|
Everything's perfectly alright now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?  quote:In fact, according to John Abraham, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering in Minnesota and a writer for The Guardian, 2014 featured a huge uptake in oceanic heat. The additional heat was so significant that it broke the chart that scientists use to track such changes, he wrote on Thursday.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
My geology professor in summer school last year used an obviously manufactured graph from the mid 1990s or so to prove that climate scientists didn't know any actual science of how the globe worked, and that it is actually the stupidity of Californians to want to live in California that causes them to choose to live along fault lines and disappearing coastline. Climate change is about pouring government money into companies that manufacture green products. He also said that if any of us went to public school that the government failed us, and he spent about 20-30 minutes re-enacting a potential school shooting and how we should try and escape it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
hah science that gives the results it's paid to give
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:My geology professor in summer school last year used an obviously manufactured graph from the mid 1990s or so to prove that climate scientists didn't know any actual science of how the globe worked, and that it is actually the stupidity of Californians to want to live in California that causes them to choose to live along fault lines and disappearing coastline. Climate change is about pouring government money into companies that manufacture green products. Did you report him? At the very least he was "teaching" stuff that wasn't part of his purview.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
effectual posted:Did you report him? At the very least he was "teaching" stuff that wasn't part of his purview. Regrettably, he was. Climatology and meteorology are earth sciences and are generally covered (at least briefly) as part of a high school or 100-level college geology course. I'm taking a geology 101 course this semester and the last chapter of my textbook is on climate change (and agrees with the scientific consensus).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
"As inequality soars, the nervous super rich are already planning their escapes" http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/23/nervous-super-rich-planning-escapes-davos-2015 These people have too much power with no accountability. Its absolutely essential we strip them of their power of we want to civilisation to survive. Yes, that means taking all their stuff by force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
bpower posted:"As inequality soars, the nervous super rich are already planning their escapes" Yeah. let's have a revolution! eat the rich
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
delicious delicious rich people
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
We dont need to eat them, just nationalise their businesses and tax the bollox off every last one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
bpower posted:We dont need to eat them, just nationalise their businesses and tax the bollox off every last one of them. But daaaad, I just got a new pitchfork!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
The solution to climate change is COMMUNISM
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
bpower posted:We dont need to eat them, just nationalise their businesses and tax the bollox off every last one of them. You say "them", but what you mean is "us".
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The solution to climate change is COMMUNISM Not just climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:delicious delicious rich people Don't tell me you wouldn't take a bite out of a nicely marbled Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
bpower posted:We dont need to eat them, just nationalise their businesses and tax the bollox off every last one of them. But if we eat them we can gain their power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But if we eat them we can gain their power. What do you think we're going to do with the bollox?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
I'm down for eating the rich but only if we force feed them fatty foods first so we get a nice foie gras going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
bpower posted:"As inequality soars, the nervous super rich are already planning their escapes" I look forward to this making its way into the mainsteam consiousness, it's about time we had a new trope for villians. An American version of Let's get Skase, new COD DLC involves "renationalizing" assets from a US expat living in a compound in the dominican republic. SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
katlington posted:I look forward to this making its way into the mainsteam consiousness, it's about time we had a new trope for villians. An American version of Let's get Skase, new COD DLC involves "renationalizing" assets from a US expat living in a compound in the dominican republic. Read Daemon and Freedom by Daniel Suarez. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Regrettably, he was. Climatology and meteorology are earth sciences and are generally covered (at least briefly) as part of a high school or 100-level college geology course. I'm taking a geology 101 course this semester and the last chapter of my textbook is on climate change (and agrees with the scientific consensus). I was referring more to the shooting stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
effectual posted:I was referring more to the shooting stuff. He was pretty much just telling us tips on how to avoid mass murder, but he was also like moving around, kinda-not-all-there with that guy. I got an A, and I think the class mostly didn't give a poo poo what he was saying on the climate topic, because everybody mostly slept in the long summer class. It was still maddening every time he spoke as though it was obvious he was correct, and thousands of scientists and decades of work meant nothing because some conservative blogger got hold of emails or something. Then during a quiz I caught him on Breitbart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
So I have an acquaintance on FB who likes to post climate skeptic stuff, not full on denial but "both sides are wrong" type crap. His latest fun is 'debunking' the hottest year on record claim for 2014, claiming the data is fudged. Also, this similar claim of inaccurate data. Has this been discusssed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
This seems to be a relatively new thing (but I suppose not unexpected). Here's what I could find: https://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html And the data stations that 'don't exist' in South America can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:So I have an acquaintance on FB who likes to post climate skeptic stuff, not full on denial but "both sides are wrong" type crap. The ultimate counter is to challenge them to post the raw average for every station, globally, and not just "X station in Paraguay / Australia / CONUS." They won't, because it looks like this. (GHCN-M is one of the broadest global temp datasets and the major land records are mostly various methods of curation and adjustment.) On average, adjustments mute the trend, rather than exaggerate it. That's why these sorts of arguments are always focused on individual stations where there of course can always be outliers. Steve Goddard is a skeptic blogger who makes a living off essentially making this same post, constantly, and having it go viral every once in a while when there's no interesting news and the tabloids want to manufacture some FRAUD. Elotana fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Skeptics love to play the game of "pick a station and post the raw / adjusted lines."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Thanks guys. My standard reference is this but some guys are reading climate denial blogs daily and getting the hot takes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Just roll your eyes and make a jerking off hand motion. If they aren't on board now either they are just trying to get attention or they are so stupid that they'll never be able to understand. Or its a political us vs them in which you will never win either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Or its a political us vs them in which you will never win either. Its this. Conservatives cannot concede the current system is killing us without shattering their world view.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
bpower posted:Its this. Conservatives cannot concede the current system is killing us without shattering their world view. This particular person is either wierder he's like obsessively moderate and thinks that both sides are equally bad or something and refuses take any sort of stance, posing everything as "food for thought" concern trolls. I recognize that's probably a bit of a lost cause, but I'm OK with that. I've posted in D&D 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
I talked with my stats professor and he raised some points denying that global warming is manmade (he's one of those "cycles" argumenters): 1. The very small increment in sea levels year by year does not match comparatively with the standard deviation of sea level with high and low tides. 2. Recently discovered volcanic activity in greenland and the arctic is causing the arctic and greenland ice to break up. Ice in gradually warming water (as it should be with global warming) does not break but melts, and the decay of ice on the underside of arctic floes is too fast for gradual warming. 3. The rise in sea levels does not match the ice lost at the poles (I tried to rebut with thermal expansion). 4. Considering that climate changes happen over thousands of years, measuring only the highest temperatures in a couple hundred year period will give you a supremum problem. Highest temperatures get higher because our sample size of years is too small to consider what are outliers or a general trend. E: 5. The margin of error on temperatues read from arctic ice cores is too big. Maybe my stats professor is Arkane. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:I talked with my stats professor and he raised some points denying that global warming is manmade (he's one of those "cycles" argumenters):
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Tell him to go ahead and spell/formula out his argument and submit it to peer review and if well the CONSPIRACY GROUPTHINK keeps it from getting published just put it up on his webpage, I mean if he's right it would be a big boon to his career and to humanity etc. Or is this one of those bullshit arguments you just air in front of undergrads, professor? Can someone provide counterarguments? I'm curious. Considering he also used the bunk sunspot cycle argument, he's probably wrong about most of these but I don't know which. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:No, I just asked him after class because I was curious. No need for outrage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
What's it like being a climatologist? Is it a good field for CompSci and math types? Obviously there is a lot of math and programming involved in the modelling. Probably being off course now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Let it go, if this is someone who currently controls a grade you need to have be good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Yeah letting it go is the pragmatic option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:What's it like being a climatologist? Is it a good field for CompSci and math types? Obviously there is a lot of math and programming involved in the modelling. Probably being off course now. It's like being any other kind of scientist in academia. Extremely stressful, always working on new grant proposals or writing a new paper, etc. If you're good at math that's great, though it's not just statistics, you need a deep understanding of all the different atmospheric, oceanic and geological processes that can affect the climate (obviously you can't know everything, that's why collaborations happen).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Let it go, if this is someone who currently controls a grade you need to have be good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:I hold nothing against him on it, I was just interested to know if there's any validity to his arguments, especially the volcanism in the arctic one. That's a new one to me. Typically when people mention volcanic activity re: climate change, it's in the context of CO2 emissions (in my experience, but that's from a more paleo perspective). Geothermal activity in the Arctic isn't anything new though, I mean Iceland uses it for power because it's right on the mid-ocean ridge. It doesn't make sense to me (going by your description). The ice in Greenland is on land, not in the ocean, hence why if it melts it'll cause a rise in sea level. The bottom of the ocean is too cold for any geothermal activity at the bottom of the ocean (say at the mid-ocean ridge) to matter. Very, very cold:  (Not meant to be mind-blowing, I just think it's a cool graphic)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
Are the white chunks in the purple section meant to represent ice formation, or just graph errors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:17
|
|
