Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 14, 2015 @02:07AM from the warp-speed-effect dept.

New submitter dywolf writes: NASA-run Operation IceBridge has been monitoring and mapping ice sheets for the past eight years. They develop these maps in 3D using laser equipped aircraft to measure ice thickness. As glaciers reach the coast, they begin to accelerate, which causes crevasses to appear, which are essentially stretchmarks in the glacial strata. While a natural part of glaciers as they travel to sea, the glaciers of Greenland have increased in speed by 30% in the past decade. Jakobshavn Isbrae is Greenland's fastest glacier, and is now moving four times faster than it did 20 years ago.

249 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So... by DougOtto · 2015-05-14 02:17 · Score: 2, Funny

When something starts to go down hill faster, stretch marks occur?

Must resist ex-wife joke......

--
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
1. Re:So... by rwise2112 · 2015-05-14 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  When something starts to go down hill faster, stretch marks occur? Must resist ex-wife joke......
  Yeah! Being divorced sucks! I wish I was a widower!
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, these jokes write themselves.
3. Re:So... by Coren22 · 2015-05-14 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Being divorced is awesome, you just wish she would get off her ass and work so you didn't have to support her with alimony anymore.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
4. Re:So... by rwise2112 · 2015-05-14 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Being divorced is awesome, you just wish she would get off her ass and work so you didn't have to support her with alimony anymore.
  It was actually a joke I heard on TV last night that made me laugh - "I wish I was a widower", i.e. "I wish she was dead"
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Insanely fast. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 02:20 · Score: 0

Imagine the acceleration a car would have to do to get stretch marks.
Re:A poltical agenda? by gstoddart · 2015-05-14 02:24 · Score: 1

It seems to me the activists at NASA underestimate global temperature and over estimate the movement of glaciers? You don't think they have a political agenda, do you?
It seems to the rest of us that whiny ACs and climate deniers who provide no evidence probably have their own political agenda.
Got facts? Provide 'em.
Got innuendo? Fuck off.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 02:25 · Score: 0

Global warming is such a 2010 issue. No one cares at this point. CO2 production is at its highest in history. It is obvious we aren't going to change anything significantly, despite all the hot air coming from activists and politicians.
1. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  That's because the only people who care (a fraction of the West) have no way to affect the biggest part of the problem (India and China).
2. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  Correct. In fact ONLY the US has not increased their CO2 emissions year over year. Even the EU has been increasing CO2 emissions every year. So just stop already. We aren't going to do anything about it. We will just need to live with it.
3. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  Correct. In fact ONLY the US has not increased their CO2 emissions year over year. Even the EU has been increasing CO2 emissions every year. So just stop already. We aren't going to do anything about it. We will just need to live with it.
  Actually, if European governments stopped "doing something about it", Europe could be lowering their CO2 emissions as well.
  The problem with the global warming activists isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their idiotic belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
4. Re:Global warming by serviscope_minor · 2015-05-14 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with the global warming activists isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their idiotic belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
  If it wasn't for government action, people would still be hauling coal out of the ground and burning it in the dirtiest (i.e. cheapest) ways. Your "government is bad because it's an axiom" argument is stupid.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
5. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-14 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  The problem ... isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their ... belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
  I'm intrigued. What is the best way to accomplish this? I'd advocate a market based solution (but not cap and trade), but even that would require government intervention. Is there a better way?
6. Re:Global warming by Blaskowicz · 2015-05-14 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the evil government. I did find one government that acts on climate change
  http://theconversation.com/beh...
7. Re:Global warming by Blaskowicz · 2015-05-14 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Without government you eventually devolve into militia rule, slavery, rape, forcible starvation etc.
  Perhaps you save much energy from the collapse of the standards of living of 98% of the population, and slave labor is an alternative source of energy.
8. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention. The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking, an innovation driven by the market trying to increase the supply of a scarce resource, not government.
  The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
  In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited. Nothing the US or foreign governments can politically accomplish is going to be a bigger incentive than that.
9. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  If it wasn't for government action, people would still be hauling coal out of the ground and burning it in the dirtiest (i.e. cheapest) ways.
  Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
10. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Did I say anywhere that I wanted no government? I talked specifically about government intervention in the economy.
  As for slavery, you really need to learn some history. Slavery is a construct of governments. In the US, slavery only continued to exist until the civil war because state and federal governments guaranteed and enforced property rights in slaves. That's why the fugitive slave act was such a hot issue.
11. Re:Global warming by itzly · 2015-05-14 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
  They do, if there's no fair market price for pollution.
  
  The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking,
  A lucky coincidence. Similar kinds of innovation are responsible for digging up tar sands, which increase carbon emissions per unit of energy.
12. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-14 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
  
  By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
  
  The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth
  Agreed. We need to proceed with caution. We're better equipped to tackle this if we're rich. Let's plan to stay that way.
  
  In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited.
  
  The big problem is that there is much more fossil fuel available than we can safely burn. Just waiting until we run out (or diminish stocks to the point that they become prohibitively or even relatively expensive) is not really a solution.
13. Re:Global warming by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
  I'm against using a carbon tax to reduce income and sales taxes because if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon which means you have to increase them again (with all of the politics that involves). Instead what I favor is a dividend where the proceeds of the carbon tax are distributed back in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That rewards those with a lower carbon footprint and penalizes those with a higher carbon footprint.
14. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-14 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon
  I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.
15. Re:Global warming by david_thornley · 2015-05-14 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the externality problem. The market only accounts for costs that the various players have to pay themselves. If a certain valuable activity requires some sort of fuel, then the market will optimize its consumption based on the direct cost. It will do nothing about any costs borne by anybody other than that particular market actor.
  Consider good old-fashioned pollution. A factory owner might run a factory at its economic optimum by spewing pollution all over the place. That comes at a cost, but that cost is not paid for by the factory owner, so it doesn't affect his or her decisions. The factory owner will only clean up if required to do so by law or regulation, or if some sort of cost of pollution is imposed. This is normally done by government.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
16. Re:Global warming by TapeCutter · 2015-05-14 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Even barter assumes that some form of property law exists.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
17. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  The one and only thing preventing us from having a 100% carbon free energy economy is government. Nuclear energy would have by now, if it had only been allowed to develop like McDonald's, be on its 339th generation reactor instead of 3rd or 4th. Modern designs can process their own waste as fuel and desalinate seawater by tons per minute.
18. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Any more complex market requires governance.
  Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
  
  The big problem is that there is much more fossil fuel available than we can safely burn.
  I suggest you do the math on that. I did, and I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
19. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  The factory owner will only clean up if required to do so by law or regulation, or if some sort of cost of pollution is imposed. This is normally done by government.
  You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
  
  You're missing the externality problem.
  Externalities only exist because government created them. Take water pollution. If the body of water being polluted belongs to a private party, that party bears those costs. It becomes an "externality" (a cost effectively born by all people) when the government makes that body of water "public property".
20. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-14 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
  Could you give me an example? Game theory suggests that this would fail on any large scale.
  
  I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
  Assuming you have a good account of undiscovered repositories, which I think is probably unlikely, how do you know that 1000 ppm is quite safe? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
21. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know it's safe? You look at Earth's history and see when it was that high last time:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
  It actually went as high as 1700 ppm during the Cretaceous era; mean global temperatures were about 4C above modern temperatures, but the sun was a few percent weaker. Generally, when mean global temperatures go up, the higher latitudes get warmer, leading to an overall more gentle climate.
  The way fossil fuels were deposited and the fact that a lot of them are not recoverable also pretty much tells you that we couldn't reach anywhere near those atmospheric carbon concentrations by burning fossil fuels even if we wanted to.
22. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  Could you give me an example? Game theory suggests that this would fail on any large scale.
  The underground economy and black markets are large scale markets that operate just fine without property rights or government regulation.
  I don't see why you think that game theory suggests that "this would fail on any large scale".
23. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-14 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's some crazy thinking. You realize sea levels were 550 feet higher then as well? (R.D. Muller et al 2008). So you started by saying that you don't deny the science, you just don't like the proposed solutions. What's your solution? Reject the science.
24. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-14 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Markets by definition... as long as that definition is limited to black markets... notwithstanding the fact that these are governed by the mafia.
25. Re:Global warming by dave420 · 2015-05-14 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  So all those other times the government stepped in and helped save some aspect of the planet we rely on as a species, that didn't happen. Gotcha. Your logic is fucking embarrassing.
26. Re:Global warming by dave420 · 2015-05-14 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  So you don't know much about markets or climate science, yet here you are, espousing how the former can fix problems with the latter. Incredible.
27. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-14 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. In fact ONLY the US has not increased their CO2 emissions year over year.
  Provably false in 2013 and 2014. Looks like the recession is finally over.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
28. Re:Global warming by Stuarticus · 2015-05-15 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Would BP have paid anything for the Gulf of Mexico if there was no government? Why don't you ask Nigeria for their opinion. By what means would restitution be made in your imaginary free state? By legal action? The people who are negatively affected are already broke, how are they going to hire a legal team to go up against a company with as much money as your average oil company makes? A strong government is needed to coerce companies into payment, if you can't see this from real world examples that abound right now you are too blinded by your ideology to think clearly and should really try an open your eyes.
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
29. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Most black market activity isn't "governed by the mafia" or any form of organized crime.
  Where is your "game theory suggests" reference?
30. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  hat's some crazy thinking. You realize sea levels were 550 feet higher then as well?
  Sea levels can't rise another 550 ft, there simply isn't enough water in the ice caps. And it would take thousands of years for our ice caps to melt, more than enough time for humans to adapt without even noticing.
  
  So you started by saying that you don't deny the science, you just don't like the proposed solutions.
  Correct, because the solutions are far worse than the warming.
31. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  If it wasn't for government action, people would still be hauling coal out of the ground and burning it in the dirtiest (i.e. cheapest) ways.
  Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
  I guess you are not trying to present evidence for the vast "Global Warming Conspiracy" for now?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
32. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Would BP have paid anything for the Gulf of Mexico if there was no government?
  What is this "no government" bs? I'm not arguing against government in general, I'm pointing out that governments create the problem of externalities through their policies.
  BP paid nowhere near enough for their oil spill precisely because governments allowed them to get away with paying nowhere near enough. In fact, the reason that BP can drill in a valuable and sensitive area in the first place is because governments gave them license to do so.
  
  if you can't see this from real world examples that abound right now you are too blinded by your ideology to think clearly and should really try an open your eyes
  The BP oil spill did happen, and the people harmed by it didn't get properly compensated, and the reason for that is that our benighted government valued the environment and their suffering so little that BP got away with it. And you weren't so blinded by your ideology, you would see that.
33. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
  You are aware that you disagree with every single "skeptic" who claims that any action against Global Warming would wreck the economy.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
34. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking
  Yeah, it certainly isn't because you stopped looking at numbers from 2013 on.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
35. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  So all those other times the government stepped in and helped save some aspect of the planet we rely on as a species, that didn't happen.
  "All those other times"? Like which?
36. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you are not trying to present evidence for the vast "Global Warming Conspiracy" for now?
  I never have presented such evidence because there is none. AGW activism is an army of fools, not a conspiracy.
37. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, it certainly is, it's still way down from its peak in 2007.
38. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  The factory owner will only clean up if required to do so by law or regulation, or if some sort of cost of pollution is imposed. This is normally done by government.
  You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
  >
  
  You are right insofar that if there were no government, people could just "handle" any polluters in a"confrontational" way, and "solve the problem" in a permanent way. Reading your other comments, that's actually your "just fine solution" to every problem.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
39. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  You are aware that you disagree with every single "skeptic" who claims that any action against Global Warming would wreck the economy.
  Not "any action", just "any of the proposed government actions".
  Feel free to jump into a volcano for the benefit of mankind, with my blessings!
40. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  The one and only thing preventing us from having a 100% carbon free energy economy is government. Nuclear energy would have by now, if it had only been allowed to develop like McDonald's, be on its 339th generation reactor instead of 3rd or 4th.
  
  Nobody would have developed nuclear power if it hadn't been for huge government subsidies.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
41. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  You are right insofar that if there were no government
  Where did I advocate "no government"? What I pointed out is that government policies, not markets, create the problem of externalities. Different government policies can avoid the problem of externalities.
42. Re:Global warming by dave420 · 2015-05-15 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  The solutions are worse according to you. According to the people who actually study this, they are not. But seeing as this information is freely available, and yet you either deny its existence or veracity (without letting on), you are clearly not interested in engaging in a discussion where you might learn something. You've closed your ears, and you seem happy about it. Weird.
43. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-15 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sea levels can't rise another 550 ft, there simply isn't enough water in the ice caps.
  
  You seem very certain about a topic that you appear to understand only superficially. You have neglected thermal expansion.
44. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-15 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Most black market activity isn't "governed by the mafia"
  
  I think at best you could say that some black market activity isn't governed by organized crime. Either way, we have come a long way from "Markets by definition..."
45. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  The solutions are worse according to you. According to the people who actually study this, they are not
  Solutions to global warming and their tradeoffs are a political and moral decision, not a scientific one. Yes, that is something you need to get off your lazy ass and think about for yourself.
  Not engaging in a discussion and closing your ears is what you have done. And it's not weird at all: your kind of apathy and lack of intellectual curiosity is widespread.
46. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  I think at best you could say that some black market activity isn't governed by organized crime.
  No, I can say, and I did say, that most black market activity isn't governed by organized crime, and I stand by that.
  
  Either way, we have come a long way from "Markets by definition..."
  Yes, as in you obviously have completely lost the thread of what we are talking about. We talked about carbon taxes, and I said calling them a "market-based solution" to climate change is wrong. All carbon taxes do is slow down economic activity, the same as if you imposed draconian emission limits.
47. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  Water's volumetric thermal expansion coefficient is 2 x 10^-4. You really are a testament to the scientific illiteracy of AGW activists.
48. Re:Global warming by Layzej · 2015-05-15 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  A coefficient is only so interesting. A more interesting number would be the percentage of sea level rise that is attributable to thermal expansion.
49. Re:Global warming by uninformedLuddite · 2015-05-15 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  This is also of interest
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
50. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  You are right insofar that if there were no government
  Where did I advocate "no government"? +
  Well, your solution would only work if there were no government - so you admit it wouldn't work as you describe it. Case closed.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
51. Re:Global warming by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you are not trying to present evidence for the vast "Global Warming Conspiracy" for now?
  I never have presented such evidence because there is none.
  
  So you admit there is no conspiracy as claimed by most deniers. At least that's a start.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
52. Re:Global warming by david_thornley · 2015-05-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  The reason a factory owner gets away with pollution is that no individual has the incentive or means to stop him. The problem started when there were no government restrictions, and the government restrictions came about as a result of pollution.
  How do you think a private property owner is supposed to defend against pollution? Are you proposing a cheap and painless court system that can do its own investigation, in other words one far more expensive and intrusive than we've got now? By shooting the factory owner? The factory owner can afford to hire a few people who are actually good with guns as defense.
  The natural state of property is not to be completely divided up among people as private property. There have been common areas as far back as anyone can tell, and rivers and lakes are typically not private property.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
53. Re:Global warming by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-16 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  There have been common areas as far back as anyone can tell, and rivers and lakes are typically not private property.
  There have also been slavery and totalitarianism as far back as anyone can tell; that doesn't mean that we need to continue engaging in such idiotic practices.
  
  The reason a factory owner gets away with pollution is that no individual has the incentive or means to stop him.
  Private property rights doesn't mean "individuals".
  
  How do you think a private property owner is supposed to defend against pollution? Are you proposing a cheap and painless court system that can do its own investigation, in other words one far more expensive and intrusive than we've got now?
  No, far simpler: shared private ownership, the way a lot of shared property is already aministered. It's far less expensive than what we have got now. And it is exactly as intrusive as the participating owners want it to be.
54. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-16 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  So you admit there is no conspiracy as claimed by most deniers. At least that's a start.
  So you're admitting then that scientists working on AGW are suffering the scientific equivalent of mass hysteria or a stock market panic? Great, that's indeed a start on your road to understanding of how the real world works.
55. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-16 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  The logical conclusion for any sane, rational person to my statement "government gives corporations license to pollute" is "government should stop giving corporations license to pollute", not "abolish government".
Good News .... by pollarda · 2015-05-14 02:28 · Score: 1

This is great news! There will soon be new baby glaciers out and about playing in the cool mountains and valleys of Greenland. Most mothers consider stretch marks a small price to pay for their children. I'm sure glacial mommies feel the same way about their little baby glacial rug rats.
1. Re:Good News .... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  baby glaciers are called icebergs, and sometimes they grow up to be Titanics. :-)
Re:A poltical agenda? by MrL0G1C · 2015-05-14 02:32 · Score: 2

It looks like the scientists of NASA's biggest agenda is to protect this planet, why would you think otherwise?

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Black Ice by MrL0G1C · 2015-05-14 02:34 · Score: 1

Those glaciers look very sooty, does anyone know how much of that is man made from coal and diesel pollution?

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
1. Re:Black Ice by _anomaly_ · 2015-05-14 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Coal and diesel pollution?
  Haven't you ever seen a snow-covered parking lot get the snow plowed into piles, and then watch those piles melt away, becoming more and more "sooty", as you put it?
  It's sediment gathered up in the glacier when it was forming, over a long period of time. As it melts, the sediment becomes more concentrated because it stays put while the water runs away.
  
  --
  "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
2. Re:Black Ice by MrL0G1C · 2015-05-14 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's a valid question, we've burned enough fossil fuels to the point were the amounts of CO2 we have put out would cover the entire globe in a blanket of co2 three foot high, so why is it so hard to believe that with that 3foot of co2 was also a fair bit of soot to go with it, we are burning about 7,000,000,000 tonnes of coal every year, that's a lot of smog and soot.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
3. Re:Black Ice by itzly · 2015-05-14 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a study dedicated to finding that out: http://darksnowproject.org/
4. Re:Black Ice by MrL0G1C · 2015-05-14 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, a proper answer not silly pointless guessing.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
5. Re:Black Ice by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  This is incorrect. Both the snow-covered parking lot and the glaciers are sooty because of actual soot. "Sediment" doesn't rain onto the glacier from the sky, soot from pollution (and to a lesser extent, volcanoes and wildfires) does. Sediment refers to soil deposited by flowing liquid water, and may occur underneath a glacier or somewhere downhill from one (placed there by melt water). The motion of water within a glacier or a parking lot snow bank is always downward due to gravity, so any particulates within came from the atmosphere, not the ground.
6. Re:Black Ice by HiThere · 2015-05-14 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  While sediments *are* gathered up by glaciers as they move, the sediments are gathered at the bottom of the glaciers...unless you are proposing some mechanism for moving the sediments from the bottom to the top.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:Black Ice by TapeCutter · 2015-05-14 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Soot (and dust) is a factor in AGW. It speeds up melting, or deposits the heat it absorbs when airborne into the ocean. Dust is thought to be a +ve feedback, more heat leads to more dust, which in turn leads to faster warming.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
-dafuq, Slashdot? by Penguinisto · 2015-05-14 02:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm usually not one to ad hominem by source, but seriously... slate.com? The whole site is a political screed. But, it gets worse...
You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific -or- academic.
The one academic link points to a summary on UCAR, from 2007(!?), that contains exactly one pretty chart, but *no data* to back it up (or even a link to said data.) If someone finds a link to hard data in any of this mess, please let me know. Meanwhile, it should be noted that one of UCAR's missions is literally "Engaging in effective advocacy."
The one scientific link, to a NASA project site, tells the actual story. the TL;DR is that most of what they saw was routine, but two small areas got their attention... and they didn't measure those areas with anything useful, but instead literally used:

These images were not produced with the lasers, radar, and other instruments flying on the aircraft. (Check out the mission page for content like that.) Rather, IceBridge scientist John Sonntag captured these scenes with a handheld digital camera while looking out the aircraft window.
If you're going to link to something as backup for a story, how about you make it an article that contains some fact, and not an alarmist screed which supports its premise with a series of blind alley links, only one of which eventually leads to something useful... and that useful thing isn't even all that scientific?
Seriously - if you want less skeptics on the subject, it would help if you provided something more than blind assertion by a university-affiliated advocacy group, and what one guy did with his little handycam...

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
1. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by fustakrakich · 2015-05-14 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, we go to war with less. Scaring people seems to be be the best way to motivate them, if starving them doesn't work sufficiently.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Barsteward · 2015-05-14 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific -or- academic.
  thats 2 more than the deniers usually produce, they usually link to denial blog sites.
  
  Seriously - if you want less skeptics on the subject,
  There is nothing wrong with sceptics, its the deniers you want to eliminate
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
3. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NoOneInParticular · 2015-05-14 03:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am sorry that you feel left out. Guess what, this is what it means when the science is settled. It means that people stop caring about your untenable position. The world moves on and we are now looking at the effects of global warming, knowing that it occurs and that we do not know where it will stop. Glaciers are retreating, North Pole is shrinking, and Western Antartica is melting.
  In contrast with you, Big Oil got the picture, and quite a few investigations are underway to figure out where the oil is when (not if, when) parts of the North Pole become accessible year around. I'm sure if Big Oil would listens to you they would save the 100s of millions they invest in this, but guess what, they follow the science, not the self-proclaimed sceptics that haven't been able to field a single climate model that explains how anthropogenic CO2 increase will NOT lead to climate change.
4. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  There is nothing wrong with sceptics, its the deniers you want to eliminate
  Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
5. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-14 03:27 · Score: 2
  
  its the deniers you want to eliminate
  Good grief. I think the word you're searching for is "convince". And even that is dubious, at least based on how I see the term "denier" indiscriminately used in the real world. Forcing conformity is not how science gets moved forward.
  
  For example, M&M are frequently labeled as "bad" "deniers" who just need to be quiet and go away. But in fact, they have contributed insightful criticisms to the field, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something. There's a fair amount of noise on climateaudit.org, but there's also a useful signal to be found in there.
6. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Penguinisto · 2015-05-14 03:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I think the biggest problem with this whole debate (at least insofar as slashdot) is illustrated in your post...
  Are you specifying "deniers" as in 'deniers of Anthropogenic Climate Change', or as in 'deniers or climate change' (the latter noticeably minus the human component)?
  It's something I find disturbing... I'll explain a bit: Most of the alarmist crowd seem to hide behind that lack of distinction up there when advocating their views. To be fair, sadly, so does the media - especially the mainstream media. I'm not 100% certain if this is because of the overpowering desire for using shorthand terms in lieu of precision, or if it's just a dishonest attempt to discredit those who truly do not believe that humans are affecting global climate to the degree asserted by the alarmist crowd, and/or to bolster the 'because, science! arguments.
  It would be helpful to avoid such things. I say this because while yes, I know for fact, based on evidence, that global climate has and always will change. What I do not know for certain (and that no one has yet conclusively proven) is whether recent changes are caused *primarily* by human activity, what the scope of that impact is if or otherwise, and if proven, what that impact will be. Here's the trick - most climate scientists do not know for certain, and cannot (yet) prove one way or the other, IMHO.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
7. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Penguinisto · 2015-05-14 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I am sorry that you feel left out. Guess what, this is what it means when the science is settled.
  Not to be trollish, but why is there a voice in my head that chants "A reading from the Gospel According To Doctor Mann..." whenever I see blind assertion that "the science is settled" - used as if it were some sort of magic wand that waves away the need for fact and proof?
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
8. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by serviscope_minor · 2015-05-14 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
  So the only thing you have in defence is an ad homenim attack?
  This is actually a PERFECT example of such an attack: using an attack on the people making the argument to try to disregard the argument. By the way, the science doesn't care if you have a strong emotional investment in the subject.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by bondsbw · 2015-05-14 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  Skepticism is denying that the subject at hand has been sufficiently verified.
  The idea that all "deniers" ignore all evidence is often used to form strawman arguments.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
10. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NoOneInParticular · 2015-05-14 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, something like that. I think the re-education camps should be basic physics and reasoning courses, with as a graduation exercise the formal delivery of a reasonably plausible climate model that takes anthropogenic CO2 increase as a forcing term and explains how that would NOT lead to climate change. Or, if not interested in taking that up, a big dose of STFU.
11. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  We shouldn't waste our time arguing with people who are unwilling to consider alternative explanations to their specific models of reality.
  “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
  Max Planck
12. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-14 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  We shouldn't waste our time arguing with people who are unwilling to consider alternative explanations to their specific models of reality.
  On the contrary, we can argue with people all we like. Of course, the Slashdot comments section is just an online forum where (for the most part) non-scientists are playing a sort of team sport of advocating the view they think is correct. In a few cases trolling, but probably not that many.
  
  The people who are doing the real scientific advancement aren't arguing with people at all per se, but interacting with ideas and testing them with data and analysis.
13. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  I say this because while yes, I know for fact, based on evidence, that global climate has and always will change. What I do not know for certain (and that no one has yet conclusively proven) is whether recent changes are caused *primarily* by human activity, what the scope of that impact is if or otherwise, and if proven, what that impact will be. Here's the trick - most climate scientists do not know for certain, and cannot (yet) prove one way or the other, IMHO.
  No scientists anywhere in the world deal in facts. And neither do you. No one does. That is the purpose of science. To seek the reason behind why things happen, and those reasons shift as scientists uncover more information. I think the word "science" has been perverted to push political agendas for so long that people have forgotten what it actually means.
  
  Here's the trick - most climate scientists do not know for certain, and cannot (yet) prove one way or the other, IMHO
  You can't make a definite statement as such and then that it is your "humble" opinion. Either it is your opinion, or it it is a definite statement, it can't be both.
14. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  So the only thing you have in defence is an ad homenim attack?
  Where is my "ad hominem" attack supposed to be?
  I simply reminded people, in a somewhat sarcastic way, that progressives and the left have a long history of declaring scientific matters as clearcut (though they later turn out wrong) and committing state violence against people who disagree.
15. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by BergZ · 2015-05-14 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not to be trollish, but why is there a voice inside my head that chants "A reading from the Gospel of Evolution 'skeptics' and other purveyors of FUD" whenever I see someone complain about consensus in science?
  
  --
  Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
16. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  There is no convincing a true climate science denier. They are ideologically incapable of being convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
17. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Layzej · 2015-05-14 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific
  
  It would be nice if they provided sources, but there is nothing really controversial in the article. The article from 2007 noted that arctic sea ice was diminishing faster than any models had predicted. That has not changed since 2007: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/rep... .
18. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Penguinisto · 2015-05-14 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not complaining about "consensus", just the use of it as a debate bludgeon. Please learn the difference. ;)
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
19. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, something like that. I think the re-education camps should be basic physics and reasoning courses, with as a graduation exercise the formal delivery of a reasonably plausible climate model that takes anthropogenic CO2 increase as a forcing term and explains how that would NOT lead to climate change.
  
  Of course anthropogenic CO2 increases lead to "climate change". The debate is about how much, whether it's worth worrying about it, and whether we can do anything about it. From your remarks, it appears you don't even understand why it's called "forcing".
  
  Or, if not interested in taking that up, a big dose of STFU.
  Well, dearest, it looks like you and your ilk are on the losing end of this debate, because nothing effective is being done about climate change, and nothing effective will be done. So, if you want to slow climate change, the best think you can do is STFU because that will reduce carbon emissions from you.
20. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Penguinisto · 2015-05-14 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  PS: ...where did Charles Darwin come from? I didn't know he was a climatologist.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
21. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  When I use the term "denier" nowadays I always specify "climate science denier" because that's what they are.
22. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NoOneInParticular · 2015-05-14 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  For me, I draw the line with some basic facts and basic physics. If you disagree with those, I would say that you're in denial, and to have a rational discussion is as likely to have a rational discussion with a Young Earther on geology. This basic fact is that there is anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. We had a lot of CO2 captured in the soil of the earth, and we've put it in the atmosphere. If you want to dispute that, there's no helping you, you are in denial. Second is a basic bit of physics: with increased CO2 there is increased retention of heat -- given all else being equal. This is the greenhouse effect. If you dispute that, I would like to urge you to create a greenhouse and observe. We can fairly accurate estimate what increase in warmth we can expect with increase in CO2 concentration. Again, disregarding all other factors such as heat sinks and many of the things that make climate modelling so difficult. This is a highly idealized physical theory that cannot be blindly applied to climate, yet it establishes one important thing: CO2 is a forcing term in the earth's atmosphere by its ability to capture heat. And we can very exactly compute how much heat it captures, and boy, are we in trouble!
  If you accept those two things, it might be worth having a discussion about climate change. We, as humans, have introduced a forcing term in the climate that can be expressed as an additional amount of energy that is retained in the atmoshpere, and we are now trying to establish the actual effects. It is fine to be sceptic about some of the results, but honestly, you should also consider the possibility that some of those models are right. Just dismissing them is not an option, as the idealized model already predicts massive trouble. You would have to explain how this is NOT a problem. Claiming ignorance won't help you here, as you are arguing that many knowledgeable people are basically wrong.
  The third breed of denier/sceptic is the 'anti-alarmist'. They hate the discussion about what to do about climate change and are denying the science in order to derail the discussion. A fair person would examine the actual ideas, and propose a weighted argument about the costs of the ideas versus the actual uncertainty in the rate of change we're experiencing. A denier just denies the science.
  Finally, there is the bona fide sceptic. Somebody that has read up on the subject, has found some major issues, and is busy keeping his peers (because he is climate scientist by now) honest. Some of them exist (people know them by name), and although many don't agree with them, the are fairly well respected.
  So, what type are you: the 'young-earth' equivalent of the denier that cannot understand logic and science, the lazy sceptic that does understand a bit of science but cannot be bothered to actually read up on it, or the political activist that denies the science because he hates his policial adversaries, or a scientist that has some informed sceptical point of view? You seem to be a mix of the first three. A bit more honest than most, but still pretty deluded in your reasoning.
23. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-14 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  There is no convincing a true [global warming alarmist]. They are ideologically incapable of being convinced of the [measurable failure of Al Gore's crusade].
  FTFY. In fact, you can plug any kind of dogma in there and the formula works.
24. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm usually not one to ad hominem by source, but seriously... slate.com? The whole site is a political screed. But, it gets worse...
  You could take a little initiative of your own and look in to Operation Ice Bridge which is the serious scientific research behind the article. But yes, the article could have pointed there too.
25. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing wrong with sceptics, its the deniers you want to eliminate
  Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
  No, all that is necessary is to relegate you to the same status as the chemtrail crowd or the moon landing hoax believers so no one pays any attention to you.
26. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Touche. Nevertheless the majority of scientific evidence continues to support my side of the issue.
27. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-14 05:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Touche. Nevertheless the majority of scientific evidence continues to support my side of the issue.
  That may be true. However, I dispute that carbon sensitivity estimations based on computer simulations and projections should be considered scientific evidence, nor taken particularly seriously until and unless they are verified from Mother Nature.
28. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by gabrieltss · 2015-05-14 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah scientists believe in facts.... Just like the scientists that still believe man evolved from apes.... No proof yet - no "missing link" - total BS! just like everyone else knows.
  
  --
  The Truth is a Virus!!!
29. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NoOneInParticular · 2015-05-14 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  It was actually not an assertion, but an observation. I used the article that you fulminated against as an argument that the apparently, the world is moving on. The debate rages in fringe websites and far right political theatres. In scientific circles, there is no debate as the 'sceptical' side has completely failed to put any new arguments or competing theories in the debate for the past two decades. That's what the 'science is settled' means.
30. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 05:28 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  given all else being equal.
  That's the huge one. If forced to bet, I would be on the side that albedo or some other factor will alter to maintain very near the same temperature at the same pressures given the energy input. There appears to be an equilibrium point that any sufficiently complex atmosphere strives to maintain. For example, Venus and its clouds. I really expect focusing on the greenhouse/temperature effects of CO2 to end up a huge folly that puts egg on the face of the scientific effort as a whole. There are many other possible effects that could have been chosen instead. I hope I am being too skeptical and the climate researchers pushing this stuff really know what they are doing.
31. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by tbannist · 2015-05-14 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  Skepticism is denying that the subject at hand has been sufficiently verified.
  No, it isn't. Skepticism is reserving judgement on an issue until sufficient factual evidence has been provided to actually make an informed decision.
  
  The idea that all "deniers" ignore all evidence is often used to form strawman arguments.
  Of course deniers don't ignore all evidence, they only ignore the evidence that is contrary to their position and accept unquestioningly anything that supports their position.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
32. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-14 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing wrong with sceptics, its the deniers you want to eliminate
  Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
  Gee, could you decide if you are the persecuted Jews, or if you are called Nazis. Claiming both makes you look stupid squared.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
33. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think you know what the words you use mean. Do you even English? "Progressive" is the opposite of declaring scientific (or any other) matters settled and thus preventing progress. You're thinking of the right-wing, conservative, religious types.
34. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  18 years 5 months no temperature rise, and a slight decline trend.
  Nature as always has the last laugh.
35. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  What's the problem? Progressives should be called regressives, They picked the wrong word, not Nostalgia.
36. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-14 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Progressives are reactionary socialists who want to return to the politics of the 1930s.
  Liberals are opposed to liberty.
  That's America's political language today.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
37. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-14 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  That works both ways.
  Looking around, your side appears to be losing.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
38. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-14 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's all about the CO2 / H2O vapor positive feedback coefficient.
  CO2 alone is not a significant greenhouse gas. To make it a problem they have to posit a positive feedback from CO2 to temp to H2O vapor to more temp etc etc.
  Climate scientist are happy to pull large feedback coefficients from dark places (this is where the range of projections come from). Some have seriously put forward such high coefficients that the first exhale would inevitably make earth Venus. We mock them for this, you defend them.
  Yes I am a 'professional' computer modeler. The simple fact is any competent modeler can make the model tell him/her anything they want the hear. In the utility industry computer modeling is an adversarial process (like lawyering). Competent modelers on both sides and objectively running the meetings. Spending weeks at a time taking apart each others datasets.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
39. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I wish we were losing because that would mean anthropogenic global warming was not going to be a problem. But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise. It's not going to go way and you'll be living with it for the rest of your life.
  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
40. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Dispute all the climate sensitivity estimations you want. At the rate we're going even the lowest estimations just mean it takes a few more decades to get there.
41. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  The fun question to ask is, "So, what will the Earth do over time if we got CO2 emissions down to say WW2 levels and say this lowering of levels is all achieved by Christmas 2015?"
42. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-14 09:39 · Score: 2
  
  I'm all for real world evidence. Note: Output from computer models is NOT real world evidence.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
43. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-14 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. There is a massive difference between 1C temp raise and 4.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
44. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Vitriol+Angst · 2015-05-14 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I came for the stretch marks.
  Why do we always have to discuss the manner in the way data is presented when it's pretty well known that Global Warming is changing the poles? Much better to spend our time on "what's next" and "how fast?"
  The stretch marks are obviously and indication of movement that is "faster" than what we usually see; and how fast is that? A meter per day?
  I'm thinking something the size of New Jersey is going to slip into the ocean in the next few years and "what happens" after that? Do we get a tsunami?
  
  --
  >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
45. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by david_thornley · 2015-05-14 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Is this supposed to be multiple choice, or can we select more than one?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
46. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by david_thornley · 2015-05-14 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Um, have you noticed that it's getting warmer around here? Have you noticed that CO2 has gone from about 280ppm to 400ppm since about 1850, and it's a result of human burning of fossil fuels? That CO2 has been a known greenhouse gas for over a century? Is any of this not real-world evidence?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
47. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by david_thornley · 2015-05-14 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  That only applies to people who believed climate change was happening because of Al Gore. If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it. Unfortunately, nobody who has tried to respond to my requests in the past has come up with anything that works. (The last guy pointed me to a web page claiming that global warming projections had failed, without giving error bars for the projections. A projection only fails if the real result is outside the error bars.)
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
48. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by david_thornley · 2015-05-14 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's also because of the heating up. If we're putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 is a forcing greenhouse gas (water is a greenhouse gas, but self-regulating so it can't force a change), and the temperature is going up (and those three hypotheticals are indeed true), then it seems to me that AGW is the obvious conclusion, and anybody who thinks it isn't happening has some explaining to do.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
49. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by david_thornley · 2015-05-14 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Have you talked to a psychologist or psychiatrist about that voice?
  Dr. Mann is one researcher. No one researcher gets to say what's true or not. A "scientific consensus" is a short way of saying that a whole lot of smart people have devoted years and years to studying something, and they've almost all come up with the same conclusion. This is typically done by amassing a lot of facts and going through scientific proofs.
  The nice thing about science is that you can theoretically go through it yourself, but in practice it's really, really hard. I trust physicists when they talk about quantum mechanics because, although I can understand some of the reasoning, I have no personal experience with the experimental data.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
50. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-14 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it.
  What would be unusual is if climate change wasn't happening. When I hear the phrase "climate change denier" (which I know you didn't use, so just putting this out there), I wonder if anybody even exists who fits that description.
51. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for real world evidence. Note: Output from computer models is NOT real world evidence.
  The real world evidence is not in the climate models. They are merely tools to test how well we understand the interactions between the different things that affect climate. You may think they don't do that well but so far the real world observations are still within the 95% confidence range of the climate model output.
  Real world evidence is in the surface temperature measurements, the melting of ice, the rise of sea level (from both melting ice and thermal expansion). Real world evidence is in the changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals. Real world evidence is in the simple physical formula for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature discovered by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago.
  If the current El Nino continues through the end of the year 2015 or 2016 will likely set an unequivocal new global temperature record much like 1998 did. What will you have to say then?
52. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Climate sensitivity is defined as the expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2. But the way things are going now we won't stop at a doubling of CO2 so the difference between 1C and 4C is more a matter of time than any absolute limit on temperature rise.
  Also I like how you guys always latch on to the bottom of the sensitivity range as if that's the only possible value. As I said in another place why aren't you as skeptical of 1C sensitivity as you are of 5C sensitivity? Time will tell but usually the middle of the range (around 3C in this case) is the most likely answer.
53. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HiThere · 2015-05-14 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, when you have a complicated feedback relation it's not quite clear what "*primarily*" means. Often there are threshold effects, and it is, indeed, the last straw that breaks the camel's back, because that's what pushes things past the threshold into a region where amplification happens rather than decay.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
54. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  They have completely run out of ammo for global warming and as the years go by with record-breaking cold they still try to point to old data, missing data, and bogus data as proof. The temperature last June was -135.4 degrees below zero. Global warming, from any source including coal, is bankrupt.
55. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  the article is a photo essay, not a scientific paper.
56. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  The science is in on global warming and its the leftist god that failed. You wouldn't have to try to torture data to say its hot if it was actually hot. It simply would be. We'd have no snow or ice in the winters, the polar ice caps would have completely melted 15 years ago like they said they would and that would be it. Also, we'd have no snow today, May 14, 2015, in the lower 48 if the globe was actually "hotter than its ever been before".
57. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  In fairness, it's a photo essay more than a scientific paper.
  its simply reporting on an interesting phenomonon, rather than providing a hard hitting bit of journalistic science reporting.
  and even so, the deniers go crazy with it
58. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  IT WAS COLD ONE DAY LAST YEAR!
  Therefore global warming is a hoax!
  Repent ye sinners!
59. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise.
  We aren't saying that it isn't happening, we are saying that it doesn't matter whether it's happening or not.
  
  It's not going to go way and you'll be living with it for the rest of your life.
  Yes, and so will you. And it's not a problem.
60. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  Reeducation camps, perpetrators: various communist regimes.
  Electroshock therapy and sterilization, perpetrators: American progressives, and their German cousins, the Nazis.
  Shooting and gassing, perpetrators: popular with both communist and fascist regimes.
  Progressives, communists, and fascists all claimed that they had science on their side.
  You're welcome for the history less.
61. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
62. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
  Quite the opposite: I care a great deal in minimizing harm. Even based on the rather biased IPCC reports themselves, it is clear that the cost of action on AGW is staggering, while the cost of doing nothing is small.
63. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by tgrigsby · 2015-05-14 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations. That is the stupidest thing I've read on the internet today.
  The cost of cancer treatment is high; the cost of doing nothing is small. That's the logic you're using. If we attack the problem now, aggressively, we might preserve many of the species that will be adversely affected by rapid shifts in environmental pressures -- ourselves included.
  Or are you of the persuasion that believes a magic man in the sky is going to swoop down and save us all?
  
  --
  *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
64. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by tgrigsby · 2015-05-14 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  Albedo? Do you even know what that word means? You do realize the ice is melting, exposing more dark ocean and earth and accelerating the retention of heat?
  And Venus is your example of a self correcting mechanism? A planet with an surface temperature of nearly 900ÂF thanks to its CO2 atmosphere?
  Please tell me you're actually mocking idiots that make those kinds of statements and l just missed the joke. ....
  
  --
  *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
65. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  Or are you of the persuasion that believes a magic man in the sky is going to swoop down and save us all?
  Save from what? AGW is not a serious threat to human interests; it's at most a small inconvenience decades from now, and probably actually a benefit.
66. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck. I think if you're young enough you'll find out how badly wrong you are.
67. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Barsteward · 2015-05-14 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  You've been watching too many movies. "Eliminate" in this context is not to kill,
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
68. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sonicmerlin · 2015-05-14 19:25 · Score: 2
  
  The IPCC's estimate of action was like .1% of GDP/year, or about $10 billion for the US.
69. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by dave420 · 2015-05-14 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  The evidence you seek is out there, but unless you actually care to learn it, you will remain ignorant. You only have yourself to blame for your ignorance.
70. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by dave420 · 2015-05-14 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  According to you, maybe. According to the actual scientists who are studying AGW, you are incorrect. Seeing as you have no evidence for your position (and those counter to you have lots of evidence), to believe you would seem to be a terrible idea.
71. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by dave420 · 2015-05-14 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  But what about 18 years 4 months or 17 years 5 months? If you cherry pick your data, your opponents always have the last laugh.
72. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-14 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think the biggest problem with this whole debate (at least insofar as slashdot) is illustrated in your post...
  Are you specifying "deniers" as in 'deniers of Anthropogenic Climate Change', or as in 'deniers or climate change' (the latter noticeably minus the human component)?
  The biggest problem is of course that no denying can change the fact that virtually everybody who "is a skeptic" about Anthropogenic Climate Change has at least once denied climate change in one of his arguments, if only by presenting as evidence a "paper" that is fully based on that denial.
  Which his the whole MO of deniers, shovelling around lots of arguments at a fast pace, seemingly disproving AGW, no matter how discredited, and certainly no matter how much at disagreement with each other. All in the hope that one will stick. Which BTW is not how real skepticism works.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
73. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by Stuarticus · 2015-05-14 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Amazing, how can you tell this, do you have a computer model that shows the impacts to be small? Is it reliable? Or maybe you're just guessing. I'd rather take the predictions of scientists and experts working in the field if it's OK with you.
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
74. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-14 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  You're welcome for the history less.
  You couldn't have provided less history.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
75. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise.
  We aren't saying that it isn't happening, we are saying that it doesn't matter whether it's happening or not.
  And you base your claims on what exactly? Output from "models" (IOW sock-puppets like not-a-Lord Monckton) is not evidence - it's the opposite of evidence.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
76. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
  Quite the opposite: I care a great deal in minimizing harm. Even based on the rather biased IPCC reports themselves, it is clear that the cost of action on AGW is staggering, while the cost of doing nothing is small.
  http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/sea-rise-threatens-florida-coast-but-no-statewide-plan/ar-BBjy2pG - the cost of doing nothing amounts to $400 million in Miami Beach alone, and just for new storm water pumps. Now, not in some far away future.
  Got some $400 million left in your sofa cushions?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
77. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. There is a massive difference between 1C temp raise and 4.
  Oh. You think the ~ 1C temperature rise we had since 1910 is already all that we will see in the future? Because "warming has stopped"?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
78. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it.
  What would be unusual is if climate change wasn't happening. When I hear the phrase "climate change denier" (which I know you didn't use, so just putting this out there), I wonder if anybody even exists who fits that description.
  Well, apart from those who directly state that there never was warming? Because I have seen plenty of those? Or apart from those who, as "evidence" against Anthropogenic Climate Change, quote one of those true deniers - which sums up to all "skeptics" I've ever seen.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
79. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it.
  What would be unusual is if climate change wasn't happening.
  PS, but more importantly: why? Why is climate change happening? Why would it be unusual if it didn't?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
80. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather take the predictions of scientists and experts working in the field if it's OK with you.
  It's perfectly OK: what I'm saying is that even if the IPCC predictions are correct, their predicted impact is small compared to the cost of mitigation.
81. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  PS: ...where did Charles Darwin come from? I didn't know he was a climatologist.
  Neither are almost all of the skeptics. What's your point?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
82. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  According to the actual scientists who are studying AGW, you are incorrect
  Scientists are not qualified to assess the economic impact of AGW and mitigation.
  
  Seeing as you have no evidence for your position (and those counter to you have lots of evidence), to believe you would seem to be a terrible idea.
  The evidence is the same as the evidence climate scientists present; the difference is in the interpretation of the economics and the cost of mitigation.
83. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  18 years 5 months no temperature rise, and a slight decline trend.
  Nature as always has the last laugh.
  Denial of facts. See, there are actual deniers right here. And the "skeptics" not only say nothing about them being wrong, they claim they can't see them, that they don't exist.
  Hint: How come 2014 was the warmest year on record if temperatures didn't rise? Has Earth always been exactly that warm?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
84. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  The IPCC's estimate of action was like .1% of GDP/year, or about $10 billion for the US.
  That's no the economic cost, and it's ludicrously low. Economic costs include costs to everybody in the economy, opportunity costs, and discounting.
85. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  You've been watching too many movies. "Eliminate" in this context is not to kill,
  You can kid yourself into believing that it doesn't, but it does: because people refuse to fall in line with the government-mandated version of reality, governments escalate their efforts to "eliminate" their views, all the way until they start killing. That's the problem when governments start deciding truth. And it's what you advocate, even though you don't realize it.
86. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-15 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  I guess there may be people who deny that there ever was an ice age. They are in a very different category from the likes of Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, and the M&M's, who accept climate change, and even accept that humans affect climate change to an unknown degree, as they question claims of anthropogenic catastrophe.
87. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-15 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  And you base your claims on what exactly? Output from "models"
  Yes, output from the IPCC models specifically: even taken at face value, what they predict doesn't matter compared to the cost of mitigation.
88. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by rs79 · 2015-05-15 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  "The evidence is overwhelming: Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate. There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity."
  This is not actually true. NASA points out Antarctic is at an all time high. Snowpack accumulates in the middle and cleaves off from the edges,it's doing what it's supposed to.
  http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
  NSIDC data shows increase, not decreae in sea ice:
  http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
  NASA sat imagery (URL in image) shows Arctic sea ice unchanged after 30 years:
  http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
  (t did half melt, but for 5 years has been growing back)
  "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "
  http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
  I like Slate but I don't know if theyre being deliberately misleading here or are just unaware.
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
89. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by Stuarticus · 2015-05-15 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Where exactly does it say that in the IPCC report?
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
90. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by BCGlorfindel · 2015-05-15 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's also because of the heating up. If we're putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 is a forcing greenhouse gas (water is a greenhouse gas, but self-regulating so it can't force a change), and the temperature is going up (and those three hypotheticals are indeed true), then it seems to me that AGW is the obvious conclusion, and anybody who thinks it isn't happening has some explaining to do.
  Declaring that water vapor is 'self-regulating' is a bit naive. It's pretty well agreed that the affects of water vapor will vary based on atmospheric composition, global temperature, ocean currents, and many more factors as well. It is also agreed that water vapor is currently contributing nearly 70% of the over greenhouse affect while CO2 is far, far less. Are you really comfortable just waving away concerns that water vapor will muddy the picture, because climate scientists are not and are actively working to better model and understand it's impacts.
  No sane person is arguing against CO2 increasing because of us, nor that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse affect. No sane person is arguing against the fact that recorded temperature has been increasing the entire time we've recorded it. Those two points though don't equate to an answer on just how bad our contribution to the problem is.
  Get yourself better informed. Go to sources like the IPCC and look at energy imbalance trends, the amount of energy the greenhouse affect is trapping. Match that to global temperature trends, and you can see that energy has been increasing at a static year to year amount with little trend up or down. Predictably, that matches the linear increasing temperature trend we see, as total energy goes up each year so does the temp. Here's the part though that leads me to say it's not time to panic. Look at CO2 concentrations over that same time, and map them to the energy imbalance(increasing greenhouse effect). CO2 has been rocketing on up and up, but the energy imbalance has been sitting there with no upward trend to match. We know CO2 is contributing, but we still have other factors like water vapor that we are trying to figure out, and the bare numbers suggest that CO2 isn't sending is into a death spiral of accelerating warming, but instead the same continual linear warming we've already seen over the last century.
91. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  did you miss the part where its NASA?
  who modded this shithead up?
92. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  is a link to a photo essay you dumb fuck.
  a photo essay about glaciers in greenland.
  anything about global warming is something you injected into it.
  the only thing remotely related to global warming is the two remarks that "the glaciers have sped up recently".
  stupid denier piece of shit.
93. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-15 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt the data. Because no unmassaged data shows such a rise.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
94. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-15 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  WTF?
  There have been wide ranges of climate models run. It's Bullshit to say the results are within 95% confidence levels. The truth is that there is no such thing as 95% confidence levels for model predictions and models have produced widely differing contradictory results (based on the CO2/H2O vapor feedback coefficient).
  Many of the most alarmist models have already been _disproven_. Some have been laughed off the stage. Particularly those proposed by modelers that didn't understand the models. They just kept raising the CO2/H2O coefficent until the got the results they wanted (the sky is falling). It was later pointed out that they had made the earths atmosphere unstable. The first exhale would have turned Earth into Venus. They slinked away from that model pretty fast after that.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
95. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-15 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  As I said the models are merely tools to test our understanding and the major GCM's are doing pretty well. I see people make claims like like yours all the time but I've never seen any scientifically rigorous debunking of them.
  And as I also said the real evidence is in the real world observations. Why don't you address that?
  (BTW, don't expect a reply soon, I'm leaving for a 5 day whitewater rafting vacation in 20 minutes.)
96. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Some anti-alarmist are real scientists: two Museum d'Histoire Naturelle authors wrote an anti-alarmist book debunking alarmism about the future of the biosphere.
  As they say, biosphere will survive whatever the global warming scenario is - mankind, maybe not.
97. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-15 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore the ground based temperature readings. They are in the hands of known liars.
  Only look at satellite temperature data.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
98. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by uninformedLuddite · 2015-05-15 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Where exactly does it say that in the IPCC report?
  Just after where it says the sky is falling, we will all spontaneously combust by 2013, the oceans will swallow the land, the rich will get richer and land values at the peak of Everest will skyrocket.
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
99. Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? by uninformedLuddite · 2015-05-15 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize the ice is melting, exposing more dark ocean and earth and accelerating the retention of heat?
  I was under the impression that ice coverage was expanding (maybe all the heat that should be melting it is sinking into the deep ocean)
  
  Pot, kettle, molten pool of aluminium(at least in the Mariana Trench)
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
100. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by uninformedLuddite · 2015-05-15 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: How come 2014 was the warmest year on record if temperatures didn't rise?
  Don't you mean how come there was a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year on record?
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
101. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-15 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  I'd just like to point to this: http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/
102. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-16 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  Hint: How come 2014 was the warmest year on record if temperatures didn't rise?
  Don't you mean how come there was a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year on record?
  You won with your 100% chance of being an idiot. Congratulations.
103. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt the data. Because no unmassaged data shows such a rise.
  Where is the "unmassaged" data you believe in?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
104. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  I guess there may be people who deny that there ever was an ice age.
  Wow. You are reaching far back in time there. Usually people don't move the goalpost that far.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
105. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  And you base your claims on what exactly?
  
  Yes, output from the Not-a-Lord Monckton specifically: even taken at face value, what they predict doesn't matter compared to the cost of mitigation.
  I told you, I don't care about Moncky-Boys lies. Do you actually have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
106. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by david_thornley · 2015-05-16 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Water vapor is self-regulating in that the amount in the air will usually be determined by other conditions. If we put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we put more water vapor in the atmosphere, it rains. Therefore, although water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas, it can't cause overall warming on its own, while carbon dioxide can. It can amplify warming, since warm air can have more water vapor.
  I will note that, according to your second paragraph, there's a lot of insane people out there.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
107. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by BCGlorfindel · 2015-05-16 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Water vapor is self-regulating in that the amount in the air will usually be determined by other conditions. If we put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we put more water vapor in the atmosphere, it rains. Therefore, although water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas, it can't cause overall warming on its own, while carbon dioxide can. It can amplify warming, since warm air can have more water vapor.
  The trouble is water vapor is more complicated than that. Depending on conditions water vapor can be both positive and negative as a feedback. What precedes the rain you note, is clouds and heavy cloud cover obviously blocks a lot of radiation. If you take a look at the CMIP5 studies the impact of water vapor in them is still very poorly modelled and a, if not the, major source of uncertainties. The IPCC notes as severe a difference that the sign of clouds as a feedback is still uncertain, with different models disagreeing on the sign. The current consensus looks to be that the resolution of current models isn't fine enough to accurately model cloud effects.
  The fact that energy imbalance has remained constant while CO2 has risen like mad suggests something else in the natural part of the system is offsetting things. Water vapor and clouds would be strong candidates, but we'll have to wait and see as newer models start trying to include those effects in a better way.
  
  I will note that, according to your second paragraph, there's a lot of insane people out there.
  Agreed, but arguing with the insane walks the line of joining their insanity.
108. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-16 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. You are reaching far back in time there.
  Hey, fun exercise: Without googling it, can you say how many years ago you think it was to what is commonly referred to as the "Little Ice Age"?
109. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-16 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  I have no idea who "Lord Monckton" is; I assume he's some kind of irrelevant British fop.
  When you quote people, do so correctly; altering what they say is dishonest.
  I think the IPCC report is largely b.s., but it's the b.s. that people who argue for action on AGW believe in and cite in support of their policies; I'm saying that even if we stipulate that the IPCC report is true, it still doesn't justify action on AGW.
  If you want to convince people to take action on AGW, you need to do better than that.
  Now, do you actually have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion?
110. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. You are reaching far back in time there.
  Hey, fun exercise: Without googling it, can you say how many years ago you think it was to what is commonly referred to as the "Little Ice Age"?
  Far before goal posts were invented to be moved.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
111. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by sideslash · 2015-05-17 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. You are reaching far back in time there.
  Hey, fun exercise: Without googling it, can you say how many years ago you think it was to what is commonly referred to as the "Little Ice Age"?
  Far before goal posts were invented to be moved.
  (yoda voice) So sure of yourself are you? The "Little Ice Age" was an unusually cold period for Europe and North America, which is designated as happening from about 1300 to 1870 AD. The expression "moving the goal posts" refers to association football (aka soccer), which has been played in Europe since the 400's BC and was standardized in the 1800's AD.
112. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-17 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't stop you from moving them again. Come back to the topic.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
113. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2015-05-19 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  No model can show CO2 by itself is a problem. There is not enough of it.
  To make CO2 a problem you have to say that increasing CO2 will force heating/increasing H20 vapor which will force additional heating/H20 vapor.
  Some just raised the model coefficients (to get the results they wanted) and were embarrassed by those who better understood the model.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
114. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-19 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty funny. Do you understand all the calculations and adjustments they have to make to get the satellite temperature records? They're implying the temperature for an amorphous region of the atmosphere that doesn't go down to ground level from the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules. They have to make adjustments for orbital variations, sensor decay, water vapor and clouds and high altitude land. It's much more involved than what they do for surface temperatures.
  The satellite temperatures are useful information but to imply they're more accurate than surface temperatures is absurd. Even one of the scientists, Carl Mears from RSS says he thinks the surface measurements are better.
115. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by Penguinisto · 2015-05-20 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  I wish we were losing because that would mean anthropogenic global warming was not going to be a problem.
  ...in that case, rejoice!
  (not holding my breath...)
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
116. Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? by riverat1 · 2015-05-20 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  James Taylor is an idiot and the story is bullshit. The time to gauge how Arctic sea ice is doing is in September at the sea ice minimum. Arctic sea ice doesn't vary a whole lot in the winter and spring because it's constrained by the surrounding continents. Nevertheless since February it's been setting records for minimum extent for that date.
And people everywhere went by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 02:41 · Score: 0

"lalalalala im not listening"
stretch marks oh noes :-0 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 02:43 · Score: 0

What will "scientists" pull out of their asses next?
It's the lasers!! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 03:01 · Score: 0

There is no global warming! The lasers are melting the ice!!!
Re:A poltical agenda? by Barsteward · 2015-05-14 03:13 · Score: 1

its not surprising you hide behind an anonymous coward posting

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
climate change by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 03:15 · Score: 0

And other conspiracy theories on the next Alex Jones.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 03:16 · Score: 0

You're the one who wants to micromanage everyone's lives. The burden of PROOF is on you.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 03:21 · Score: 0

(Never mind that action on climate change will probably cost millions of people their lives while doing nothing to help the planet. But what do results count as long as your intentions are good?)
You people are sickening.
Stop being such an alarmist.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 03:33 · Score: 0

Says the guy who wants to micromanage my bedroom.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-14 03:55 · Score: 1

LOL not surprised anyone hides behind AC on this.
The gloom and doomers are notably brittle, the only things they dislike more than unbelievers are unbelievers with legitimate points.
If you want empirical evidence of this, just post a list of failed predictions from the warming crowd.
Here's a starter for you
https://wattsupwiththat.files....
Re:A poltical agenda? by NoOneInParticular · 2015-05-14 03:56 · Score: 1

In response to climate change, Elon Musk made a point to make cool electric cars. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, some people have refrained from taking planes and are using their cars if they don't really have to. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, people have chosen to select energy suppliers that provide 'green' energy. Millions of people died.
At this rate of millions dying, we soon will have not enough people to put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the furnace going.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 05:03 · Score: 0

I can understand that the neck beards want to understand the planet as scientists. The notion of protecting it is laughable overreach.
Solution? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 05:12 · Score: 0

Giant slabs of cocoa butter along the sides of the glaciers?
Are you kidding me... by gabrieltss · 2015-05-14 05:19 · Score: 0

More "global warming" religious wars on Slashdot.....
Ok so as soon as ANYONE says "global warming" is BS the the totally worshipers come out of the woodwork to attack them. You could have all kinds of data to combat the believers but that's because your "attacking" their "religion". We all know that the earth was a heck of a low warmer than it is now before man walked the earth - when dinosaurs roamed the earth. What will we blame that on? Dinosaur farts? The global warming religious crowed needs to come to the realization that the earth IS affected by the sun, it's climate is CONSTANTLY changing and has over millions of years. It's not ALL mans fault like the religious zealots want to FORCE everyone to believe. Yes they have their freedom of religion like everyone else. They are free to worship Al Gore, their Carbon Taxes and the men who are/will get rich off of them. And YES the whole "global warming" thing is NOTHING but a religious war!
So we might as well quit talking about it because those who worship their global warming aren't going to change their minds and those who don't believe in the whole global warming thing aren't going to change their minds. The solution - lets just all agree to disagree....
But the religious will attack me and say I'm a brainwashed follower of FOX news or some other total BS Republican mouthpiece, just as they are brainwashed by their Liberal/Democrat mouthpieces. News FLASH - I'm not republican nor democrat - I know BOTH parties are controlled by the SAME people!

--
The Truth is a Virus!!!
1. Re:Are you kidding me... by itzly · 2015-05-14 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  The global warming religious crowed needs to come to the realization that the earth IS affected by the sun
  Yes, that's well understood. But the problem is that the sun has actually slightly decreased in average brightness since the '80s.
2. Re:Are you kidding me... by TapeCutter · 2015-05-14 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  The global warming religious crowed needs to come to the realization that the earth IS affected by the sun
  Whoever told you what the "crowed" thinks, was lying to you.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
3. Re:Are you kidding me... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  well, its not bs. and such stupid people should be mocked.
  they are the equivalent of claiming pi = 3.
  because face it, THERE IS NO DATA to debunk global warming.
  every new piece of evidence only further reinforces it.
4. Re:Are you kidding me... by dave420 · 2015-05-14 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Translation: "I don't know about the climate but fuck you I'm stupid and I love it that way."
5. Re:Are you kidding me... by uninformedLuddite · 2015-05-15 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  There is also no data to debunk the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Your point?
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
And the far left Cheers and goes wild by WindBourne · 2015-05-14 05:20 · Score: 0

Time to blame the west which alltogether accounts for less than 1/3 of all emissions.
At the same time, the far left will allow the single nation that is over 1/3 or 33% and growing fast, to continue to grow its emissions FASTER than the west can cut.

Yeah. Go China.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:And the far left Cheers and goes wild by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  No fucking kidding. Left wingers want nothing less than the total destruction of all human life. PLAIN. SIMPLE. FACT.
2. Re:And the far left Cheers and goes wild by dave420 · 2015-05-14 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  First things first. You understand how that works, right? Right?
3. Re:And the far left Cheers and goes wild by WindBourne · 2015-05-15 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I DO understand it. China continues to grow their coal=>electricity emissions, while the far left screams about nations that have been working at lowering it. Mostly it is about America that they bitch.
  Oddly, America has emitted far less CO2 over the last millinium than has either Europe OR China.
  
  And with the far left metrics, they have loved to use total levels, until 2006, which is when China emitted more than America. Then they switched to using the emissions since 1850, which THIS YEAR, China will become the number 1 emitter. The problem is, that ANY time before 1850 is a contest between China and Europe for emissions.
  
  Yet, the far left will do less than the far right on solving this.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
4. Re:And the far left Cheers and goes wild by WindBourne · 2015-05-15 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually no.
  The far right wingers are the ones pushing for global destruction.
  The left wingers are turning this into a political battle when it should not be.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:stretch marks oh noes :-0 - farts! by gabrieltss · 2015-05-14 05:22 · Score: 1

It's the farts of EVERY species on the planet that are causing global warming - so everything must die to protect the earth. Oh wait - they already engraved something like that on the "Georgia Guidestones".....

--
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Re:Black Ice - yes by gabrieltss · 2015-05-14 05:23 · Score: 1

It's actually Glacier poop! It has no where to go so it drags it along with it.

--
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Re:A poltical agenda? by tbannist · 2015-05-14 07:02 · Score: 1

Do you have any proof that he "wants to micromanage everyone's lives"?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:A poltical agenda? by tbannist · 2015-05-14 07:16 · Score: 1

So... There's no global warming because you start your graph on a unusually warm year, use a satellite derived value, and one that measures the estimated temperature of the lower troposphere?
That's three strikes against your example graph already, and I barely had to look at it.
If we look at the surface temperature average, like HADCRUT4, there's clearly warming even if we start with your cherry-picked start point. The trend is much more pronounced if we use a 30 year graph.
Heck if we use a 30 year RSS graph the trend is pretty clear there too.
So, who are you trying to fool?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Solving the problem through direct action by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 08:11 · Score: 0

Out of all the experts, celebrities, politicians, and leaders on the planet who champion the reduction of CO2, please list any of them who have adopted a true carbon nuetral lifestyle as an example to us all?
I can't think of a single one. Has anyone here done this? Why not?
(Settles down to listen to the crickets)
1. Re:Solving the problem through direct action by uninformedLuddite · 2015-05-15 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Out of all the experts, celebrities, politicians, and leaders on the planet who champion the reduction of CO2, please list any of them who have adopted a true carbon nuetral lifestyle as an example to us all?
  I can't think of a single one. Has anyone here done this? Why not?
  (Settles down to listen to the crickets)
  Is it because we are a carbon based life form? Do I win?
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-14 08:40 · Score: 1

Try the 2000 year graph
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-14 08:43 · Score: 1

Oh and btw 57% of the man made co2 was put in the atmosphere in the 18 year period
So bs on you ?
Re:A poltical agenda? by riverat1 · 2015-05-14 09:03 · Score: 1

(Never mind that lack of action on climate change will probably cost billions of people their lives while doing nothing to help the planet. But what do results count as long as your intentions are good?)
You people are sickening.
FTFY
I'M SHOCKED by Livius · 2015-05-14 09:35 · Score: 1

Stretch marks... on a stretched material?
Define: Market by TapeCutter · 2015-05-14 11:32 · Score: 1

Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
An economic market is not a place or a thing, it's a set of rules that govern trade (eg: property law). Forget what you have been taught by Fox news and think about it for two seconds, how is a market even possible without property law?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
1. Re:Define: Market by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Property laws usually don't have to be changed in order for the market to exist since the drug markets exist with no law whatsoever. A minimum amount of government necessary to maintain order is all that is needed and then get govt. the hell out of the way. Very nice things happen when dead weight is removed from people's shoulders.
2. Re:Define: Market by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-14 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  think about it for two seconds, how is a market even possible without property law?
  If you thought about it for two seconds, you could realize that there are plenty of markets that don't even involve property, let alone property law, like, for example, all the markets in services. For many private and commercial transactions, property law is irrelevant because it's effectively enforceable. Black markets and markets in illegal goods or services also function perfectly fine without any kind of property law, and they are a large part of most economies. Most markets function well not because of laws and rules, but because of reputations and repeat business.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 12:06 · Score: 0

The fact that there are glaciers 15 years after the "scientists" said there would not be should tell you all you need to know about warmistas and their 100% wrong predictions. At this point in time the polar ice caps were supposed to have been completely melted for many years.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-14 13:01 · Score: 0

There are over 100,000 different glaciers on this planet.
They don't spring magically into existence.
They are in very cold places where they can be refreshed by precipitation.
Up to now the equilibirum has been such that they replenish faster than they fall into the sea.
That is changing. Eventually they won't be replenished at a fast enough rate, and will disappear. The fact that might take several years, given the gigatonnes of ice involved in no way changes the fact of it happening.
Re:A poltical agenda? by dave420 · 2015-05-14 20:12 · Score: 1

You don't understand the difference between ice on the sea and on the land, so why should anyone listen to you about anything related to this topic? You clearly like the idea of fighting against accepting climate change more than learning anything about it.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-14 21:56 · Score: 1

Ad hominem ? and Strawman at the same time and psychoanalysis.
Three strikes your out
Re:A poltical agenda? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-14 22:11 · Score: 1

It looks like the scientists of NASA's biggest agenda is to protect this planet, why would you think otherwise?
But, but, but - That's not their JOB! Air and Space, not Earth! Rah, rah, rah!

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 02:13 · Score: 1

Try the 2000 year graph
The one you didn't link to? Jesus, do you actually want us to dig up your evidence from the swamp that is Wazzup.com?

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-15 02:20 · Score: 1

Ad hominem ?

So that's another thing you don't what it is. Mentioning that your argument is wrong is not an ad hominem simply because it contains the letter-combination YOU.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:A poltical agenda? by tbannist · 2015-05-15 06:43 · Score: 1

You mean these?
Looks like there's a definite trend, with a pronounced rise since the start of the industrial revolution.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:A poltical agenda? by tbannist · 2015-05-15 06:57 · Score: 1

Not actually true unless you use some bizarre definition of "man made co2". Human contributions have raised the the CO2 level from around 280 ppm to around 400 ppm. That's 120 ppm, the human contribution of the last 18 years is about 36 ppm. Which means the last 18 years represent about 30% of our total contribution and a little less than 10% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-15 10:54 · Score: 1

https://feww.files.wordpress.c...
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-15 10:58 · Score: 1

Well buckwheat
Just to explain this simple concept to you.
I say OP is wrong about global cooling being just one article in newsweek, and present a link to another article.
Proof by contradiction.
Poster comes in and says it doesn't matter because I'm a poopy head.
Ad hominem.
There never say conservatives aren't charitable to the disadvantaged.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 02:17 · Score: 1

Well buckwheat
Just to explain this simple concept to you.
I say OP is wrong about global cooling being just one article in newsweek, and present a link to another article.
Proof by contradiction.
Poster comes in and says it doesn't matter because I'm a poopy head.
Ad hominem.
There never say conservatives aren't charitable to the disadvantaged.
I thought you wanted "explain this simple concept" - you failed. And you insulted me because you failed. You are the moron. Which is a given because you are a denier, FAIL.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-16 05:00 · Score: 1

I thought you wanted "explain this simple concept" - you failed. And you insulted me because you failed. You are the moron. Which is a given because you are a denier, FAIL.
LOL so says the religious bigot.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 05:26 · Score: 1

LOL so says the religious bigot.
You signed your post, so you are a polite moron. But you are still a moron.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-16 05:56 · Score: 1

Dunning Kreuger alive and well.
Why don't you explain the fluid dynamics codes you believe in. Tell me how they work without copy pasting ?
How does it feel to be a religious man ?
Re:A poltical agenda? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-16 14:30 · Score: 1

Dunning Kreuger alive and well.
Wow, self awareness. If you didn't show yourself to be a moron over and over again, one could get the impression there was still hope for you.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-16 15:02 · Score: 1

Ahh listening to you say that reminds me of a nazi shouting juden
Keep it up
Re:A poltical agenda? by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-05-17 05:06 · Score: 1

Ahh listening to you say that reminds me of a nazi shouting juden
Keep it up
Of course you remember, you were right among them.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:A poltical agenda? by Crashmarik · 2015-05-17 05:55 · Score: 1

Ahh listening to you say that reminds me of a nazi shouting juden
Keep it up
Of course you remember, you were right among them.
Ahhh so cute. Why don't you go on about how the Jews are behind oil industry and manipulate the Koch brothers