not very accurate. .. well you see there's this book................. morons age old argument Explain earth Gravity evolution global warming tags
x
Click to expand

not very accurate

+1022
Views: 36891
Favorited: 82
Submitted: 05/05/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to cheastnut Subscribe to fucking-science submit to reddit

Comments(219):

[ 219 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - jasonseagull (05/05/2014) [-]
**jasonseagull rolled image** If OP is straight, then explain this!
User avatar #183 to #2 - thepandaking (05/06/2014) [-]
compelling argument, 10/10
#83 to #2 - kristovsky (05/05/2014) [-]
Hes a heretic
#129 to #83 - datmine (05/06/2014) [-]
It needs to be purged.
#139 to #129 - happypony (05/06/2014) [-]
Everything needs to be purged.
User avatar #157 to #129 - equesticle (05/06/2014) [-]
You again Do you really hate the equesticles too?
User avatar #71 to #2 - zerith (05/05/2014) [-]
Be advised.
User avatar #3 to #2 - deadnanners (05/05/2014) [-]
furry artists have no boundaries
#94 to #2 - nexdemise ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
To be fair - that's a female pony.
#186 to #94 - penileburglar (05/06/2014) [-]
To be fair, that's an inanimate, abstract object with no real sex. At best, it's assigned gender is female. That makes you as straight as if you were attracted to crossdressing males.
#16 - puns (05/05/2014) [-]
well you see there's this book.................
User avatar #57 to #16 - teocherries (05/05/2014) [-]
That username....
User avatar #60 to #57 - puns (05/05/2014) [-]
i wanted one that was easy to read but a lot of the other ones were booked
User avatar #61 to #60 - teocherries (05/05/2014) [-]
I'm just surprised it wasn't taken
User avatar #65 to #61 - puns (05/05/2014) [-]
Laim Neeson doesn't even use fj
User avatar #74 to #58 - givememoarpony (05/05/2014) [-]
I ship it.
#156 to #74 - anon (05/06/2014) [-]
CAN YOU NOT!?
#17 to #16 - NoXV ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#34 to #16 - oosime (05/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#14 - skir (05/05/2014) [-]
the dialogue is not that global warming does not exist, it's that humans have no real affect on global temperatures.
the dialogue is not that global warming does not exist, it's that humans have no real affect on global temperatures.
#15 to #14 - anon (05/05/2014) [-]
which has been proven untrue in every major study on the topic. the "dialogue" if you can call it that, is more like 99% of the scientific community in agreement with 1% in disagreement either because they are paid to disagree or just happen to be crazy. this is just like when the cigarette companies tried to tell everyone there was mixed evidence on the effects of smoking, it's just not true.
User avatar #19 to #15 - lean (05/05/2014) [-]
The disagreement is not whether or not humans have an impact, 99% of scientists agree that we undoubtedly DO impact the climate. The disagreement is about HOW MUCH impact we have, where climatologists worldwide are in dispute. IF it is so drastic and dramatic, then why- as "greenhouse gas" emissions have grown exponentially more than projections in the '90s- has global warming nearly halted? The CO2 levels are 4X projected, yet average temperature is <.1 degree change higher. Why, if it is a fact and we are dooming our civilization, is it such a huge political platform? Every hypothesis and projection on global warming/ climate change has been proven wrong. Within the last 100,000 years the CO2 levels have been 10X what they are now. There is evidence of it in ice core samples.
#32 to #19 - vorarephilia (05/05/2014) [-]
And that's not counting the other greenhouse gasses that participate, both man-made and otherwise, or natural climate shifts (there's a theory that we are about to enter another ice age as climate data shows a general warming before the cooling starts in previous examples and a few other pieces of evidence).   
   
The more i learn about ecology and climatology, the more I realize how overly simplified concepts like climate change are portrayed in the media.
And that's not counting the other greenhouse gasses that participate, both man-made and otherwise, or natural climate shifts (there's a theory that we are about to enter another ice age as climate data shows a general warming before the cooling starts in previous examples and a few other pieces of evidence).

The more i learn about ecology and climatology, the more I realize how overly simplified concepts like climate change are portrayed in the media.
User avatar #99 to #32 - lolme ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
I'm just going to go ahead and point out the obvious. An Ice Age would set humanity back a good few years and would also kill a whole ******* lot of people. I don't think we'd even be able to feed our current population if an ice age occured. (I'd actually expect a war to occur over resources.)
User avatar #109 to #99 - vorarephilia (05/05/2014) [-]
And it's bad news if the ice caps melt, devastating ocean biology and altering weather patterns across the world.

Climate change sucks either end. which is why if we are contributing seriously, we need to stop.

but if given the option between the two, i'd prefer an ice age. they both suck no doubt, but one has snow. I like snow. I could make a snowman while starving to death.
User avatar #112 to #109 - lolme ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
The thing is that it will happen regardles if we're contributing or not. I heard somewhere that an ice age was actually expected to occur soon, which would also explain the rise in temperatures, because that usually happens before an ice age.
#88 to #19 - playerdous (05/05/2014) [-]
These are two charts I found that support this.
I prefer this chart because it labels everything nicely.
#89 to #88 - playerdous (05/05/2014) [-]
This has sources but doesn't label the levels of co2, which is kinda the point of these graphs.
#66 to #19 - anon (05/05/2014) [-]
However, it is true that global temperature has been raising at a much faster rate than at any other point in, well, the history of the world. The temperature fluctuates (ie Ice ages), but never has it increased so rapidly (at least, according to things such as ice-core samples). Now, this is several years old, so I can't comment on the current temperature rate, but it's hard to believe it's entirely co-incidental.
#55 to #19 - gisuar (05/05/2014) [-]
because the ability of the ocean to store it was greater than expected it's just a buffer though
#18 to #15 - insanefreak (05/05/2014) [-]
Anonymous is right. Most serious scientists don't even bother to consider trying to tell people how much effect we have on 'global warming', which is an unbelievably small amount. Take out the sun, we'll freeze to death. Nothing we can do could stop that. CO2 is supposedly our main issue, but it plays only the tiniest part in the entire 'heating up' process. And humans are actually almost being outclassed by cow farts. Also: volcanic eruptions throw up way more CO2 than humans do in several years, in a very small location, and it goes away rapidly. And the idea of a hole being in the ozon layer has been proven wrong since the discovery that there are 'ozon plates', similar to tectonic ones in the mantle of our planet, meaning that they're moving, meaning the holes are temporary.

Tl, dr: Solar flares and a heightened solar activity are the only reason our world heats up. Humans don't change much. At best, we'll just wipe ourselves out. But we're not going to wreck this world. It's a tad too big for that. And we just inhabit a tiny fraction out of it.
User avatar #82 to #18 - wthree (05/05/2014) [-]
An small amount, is still an amount. Small changes in climate and temperature can have drastic effects, just look at the seasons. Even if you assume that we only contribute a very very small amount (which I am contesting) the fact is that can still have a massive effect on the global climate. Just look at how minor changes from the sun or volcanic activity can cause mini ice ages on the other side of the planet.

Secondly, you mentioned cow farts which are also a product of human advancement.
#70 to #18 - anon (05/05/2014) [-]
Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying that any increases in temperature due to global warming is independent to temperature due to the sun? You do realise that global warming merely increases the effect of the sun (ie, reflecting rays from the sun back to Earth, or ozone depletion due to CFCs)

Volcanic eruptions throw up more CO2 than humans? Don't make me laugh, please.
Eyjafjallajökull (2010 icelandic volcano eruption) threw up 150,000 tonnes of CO2 each day (some reports claim up to 300,000 tonnes per day). During this time, air traffic was halted, which would have produced 340,000 tonnes per day. Now, Eyjafjallajökull was a small eruption, and a much larger one would produce a lot more gas. However, it'd also ground air-flight for longer and in a wider area.
On another note, volcanoes actually help cool the planet, since the particles they emit into the atmosphere reflect solar rays back into space.
#141 to #14 - infinitereaper (05/06/2014) [-]
There are 7 billion human beings on the planet.
We affect the biosphere one way or another, much of the time quite significantly.

Stop being retarded.
#130 to #14 - anon (05/06/2014) [-]
HE'S RIGHT!!!

Aside from massive volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts, every 100,000 years, the Earth gets covered by a thick layer of SUV's that produce greenhouse gases and increase global warming.

IT'S ALL NATURAL ************* !
User avatar #136 to #130 - frenulum (05/06/2014) [-]
t rex head is actually a prius

#illuminate
#86 - doctorprofessornv (05/05/2014) [-]
As an aside for the global warming argument: Global warming is actually only a minor danger associated with CO2 emissions, especially considering that said emissions have only caused a 1 degree average temperature increase. A much larger issue is that nearly a third of total CO2 emissions are absorbed by our oceans, causing the oceans to become more acidic. This acidity contributes to the faster dissolution of calcium carbonate, the primary component of corals skeletons, bivalve shells, and most critically plankton shells. If this acidity continues to rise, it will severely stunt the growth of said organisms, leading to a worldwide collapse of ocean ecosystems, thus bringing about a new mass extinction which humans may not survive.

TL"DR: CO2 emissions are a huge problem, but not for the reasons most often cited.
#95 to #86 - cjthreesixty (05/05/2014) [-]
That and global warming is also referred to the change in in global climate, not just and increase or decrease of temp.s in winter/summer.
#87 to #86 - anon (05/05/2014) [-]
1 degree rise in average global temperature is actually a very big deal
User avatar #115 to #87 - dehnoobshow (05/05/2014) [-]
Don't know 'bout you, but I don't feel the difference between 20 C and 19 C.
User avatar #148 to #115 - ninjaroo (05/06/2014) [-]
No, but hurricanes do.
#23 - hybridxproject (05/05/2014) [-]
b-but you weren't there
User avatar #52 to #23 - mcrut ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
NEITHER WERE YOU (mind you i am playing with the joke
#110 to #52 - hybridxproject (05/05/2014) [-]
b-but god was
so am I
#6 - beerholder ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
"Global Warming" is the most unfortunate name, they should have called it "Climate Change"... because the average Joe doesn't understand what it is, he looks at the name and says "well, it's cold. where I am. at this particular moment."
User avatar #10 to #6 - hackmon (05/05/2014) [-]
It IS called climate change; by those who know what they're talking about. The media calls it global warming because then the simpletons will just think its false (like in the comic above) and continue living life as usual in their ignorance
User avatar #4 - kyubichan (05/05/2014) [-]
The argument from the 19th century still exists today, sadly.
User avatar #33 to #28 - drldrl (05/05/2014) [-]
I can't deal with that level of stupidity today. Nor any other day. Just don't acknowledge it and they won't exist.
User avatar #41 to #4 - metalmind (05/05/2014) [-]
Yeah but not in educated societies.
User avatar #5 to #4 - fargfive (05/05/2014) [-]
The 15th century argument still exists in (thankfully) extremely small circles too.

I wish I was joking.
User avatar #8 to #5 - ScottP (05/05/2014) [-]
I've seen their group. I don't even understand how
#9 to #8 - fargfive (05/05/2014) [-]
Some people dedicate significant amounts of energy to being retarded.
#37 to #9 - anon (05/05/2014) [-]
ANOTHER BRAINWASHED FOOL. YOU AND YOUR DICTATORIAL STATES KEEP THINKING THAT THE PLANET IS ROUND WHILE THE ENLIGHTENED GROUP KNOW THE TRUTH THAT OUR LADY PLANET IS AS FLAT AS MY UNBORN DAUGHTERS CHEST. ANY WHO BELIEVE THAT THE PLANET IS ROUND NEED TO KILL THEMSELVES SO THE SPREAD OF IDIOCY DOESN'T LINGER IN FUTURE GENERATIONS.

FAGGOT
User avatar #103 to #37 - eiaisqzbsesb (05/05/2014) [-]
I'll humor you.

Then why does the earth appear round from space?
User avatar #213 to #103 - fargfive (05/06/2014) [-]
The jews.
User avatar #7 to #5 - quackyquack (05/05/2014) [-]
**quackyquack rolls 429,806,479** it is very easy to prove that the earth is flat...
User avatar #80 to #7 - thewulfman (05/05/2014) [-]
Members of the Flat Earth Society (yes it's real) don't want to listen to anyone trying to prove the earn is round. They're just as bad as Creationists.
#165 - Tormound (05/06/2014) [-]
False, the general populace did not believe the earth was flat ever since the ancient greeks found the earth was spherical.
False, the general populace did not believe the earth was flat ever since the ancient greeks found the earth was spherical.
User avatar #191 to #165 - xtwinblade (05/06/2014) [-]
false
people were **** heads who believed they could fall of the earth if they sailed to far off into the sea.

when colombus first went to america, ship members were afraid they would sail off the horizon if they went too far west.
User avatar #196 to #191 - Tormound (05/06/2014) [-]
False
A group of uneducated sailors hardly counts as a counter point to my statement of the beliefs of the general populace.
User avatar #197 to #196 - xtwinblade (05/06/2014) [-]
false
i strongly believe, that we, as a people. Can raise potatoes to be more than just farm animals.
User avatar #198 to #197 - Tormound (05/06/2014) [-]
False
What truly warrants efforts to uplift is obviously the sweet potatoes.
User avatar #199 to #198 - xtwinblade (05/06/2014) [-]
False
When my plate is empty, the can opener gave you aids. Therefore Chips shall once more be reunited with the Belfry Unicorns
#75 - givememoarpony (05/05/2014) [-]
I don't think 17th century people contested gravity.
I don't think 17th century people contested gravity.
#76 to #75 - comradewinter ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
They didn't believe in the gravitational force. They just figured things fell, not that everything was dragged down by default.
#59 - anon (05/05/2014) [-]
Any self-respecting scientist will acknowledge that the change in climate is just a continuation of what the Earth has done since forever
#177 to #59 - Schofield (05/06/2014) [-]
I've never heard of a self-respecting scientist discover a mind blowing thing.   
I'm just sayin'
I've never heard of a self-respecting scientist discover a mind blowing thing.
I'm just sayin'
User avatar #187 to #59 - kfreddy (05/06/2014) [-]
Why you do raise a good point, there are other variables to take into account.

For one, devastating climate change happens on a geologic time scale, rather than simply thousands of years. Take for example the Permo-Triassic extinction, in which 90% of oceanic species were wiped put do the a climate change event (theorized, of course) caused by the eruption of a super-volcano located in siberia. However, this event lasted close to a hundred thousand years, although seeming like a long time now, in the geologic time-scale is relatively insignificant.


Also, it is not the fact that climate is changing, but is changing at a rate in which species cannot adapt fast enough.

You do bring up an excellent point, which although refutes climate change within the past few millennia, we simply don't have the data or resources at this time to support or refute climate change. I personally believe humans are accelerating climate change, but like I said, as of now we lack sufficient enough data.



TL;DR Its not the climate change, but the rate at which it changes which disrupts the biosphere.
User avatar #189 to #59 - xtwinblade (05/06/2014) [-]
The global warming part isnt exactly just about the max and lowest temperature on earth, but the total temperature and is also somewhat focused on the ozon layer.

while i am not disagreeing with you, i doubt those statistics would be very accurate at any point before the 15th century.
User avatar #135 to #59 - marinepenguin (05/06/2014) [-]
******* thank you. While mankind may put a lot of gases into the atmosphere, we aren't affecting the climate in any major way. Not in a big enough way to create climate change of a scale that mankind hasn't lived in before.
#176 to #135 - kmichel (05/06/2014) [-]
There is a near consensus of scientists studying the climate, 97% of them in fact, that believe in man-made global warming. The recent IPCC report, with new data and more powerful computer models puts the probability that humans are the cause of global warming at 95-100%. Debate is virtually settled at this point.
User avatar #207 to #176 - marinepenguin (05/06/2014) [-]
Then why has recent data shown the opposite of what scientists have predicted? Ice at the southern poles has never been recorded at the thickness they are at now. And the amount at which the Earth is heating is not growing at an exponential rate, but is plateauing. If anything this indicates that the warm period that we have been enjoying is nearing it's peak. And we are about to witness the beginning of another ice age in about 5000-10000 years.

townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full
User avatar #79 to #59 - wthree (05/05/2014) [-]
So when a volcano explodes and sends various gases and material into the air it changes the climate, but when we do it nothing happens?
User avatar #96 to #79 - derius (05/05/2014) [-]
He didn't say "nothing happens".

Now, my interpretation is that man's effect on climate change might be largely exaggerated. Those eruptions presented in the graph are small time compared to super volcanoes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Furthermore, there are also other factors when it comes to climate change. For example the activity of the sun.
User avatar #216 to #96 - wthree (05/06/2014) [-]
No, but it's implied. If you try to argue that volcanoes have an effect on the climate through the gases and material they expel into the air, you have to accept that when humans expel gases and material into they air it also has an effect on the climate.

Human activity produces these gases and material 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, compared to occasional eruption.

While humans are not the only contributer to climate change, or even the largest contributer (debatable), the fact still remains that the climate changes to a greater degree than if we were not here. This is where the argument lies, that humans are causing climate to change at a much faster rate than is normal, which can and will lead to similar drastic changes that saw mass extinctions.
User avatar #217 to #216 - derius (05/06/2014) [-]
"While humans are not the only contributer to climate change, or even the largest contributer (debatable), the fact still remains that the climate changes to a greater degree than if we were not here. This is where the argument lies, that humans are causing climate to change at a much faster rate than is normal, which can and will lead to similar drastic changes that saw mass extinctions."

You are right and I don't deny human involvement in climate change.

But I think, and it might sound little morbid, there is nothing unnatural about having high CO2 concentration in the air (Carboniferous) or even nothing unnatural about mass extinctions, there have been several in the earth history. I'm fairly sure humans cannot destroy life or even the human species altogether by polluting.

To be clear, I do not wish mass extinction or that man pollutes the **** out of the earth. I very much enjoy life and many things it has to offer. BUT one must admit that human existence is pretty insignificant in universal scale.
User avatar #46 - prohibullion (05/05/2014) [-]
One of these things is not like the others
#167 - theruse (05/06/2014) [-]
I feel like the comment section has turned into a great big Atheist circle-jerk.
User avatar #185 to #167 - oosime (05/06/2014) [-]
you dont have to be atheist to know evolution denial is stupid.
#195 to #167 - anon (05/06/2014) [-]
"hur dur, they're criticizing religion, they must be atheist"
#212 to #195 - theruse (05/06/2014) [-]
Yes, that is what that means.
Yes, that is what that means.
#22 - buffalogriller ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
fixed to take american creationists into account
#113 to #22 - rectophobia ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
Retard edition
#25 to #22 - sytheris (05/05/2014) [-]
You could just say creationists, you know.
#30 to #25 - buffalogriller ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
True. The only ones I hear about are american though. Might be because the Internet is very polarized.
#35 to #30 - gtfomylawnbish (05/05/2014) [-]
Like who?
#38 to #35 - buffalogriller ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
Ken Ham (as already mentioned in other comments) www.answersingenesis.org/
Ray Comfort www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

User avatar #73 to #38 - givememoarpony (05/05/2014) [-]
Dude. Ken Ham is from Australia and Ray Comfort is from New Zealand.
#77 to #73 - buffalogriller ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
They live and work in america though, and need to get their support from someone.
#39 to #38 - gtfomylawnbish (05/05/2014) [-]
Ken's accent sounds odd for Kentucky. You should check it out.
User avatar #45 to #39 - mmchase (05/05/2014) [-]
He's originally from Australia if I remember correctly from his debate with Bill Nye.
#117 to #45 - anon (05/06/2014) [-]
Your best example of american creationists are from different countries... That's kind of weak.
#150 to #117 - buffalogriller ONLINE (05/06/2014) [-]
Allright, they are not american by nationality, but they live and work in America, where they have a large following. Creationism is highly prevalent in amerika, which gives them a large platform.
#67 - baykhal (05/05/2014) [-]
**baykhal rolled image** explain this!
User avatar #69 to #67 - confusedwolf ONLINE (05/05/2014) [-]
nice roll XD
#102 - zekeon (05/05/2014) [-]
That thing from the 19th century is still happening today..
#54 - wimwam (05/05/2014) [-]
I'll just leave this here
#51 - Ulmer (05/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #104 - miklthepikl (05/05/2014) [-]
alright, heres how it is. The globe has been warming since the ice age, hence, which is evidenced by the lack of ice covering the northern hemisphere. Global warming is part of a cycle the earth goes through, warming and cooling over the millenniums. Now, I can't speak to climate change, as i know very little about it, but claiming that global warming is caused by C02 is just dumb
#107 to #104 - thelifelineband (05/05/2014) [-]
*******		 thank you.
******* thank you.
#108 to #104 - hitro (05/05/2014) [-]
caused=/= increases rate at which it happens.
User avatar #174 to #104 - funbaggy (05/06/2014) [-]
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, that part isn't what is up to debate. The main argument is over how much humans are influencing the climate changes and or speeding it up. The most common scenario I have heard is that the additional CO2 will melt the ice caps which will in turn dump barely above freezing water into the oceans messing up the currents which could potentially cause a massive cool down. I am no expert though so its best to look it up.
#111 to #104 - ishfwilf (05/05/2014) [-]
Part of it is because of the cyclus, part of it because of our pollution....It may be a natural cyclus, but we sure as hell aren't making it any better by intensifying the whole thing.
User avatar #144 to #104 - ninjaroo (05/06/2014) [-]
You realize that professionals take that **** into account?
#92 - imagnetsux (05/05/2014) [-]
**imagnetsux rolled image** if mirrors are real, explain this.
User avatar #133 to #92 - mondominiman (05/06/2014) [-]
Oh god that's terrible, who would draw something like that? If I could get a link to it so I could say slander the artists and say disrespectful things about their mother.
User avatar #151 to #133 - imagnetsux (05/06/2014) [-]
You need to login to view this link took the link to the original image, googled the guy's deviantart page. you better post his reaction you little bitch.
User avatar #203 to #151 - mondominiman (05/06/2014) [-]
I-I think something bad happened. I went in with the rage of a thousand suns but left confused and aroused.
#134 to #92 - isuriand ONLINE (05/06/2014) [-]
But in all seriousness you got an utter **** roll there.
#173 to #92 - yisumad ONLINE (05/06/2014) [-]
"Can", not "will".
User avatar #85 - winsauceiswin (05/05/2014) [-]
that 19th century one is still a problem for whatever reason.
[ 219 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)