, etc etc. Maybe this recent research didn't make it. If not that, then what? The article doesn't really accuse the IPCC of wrongdoing. The article is right that releasing an important report that is out-of-date and incomplete is bush league. Its also concerning that the IPCC reports have been shown to be mostly conservative in their projections. Its pretty frustrating to me (such is the nature of science?)"

i feel like you changed your mind mid-paragraph there.

6/18/2013 2:31:34 PM

^lol, yeah kinda

I think the point I'm trying to make is that while I'm frustrated by a lot of the IPCC's work (which is crazy when you consider I am no where close to an expert), I'll stop well short of thinking there is something nefarious going on.

6/18/2013 5:51:50 PM

Quote :

"I'll stop well short of thinking there is something nefarious going on."

you should spend more time in academia then. the academy is almost as bought and paid for as congress.

6/18/2013 7:17:05 PM

Quote :

"Its obvious that we are changing the climate change. That is why the world is experiencing a mass extinction right now."

Oh, please. We're having mass extinctions right no because we're bulldozing forests left and right. Get out of here with that dishonest shit.

Quote :

"Then you seem to deny it when you mock the assertion that extreme weather events are on the rise (which go hand in hand with a changing climate)"

Facts not in evidence. Funny that you claim that HE is the one who is quoting falsehoods, lol.

6/18/2013 8:40:27 PM

^^ so are you telling me that the IPCC is purposefully disregarding permafrost related papers? And that they're somehow motivated by money? I'd need you to lay that one out for me, or at least some links for reading.

6/18/2013 9:47:59 PM

Quote :

" you should spend more time in academia then. the academy is almost as bought and paid for as congress."

As someone who has worked in academia for 6+ years post-graduating, you're full of shit. It's fiercely competitive and cut-throat and nobody wants more than to be the guy who goes down in history as tearing down a hegemonic scientific consensus with a masterstroke. The money comes from a wide variety of sources, public, private, corporate, philanthropist, so I'm not sure how that becomes "bought and paid for" since everything that requires money to be accomplished would qualify as well.

You can sit and intimate whatever dumb shit you want with a wink and a nod, and it's really cute, but seriously save it JFK assassination conspiracies, which at least would entail a manageably small cabal to theorize about. We're talking about a global scientific consensus entailing hundreds of thousands of professors, researchers, writers, editors, assistants, grant coordinators, and interns, who if anything deride most IPCC reports as being too conservative in the direness of their predictions.

Sorry if I trust the integrity of a worldwide scientific community over that of a few oil industry shills and their blog readers, or the ideological true-believers who reason backwards from "government is bad" and "global warming would probably require government action" to "global warming can't be real". The science is clear, and the opposition is clearly a joke.

[Edited on June 19, 2013 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2013 9:27:53 AM

Yeah, the real money in science isn't in supporting the status quo. But hey, who wants a Nobel prize?

6/19/2013 10:12:29 AM

Quote :

"...It's fiercely competitive and cut-throat and nobody wants more than to be the guy who goes down in history as tearing down a hegemonic scientific consensus with a masterstroke..."

This merits repeating.

6/19/2013 11:43:45 AM

Quote :

"so are you telling me that the IPCC is purposefully disregarding permafrost related papers? And that they're somehow motivated by money? I'd need you to lay that one out for me, or at least some links for reading"

I dunno if they're purposefully disregarding any papers about permafrost, but they're definitely politically motivated (or maybe "tainted" is the better word).

Quote :

"Its obvious that we are changing the climate change."

Of course we're changing the climate. You think destroying the natural environment and replacing it with human settlements has no consequence? Also please point me in the direction of a credible paper proving that there's a mass extinction going on, and/or one showing that we are responsible for it.

[Edited on June 19, 2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason : k]

6/19/2013 12:48:25 PM

So is it your position that global warming is caused only by deforestation and urban sprawl?

6/19/2013 4:35:26 PM

Quote :

"As someone who has worked in academia for 6+ years post-graduating, you're full of shit. It's fiercely competitive and cut-throat and nobody wants more than to be the guy who goes down in history as tearing down a hegemonic scientific consensus with a masterstroke. The money comes from a wide variety of sources, public, private, corporate, philanthropist, so I'm not sure how that becomes "bought and paid for" since everything that requires money to be accomplished would qualify as well. You can sit and intimate whatever dumb shit you want with a wink and a nod, and it's really cute, but seriously save it JFK assassination conspiracies, which at least would entail a manageably small cabal to theorize about. We're talking about a global scientific consensus entailing hundreds of thousands of professors, researchers, writers, editors, assistants, grant coordinators, and interns, who if anything deride most IPCC reports as being too conservative in the direness of their predictions. Sorry if I trust the integrity of a worldwide scientific community over that of a few oil industry shills and their blog readers, or the ideological true-believers who reason backwards from "government is bad" and "global warming would probably require government action" to "global warming can't be real". The science is clear, and the opposition is clearly a joke."

i think you're confusing me w/ someone else.

6/19/2013 7:49:42 PM

Yea I was gonna chime in that I've seen you make some great posts ITT and some other sciencey threads, which is what piqued my interest so much in your "bought and paid for" comment. I think all of us recognize that the IPCC isn't perfect, but is there something there more than just the usual bungles/politics you might expect from a large org?

6/19/2013 9:51:26 PM

There are extinction rates that we have recorded for all of the five historic mass extinctions and the current extinction rate is higher than 3 of them therefore we are in a mass extinction.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

6/20/2013 10:56:02 AM

Quote :

"Also please point me in the direction of a credible paper proving that there's a mass extinction going on, and/or one showing that we are responsible for it."

Hahahaha you're making it obvious just how insanely ignorant you are for even expressing a hint of incredulity on this.

6/20/2013 12:26:35 PM

Quote :

"i think you're confusing me w/ someone else."

Apologies, it's just my view that if the IPCC is bought and paid for in any way, it's by governmental officials urging them to back down from and temper the more dire predictions so as not to scare people too much. My guns were still hot from TKE when I wrote that.

6/20/2013 12:28:00 PM

Quote :

"it's just my view that if the IPCC is bought and paid for in any way, it's by governmental officials urging them to back down from and temper the more dire predictions so as not to scare people too much."

uhm yeah. that's exactly what i meant.

it's a lot more complicated than that, b/c it's not so much a system of bribery as it is a system of starvation if you don't do what they want. but the outcome is similar.

6/20/2013 12:39:54 PM

Quote :

"So is it your position that global warming is caused only by deforestation and urban sprawl?"

No that is not my position. If my previous comment was misleading I apologize.

The E Man, thank you for that link. However, it doesn't back up your claim that AGW is causing mass extinction.

Quote :

"Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway. The evidence is pieced together from details drawn from all over the world, but it adds up to a disturbing picture. This time, unlike the past, it's not a chance asteroid collision, nor a chain of climatic circumstances alone that's at fault. Instead, it is chiefly the activities of an ever-growing human population, in concert with long-term environmental change. "

[Edited on June 20, 2013 at 12:56 PM. Reason : k]

6/20/2013 12:49:37 PM

What does "activities of an ever growing human population" mean to you? The last mass extinction wasn't just caused by one thing. There are many causes but AGW is one of them.

6/20/2013 1:59:04 PM

It's patently obvious to all but the most obstinate among us that said statement means "bulldozing the piss out of every parcel of land available."

6/21/2013 12:10:58 AM

Quote :

"What does "activities of an ever growing human population" mean to you? The last mass extinction wasn't just caused by one thing. There are many causes but AGW is one of them."

I'm sorry, is this a thread about deforestation? No, it's a thread about AGW. Your comment at the top of the page was specifically talking about AGW causing mass extinction, which even your own link doesn't back up.

6/21/2013 11:17:39 AM

America's first climate refugees:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees

6/21/2013 10:35:50 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/21/study-govt-losing-billions-on-inefficient-tax-subsidies-that-dont-curb-climate/

6/22/2013 8:24:29 AM

The cost of doing nothing vs. taking action on Climate Change is weighed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

[Edited on June 22, 2013 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2013 10:02:46 AM

Ahhh, the modern day version of Pascal's wager. That's how you know you're not dealing with ideology

6/22/2013 12:16:06 PM

Deforestation is a major component of AGW

6/22/2013 12:16:08 PM

oh, come the fuck on

6/22/2013 5:55:20 PM

What do you mean come the fuck on? Forests are huge carbon sinks and cutting them down/ burning them not only releases CO2 but also prevents it from being taken in so its the AGW gift that keeps on giving.

6/24/2013 12:18:28 PM

Quote :

"America's first climate refugees: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees"

Yeah, that's nothing but propaganda. That tribe was forced to move to that spot, which was never an appropriate type of land for permanent inhabitants. It has very little, if anything, to do with "climate change". This story is nothing new, read about this months ago

[Edited on June 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM. Reason : k]

6/27/2013 9:19:45 AM

"“I would point out that if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change, and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy." - An actual fucking Congressman in the developed world

6/27/2013 10:22:32 AM

Hey, TKE, you're a joke, leave.

6/27/2013 10:23:03 AM

brilliant

7/20/2013 12:55:51 AM

hey, can I have some of those cherries when you're done picking them? thanks!

7/20/2013 11:41:31 PM

^^data from the Met would beg to differ:

7/22/2013 2:15:14 PM

Those are showing different things

7/22/2013 3:05:40 PM

yes but they still argue the same point.

7/23/2013 9:01:04 AM

i agree about that, its a great example of what the .gif is trying to point out

7/23/2013 9:03:08 AM

hmm is it the Degree C/Decade Trailing on the Y-axis?

From his article he posts the anomaly from a reference period (1961-1990) which is typically how I see HADCRUT4 data displayed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/19/june-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/



He then changes the reference period to the "decade" previous (or it seems like he is using both 12.5 years and 16 years) in an attempt to show that we have had no warming over the past ~decade (or perhaps longer). I don't think you can really make that jump though. The graph is showing that the past few years have been slightly cooler than the previous decade (one of the hottest on record) and the same is true for the late 1970s. But you can't compare those two anomalies to one another (now and 1979), unless they both have the same reference period. The only claim he can really make is that it is currently cooler than the previous decade and the same was true in 1979.

7/23/2013 9:11:01 AM

Help me out here. I thought deniers thought the data had been fudged and that temp stations were poorly placed. But now that they think it shows cooling, it's accurate?

7/23/2013 1:40:46 PM

Is NC going to be a rainforest soon? "Global wetting" sure makes it seem that way.

7/23/2013 4:54:43 PM

Quote :

"Help me out here. I thought deniers thought the data had been fudged and that temp stations were poorly placed. But now that they think it shows cooling, it's accurate?"

It's not that complex. Conspiracy theorists (and the religious) only use data that supports their preconceived conclusions.

7/23/2013 4:56:49 PM

I know, but I kind of wanted to know what "they" have to say.

7/23/2013 6:11:46 PM

As someone shacked up for the next two weeks in a planning workshop with at least a dozen IPCC lead authors and review editors, I would like to express my appreciation for the entertainment value in this thread.

7/23/2013 8:30:29 PM

I'm going to be cited in the next IPCC report... not that anyone cares.

7/23/2013 11:18:52 PM

as long as my house isn't under water before i die, i don't give a fuck

7/23/2013 11:21:35 PM

Where do you live and when are you planning on dying?

7/23/2013 11:39:51 PM

you let me worry about that

7/24/2013 12:26:08 AM

Quote :

"It's not that complex. Conspiracy theorists (and the religious) only use data that supports their preconceived conclusions."

The irony here is thick

7/24/2013 12:33:37 AM