Explain why you disagree with 97% of the scientific community

where's this overwhelming scientific evidence? is it on huffingtonpost?

File: IMG_1189.png (11KB, 261x196px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 261x196px

>>130832883
t. Al gore

Anyone trying to sell you on global warming is trying to make money off you

The reality is the earth goes through climate change all the time, and nothing your leftist bullshitters can do will stop it

Even if the US stopped 100% of all bad emissions there's no way we're stopping china or everywhere from polluting

Stop pushing your retarded agenda faggot

Okey Dokey

Looking at CCSM 3.0 IPCC AR4 Simulations

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html

Solar forcing data used in the models does not match actual solar forcing data collected by the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics of the University of Colorado, found here:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/index.html
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tcte/tcte_tsi/index.html
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

Why are inflated Irradiance numbers used in the models?

>>130832883
>97% of the scientific community agree
>97% of anything agreeing on a theory which is about as true as Scientology

M8 the polar ice caps would've melted in 2014 like Al Gore said in 1999, because they haven't, and because this global warming bullshit looked entirely fabricated and one big like from the start (credit going to your precious beloved Al Gore, of course), nobody with more than 1 brain cell believes in globalist warning.

>>130832883
I am NOT disagreeing I am saying it is a GOOD thing!
Why? Because we are in a an ICE AGE, we are in an inter-glacial pause... this will end an the world will once again have HUGE glaciers covering the planet.
Heat the planet up NOW because it is going to get VERY cold LATER!

>>130833494
I get what you are saying, Al Gore got it wrong. The counter argument to that is "well Al Gore isint a scientist even though he decided to try and interpret massive amounts of scientific data and distill it down in to a movie friendly package"

We need to debate the actual simulation and models, not al gore's talking points

File: 47018586.png (7KB, 471x258px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 471x258px

>>130832883
>% of climate scientists
>think global warming is affected by
This assumes 100% of the climate scientists believe that "Climate change" is real, because they say it is either affected by humans or not.

slide thread, saged

>>130832883
Always found this funny because I ask to see the published papers that prove their belief (and thats what this poll is about, not evidence but their belief) and they never cough it up. Climate change is real, and it very well may be due to Human activity but it is NOT settled science and in fact there isn't a lot of evidence either way because so many of the studies are just 'inconclusive'. About the most commonly cited pieces of evidence are reddit tier graphs of temperature vs time showing it's hone up more recently but correlation doesn't mean causation and it has done that in the past too so there really is no known causal link, right now.

Now here is NOAA, saying that we dont know enough about the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere to understand its total effect on climate and climate change, notably the positive feedback loop

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

"However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."

That "97% consensus" study is faked btw.

>>130832883
>1 post by this id
Remember that at one time scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth

I'm sorry but are you calling those 3/100 scientists idiots? Did they not receive a degree and don't they likely have good reason to believe climate change isn't man made?

File: 98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.png (11KB, 495x460px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 495x460px

>>130832883
>muh consensus
not science and not true in the slightest.

>>130833317
>we wont stop cause everyone else probably wouldnd stop!!

absolute moran, ignorant, worthless scum.

china has ALREADY stopped.

it's JUST you now. literally.

I don't, now explain to me why I should fill my country with inbred sangniggers.

File: 25596313.png (142KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 400x399px

>>130833809
Also 97% of (((climate scientists))) is not the whole scientific communite

Lefties act as though climate change and man-made climate change are one and the same, and use data that suggests the former to "prove" the latter.

They do this knowingly, because they are cowardly liars with bad ideas.

>>130833982
dont say that, instead point out that science is not run by consensus. Anyone who advocates otherwise is not advocating for science.

Science cares about results and replication

Even peer review is shit within serious academic circles. The only thing that makes a study qualified is independent replication of the results by a neutral third party.

>>130832883
because they are all paid by people with ulterior motives.... fucking bill nye says gender is fluid.... fucking nigger tyson is jumping on this bandwagon also.... its about control. is the climate changing, yea.... is it because of us evil humans.... thats what they want you to think...

my mom is diabetic.... has no thyroid.... goes to doctor wanting off metformin.... doctor gives her some new epipen type injection pen... read booklet.... says dont use if you have had thyroid cancer or dont have a thyroid.... why did the doctor give it to her.... she is paid too..... but she is the doctor right... so she is right.... we should just take someones word because of a title right..... stick your head back in the sand and hope it will all be ok

File: IMG_1173.png (459KB, 575x432px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 575x432px

>>130834042
>moran
>china has already stopped

Not sure if you're fishing for (((you)))'s or just pants on head retarded but there's no way you're every going to stop China from emitting, or anywhere else for that matter

Read a bit dipshit, maybe then you'd know we're already past the threshold of carbon emissions in the atmosphere, stopping emissions now would serve no purpose

THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT POSTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE IN THIS THREAD:

IPCC inflating Solar Irradiance Data
>>130833435

NOAA admits it doesnt understand positive feedback loop of the most abundant greenhouse gas in existence.
>>130833945


If we dont fully understand the GHG problems and we are using FAKE numbers to run the models, then how truthful are these models? How accurate can you expect them to be when you are putting garbage data in?

Ever heard the programmers mantra of "Garbage in, garbage out"?

>>130832883

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Kill yourself cuck.

>>130832883

No shit...

These people get hired by politicians to make those studies. I bet those three per cent who dared challenge the narative lost their paycheck and risked their careers if not destroyed.

Now, here are some of the emails from the East Anglia university that started all this:

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/40/404797_climate-assortment-of-statements-from-east-anglia-.html

""I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding
in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981
onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

""I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin
and I will keep them out somehow a** even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!""

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

""Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will
do likewise.""

>>130832883
>Scientists can't reliably tell you the weather in 2 weeks
>They can somehow predict the weather in 2050

>>130834958
The dedicated model using Year 2000 values actually did very well in the AR4 simulations. Very mild warming all the way out to 2100. And I mean very mild, like just over .2 degrees C

>>130832883
This is just such a hard argument to accept. It's basically argument by making people feel uncool.
>LMAO ONLY 3/100 SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN

>>130832883

You aren't the type to ask "well maybe the sample wasn't neutral" or "it's possible that this party line is entrenched".

>>130835254
>like just over .2 degrees C
But I thought it was 2°C and the apocalypse

File: nicolaus-copernicus-statue-torun-thorn.jpg (206KB, 734x513px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 734x513px

>>130832883
I wounder how pic related would answer your question

File: pratchett_stewart_cohen.jpg (28KB, 221x346px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 221x346px

>>130832883
simple even without going into science:

> 97% of christians agree god exits
> 97% of muslims agree homosexuality is bad
> 97% of top upvoted responses in reddit are ture

If you have an already biased sample and then ask them a very vague question what is the result you think you are going to get?

> 97% of scientists already working on global warming agree that climate change is real

well that's just bad science, isnt it?

>>130835777
Notice that was only one model from the AR4 simulations.

Here is the link to the AR4 Simulations:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html

You can find more information about each model here:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Change/CCSM3_IPCC_AR4/

Notice how they only graph like 5 out of the 14 models? I wonder, what those models showed that wasnt worth graphing? I wonder why the data for Solar Forcing is inflated beyond levels ever observed or found during historical reconstruction?

Please dont misunderstand me, Im not advocating as a "pro-climate change" guy. I was simply pointing out that there was a model in the AR4 simulations that performed very well. The fact that the IPCC decided to ignore it and only discuss the ones that showed "catastrophic" warming should provide some insight to their bias

>>130835289
this
schopenhauer wrote an essay were he said that basically, once 20% of any given group is convinced of something, the rest will just follow because this ever-growing part of them who believes in something is threatening to leave them alone. It's a circle that feed of itself.

So this applies here, many proofs anad evidences show that human are far from being the biggest threath when it comes to global warming, but why follow this tiny domain when you can just say "yep, humans do it. Look, we're so much to say this we must be right"

>>130832883
Great whats the actual solution that doesn't involve me paying 100k+ for solar panels and an electric car and being taxed for pretty much for having the gall to be born in a developed country.

File: t-miami-beach.jpg (396KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1440x960px

>>130835777
>But I thought it was 2°C and the apocalypse
Only if you live on an overdeveloped beach condo in Florida or the carolinas.

Amusingly it is not big oil that is fighting climate change policy. Real estate developers and land owners are actually the biggest lobby group. They are followed by the oil refineries (koch brothers, etc) as refining pollutes more than drilling or piping.

>>130832883

The 97% number has been debunked several times.

File: ice_age.png (42KB, 685x598px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 685x598px

>>130832883
>Explain why you disagree with 97% of the scientific community and yet believe you aren't a moron.

Explain attached picture while keeping in mind neanderthals didn't have fucking cars or oil refineries.

>>130832883

OP why don't you read the abstract of the paper that 97% number is based off of.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=F2F50AEAE56919D11FC5D6B81D412816.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

>We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In short, 97% of 32.6%. It seems that the jury is out on that one. And the sample size wasn't even comprehensive either (<1% of all papers on the subject were analyzed). In short, that consensus bullshit is a forced meme that desperately needs to die.

>>130836563
"tis a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand"

>>130832883
i don't care about global warming, i don't live on a coast

>>130836724

When the ice melted Cro Magnon man marched and we were born.

>>130832883
i think most of us here accept golbal warming but the splutions are not more taxes and lectures from linshits

we need to
>reduce the population of the third world, china and india/pakistan
>plant trees everywhere
>make advancements in nuclear fusion and build more power plants

the solutions scare the shit out of leftists so theyd rather braid eachothers pussy hair in the wilderness

>>130836991
>solutions* libshits*

>>130836561
>Great whats the actual solution
Death, thats the only solution. Massive population control, etc.

There are studies that discuss how 11,500 years ago, we were destroying the environment by replacing native foliage with agricultural products. The increased erosion and sedimentation contributed to a massive change in the geology surrounding the Dead Sea.

If we cant farm, hundreds of millions will die

>>130836753

97% of 33.6%, sry.

>>130832883
Science is not determind by consensus, its determined by fact. It's not a fucking democracy

>>130836991
>plant trees everywhere
except they tried this and it fucked shit up
1000's of acres of forest are being removed in Scotland to allow the ecosystem to return to peat as peat was capturing more carbon than the trees could

its the same reason the US is tearing down hundreds of hydroelectric dams and restoring the ecosystem. The dam was actually hurting more than it was helping

>>130837233
but should we let those death happen naturally or have the governments take it upon themselves to do it so we can preserve the advancment of our species?

>if you choose the former, you're a cuck

>>130832883

>disagree with the scientific community

Oh, wait, the same guys who did routine lobotomies and electroshock for garden-variety depression. That scientific community?

>>130837492
i cant speak for the states but forest land in europe has been destroyed for nearly 500 years. form boat building to early industry, we've wiped out our trees

we need em back, pham

>>130837523
governments exist to preserve goverments, not the people they serve

>>130832883
>surveys have found

Oh, how that sure is meaningful.

>>130837769
HURR DURR
enviro-niggers wrong again

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022061622602

Every time you fucks have a great idea about how to save the environment, you end up fucking it up more

>>130837769
and another one

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcrn006.pdf/$FILE/fcrn006.pdf

>>130834036
Holy shit hahaha

File: White_paper_2016_-_CIRE_-_2016_-_Average_Luxury_Home_Prices.jpg (281KB, 2160x1399px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 2160x1399px

>>130836822
>"tis a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand"
The problem is the houses built in the sand and surf are among the most valuable on earth as far as cost per square foot.

Look how many of these cities are oceanfront. Monaco is especially fucked as the entire country exists at sea level. Monaco and Hong Kong are the two most endangered of the major cities when it comes to sea level rise and they both happen to have the highest land values on earth.

If you follow the money on climate change denial and especially sea levels you will see which group has literally trillions of dollars to lose. They don't want the coastal development bubble to burst. Rich people live at the beach and they want to keep it that way,

Majority of people whos grant money and funding comes from studying global warming claim global warming is real

WOW

>>130838440
i know and I never challenged your assertion.

Whats funny is this belief that its a new practice for speculative investors to use the government or public perception to protect their investments.

>>130832883
I'm going to leave this here. This is a cesspool of fuckwits.

It could be argued that the importance of greenhouse gasses on warming is overstated. However, it's impossible to deny that the increase in CO2 emmisions has lead to an increase in ocean acidity. This has a number of devastating effects on marine life.

Climate change is obviously fucking real all these idiots saying it's not must be living under a rock. A piece of Antarctica the size of Texas just melted, increasingly violent and unpredictable storms, unusually high and low temps. I can't believe some people think it's fake or that they are better qualified than the entire scientific community. 97% of everyone knows ops a fag.

>muh fallacies

reeeeeee

>>130838918
"Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries. The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day."

>ph of 8.1
>acidic
sure thing bucko

>>130839134
>Climate change is obviously fucking real all these idiots saying it's not must be living under a rock
>Climate change
>change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

>>130832883

Questions for OP:

>What exactly are the scientists saying?
>How bad do the scientists say it is?
>We are a tropical species. A warmer world is a wetter world.

I guarantee you, no credible scientists are saying that our children will get boiled alive in the next 50 years.

It's an issue of false equivalency.

>>130832883
Because if the 97% doesn't find any evidence they don't get shekels.

File: 1462329563014.jpg (57KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x294px

>>130832883


> 97% of scientists paid to research global warming believe in global warming

Well fuck! It must be that I hate science!

>>130839395
Post a grade school level video from 1977 as proof...

File: north carolina sea level rise ban.jpg (280KB, 847x834px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 847x834px

>>130838743
>Whats funny is this belief that its a new practice for speculative investors to use the government or public perception to protect their investments.
It already happened in North Carolina.

>>130839335
>Not realising it's a logarithmic scale
>Not realising marine life is sensitive to small changes in conditions.

>>130840053
I know.....here is the thing though

its going to be easier to prove the science wrong than it is to get people to understand and believe that this is a hoax perpetrated by real-estate tycoons and investors to protect their beach front property from non-anthropological climate change.

Proving the science wrong should be easy enough. Proving a conspiracy true is difficult, no matter what evidence you have

I guess you and I just differ on the approach but are still reaching a generally similar conclusion, ie, it is not happening at the rate they say it is and it is not explicitly the result of human activity.

>>130832883
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Because most people simply go with the group to avoid ideological contradictions.

>>130839415
exactly this

File: Boker fane.png (156KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1200x900px

>>130832883

>>130840444
Not realizing that we had no idea what the ph of the oceans was 300, 200, 100 million; 100, 10, 1 thousand, or 900, 600, 400, 200 years ago

>>130832883
if they could tax air they would. and thats exactly the idea behind carbon tax.

also 100% of the scientific community have yet to replicate teslas work, or explain how the mayans and others could predict eclipses millenia ago with techniques we learned in the 60s.

peer review science is a cult, start experimenting like it should be. inb4 but we can't get funding if they don't agree.

>>130840840
Are you thick on purpose?

There are ways to model past conditions.
You also haven't answered to the increase in acidity.

>>130833697
Says who? Mother fuckers can't even predict the weather 3 weeks from now, but you believe what they say 200+ years from now?

>>130841109
The pH of sea water can be measured although there are complications due the presence of dissolved salts and other factors. On average, surface sea water is mildly basic, about pH of 8.1, although the measured pH can vary by as much as 0.3 pH units at different times in the same area and from area to area. There is a mathematical relationship between pressures of CO2 (pCO2) and the resulting pH of pure water. This relationship is the basis for the calculation of ocean pH values. Caldeira employed such a formula to conclude that the pH of the oceans had changed by about 0.15 of a unit since 1750. He assumed, without providing any empirical evidence, that the pre-industrial pH was 8.25. This work has been challenged because it is not consistent with observation. The ocean is a very complicated system and does not yield to simple modeling.

>>130840525>>130840053
I don't understand, what is the coastal developers stake on all this?

>>130841450
Yes but CO2 is being absorbed into the ocean. That simple and can't really be argued against. It doesn't matter how one chooses to model it. This will have a long term effect. I don't see how you could disagree with that?

>>130832883
Are those the same 97% who said Africans were black and Theory of Evolution is a fact? Then no, you're a fucking moron

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor and that more water vapor will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

>>130832883
Explain how taxing my gas, car, making it more expensive to buy, making it less powerful, reducing the speed at which I can drive, making me pay to have the right to drive in Paris, and can only drive one day out of two, otherwise I have to buy another car to drive on the other day (and pay the tax twice), and have some more shit to pay to be able to drive when there is more pollution ; is actually going to change anything to a natural cycle of the earth that has happened several times before? Oh wait, it's just a way for the government to tax the shit out of me, while virtue signanling as "protectors of the environment". Really made me think.

You motherfucker.

>>130832883
because we only have temperature data for the past couple hundred years.

How can we make a judgment on how the weather is changing when we only have data for 200/4,500,000,000 years? We can't make an accurate judgement on that alone. We don't know what kind of weather patterns our planet goes through.

It's the same as if you watched the first 2 seconds of a movie and said "Oh, well based on that, we know what will happen at the end of the movie."

>>130841985
So, earlier I said that PH dropped .1 to 8.1 from 8.2.

You retorted with "but ocean life is very sensitive to ph"

Then I showed you proof that ocean ph can vary by as much as .3 ph depending on the time and location it was taken.

Now, tell me how if there is a natural variation of .3 ph within the ocean, why a .1 drop is catastrophic. it seems well within the natural bounds and variation observed in the ocean.

Also, you ignore the fact that we have had marine life on this planet for hundreds of millions of years and they flourished in an ocean that contained much more co2 than it has now.

>>130832883
We don't deny global warming you mong, we deny that it's man-made.

>>130842463
The CO2 will be distributed across the oceans and will give a global reduction in pH. You're suggesting that because local areas may have a large change that somehow makes it irrelevant. This isn't true.

>>130841802
they have to pitch anthropological climate change and act like we can fix it because the non-anthropological climate change that is naturally occurring and we are powerless to stop is going to destroy their investments

It really is mans last and most futile attempt to master the environmental domain. Only the ego of a maniac would lead them to believe they have to power to override the natural geological processes of an entire planet

>>130842895
ok, lets re-tool this discussion.

At what ph will we kill-off the life in the ocean?
What is the ph level at which everything dies?

>>130832883
That percentage of 100? That's from something like 40 scientists that AGREED TO ANSWER. The poll was sent out to like 2,000 scientists, a hundred or so filled out the poll, and 40 answered, with like 28 saying global warming was real, 8 saying no, the rest saying "no answer"
KYS

>>130843216
You know that we don't have an answer to that. However, you can't deny that there have been anthropogenic changes to the marine environment from CO2.

>>130843001
ok so you are saying they support anthropological climate change because they hope it might make a difference? I don't understand why they would support if they think it doesn't matter anyway.

In either case I dont see how this relates to
>>130840053
because in this case they are fighting against recognizing the rise in the sea levels. So are what are they fighting for exactly?

>>130843532
oh, you dont know?

But you said that this .1 percent drop is catastrophic due to ph sensitivity in marine life

but you dont know, you just think you do

>>130843653
stop ego wanking and post data if you have a valid point to make.

>tfw no repiles
cannot refute.

>consensus of evidence
>CONSENSUS
>FACTS (lel)
When Drumpf cut your save the planet (c) founding but it's alright because you don't believe in facts.

>>130843653
0.1 percent drop? I think you mean 30% increase in acidity.

There has already been a measurable effect on coral reefs from acidification

>>130843900
my point is that natural variation of ocean ph debunks your argument of extreme ph sensitivity.

You also fail to provide any evidence that ocean life cannot tolerate changes in ph as historical evidence shows that the oceans were teeming with life when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today


The burden of proof is on you sir

>>130844036
>.1 percent
I spoke incorrectly in that statement. .1 ph drop was the intended wording. I will concede that I misspoke in that instance

>arguing semantics when you know what i meant
this means im winning the factual argument

File: niagara-falls-1024.jpg (122KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1024x768px

>>130832883
OP you often don't comprehend what you read do you?
It says climate scientists not all scientists. The science of getting grant money millions to have an unpaid undergrad watch a thermometer is climate science. They're even allowed to throw out data that interferes with getting more grant money.
>Real scientists care about preserving the integrity of accurate research. So when NOAA conveniently forgot to include a 15 year pause in “global warming” in their recent data, hundreds of experts took issue with it. Because they respect science. As real scientists do.
>The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.


#NotAllScientists

>>130844094
>you do the work man
im busy mate. post data for the other anon or fuck off. simple as.

>>130832883
Science doesn't work on the principle of the consensus of the majority. Now stop being a dindu and educate yourself.

>>130844094
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12179/full

File: 1451606488885.png (328KB, 769x1000px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 769x1000px

>>130833197
pretty much this

>>130832883
Just because a lot of people believe a thing doesn't make it true/real

the earth was flat for a very long time
also religions
and other scientific BS that they thought to be true but was completely wrong as they found out with newer tech.

I though probings of arctic ice or some shit showed that in the past the air contained much higher values of CO2 than we do today.

also earth is circleing through hot and cold phases or there would not have been any ice ages.

As long as there is no clear scientific evidence that humans are causing the climat change by theiir behavioud that will result in everyones death if not changed I'm calling it bullshit.

>>130844376
oh, so i have to provide proof but you dont

>what a wonderful world!

Look at my posts in this thread, Ive provided more citations and links to the actual AR4 simulations that anyone else you fuckwad

>>130844489
From your own citation:

"The influence of the magnitude of the reduction in seawater pH is not consistent across taxonomic groups and response variables. Similar to the duration analyzes, the effect of the magnitude of the pH change is only detected in a limited number of analyzes (Table 2). These effects are very small, differ in the sign of the slope, and are often heavily influenced by a few responses, analogous to statistical outliers (Figs S3–S6)."

>>130832883
>97% of scientists

You do realize they leave out the "climate" part of that right? The fuck would a anesthesiologist know about weather science?

Fact: the earth has always gone through fluctuating temps and climate differences. Ice ages are a thing. Man has had no severe adverse effects in global climate. They lie. You're gullible. You don't seem to realize the earth itself is a living organism and if it needs it will heal itself.

>>130832883
I dont know if climate change is manmade or not, they probably should do still some more research
I do however believe, that using renewable energy instead of oil or coal is a right to secure the future and stop any dependencies

>>130844094
They don't believe in the burden of proof; it's their religion.

>>130845126
Is it true you get paid for using energy in the boom times hans?

>>130844537
Yeah now people erroneously think the earth is a globe even though curvature math and reality don't coincide. Everyone believing it to be a sphere doesn't make it a sphere.

The Earth is flat. Research it.

>>130844489
CONCLUSION:

We dont know and need more funding to find out!

"Furthermore, understanding whether the remaining variation within taxonomic groups and life stages represents real biological differences among species, locally adapted populations, or acclimatory capacities, rather than experimental error, remains a critical area for future research. Finally, marine organisms of the future will not be subjected to acidification in isolation, and our results suggest that continued research on the concurrent effects of warming and acidification is necessary to forecast the status of marine organisms and communities in the near-future."

>>130844871
Our results reveal reductions in survival, calcification, growth, development, and abundance in response to ocean acidification across a broad range of marine organisms. These results support the findings of previous meta-analyzes.

. In addition, the analyzes reveal significant trait-mediated variation in the sensitivity of marine organisms. In general, heavily calcified organisms, including calcified algae, corals, mollusks, and the larval stages of echinoderms, are the most negatively impacted, whereas crustaceans, fish, fleshy algae, seagrasses and diatoms are less affected or even benefit from acidification.

Although the differences between acidification effects at ambient and elevated temperature do not explain a significant amount of variation, there is a trend towards lower survival, growth and development at elevated temperature. Given the significant variation already attributed to taxonomic groups and life history stages, the inability to detect statistically significant differences does not suggest that increased temperature does not affect the response to ocean acidification. It rather suggests that other sources of variation in these analyzes may be more pronounced than the difference in effect size at ambient and elevated temperatures. However, the trend towards lower survival, growth and development on average at elevated temperatures, suggest that continued research on the combined impacts of acidification and warming may be critical for accurately forecasting marine species responses to acidification in the near future.

File: IMG_1433.jpg (55KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 403x403px

>>130832883

>>130845691
see
>>130845680

>Furthermore, understanding whether the remaining variation within taxonomic groups and life stages represents real biological differences among species, locally adapted populations, or acclimatory capacities, rather than experimental error, remains a critical area for future research.

>rather than experimental error

hmmm

>>130845866
If you look back. I admitted we don't know for sure but there is an effect.

>>130832883
The 97% agree shit is from one single published paper. and that paper was written by a fucking cartoonist.
the 97% thing is literally ((((alternative facts))))

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#28293a1a3f9f

I actually don't disagree I just don't care

File: c3549d16.gif (376KB, 365x230px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 365x230px

Look up Vostok Ice Core Samples.

Global Warming is straight out Communist Manifesto

Facts don't care about your snowflake feelings.

>>130841274
Actually, this is one thing I can give them the benefit of the doubt on. It's easier to predict climate than weather because you just have to figure out the average trend.

The weather is quite sporadic, but the climate isn't.

>>130841802
>I don't understand, what is the coastal developers stake on all this?
1) Lower insurance costs (assuming the landowners can even buy flood insurance)
2) Allows them to keep charging $550/Sq foot for swampland or sand bars that they had no business developing in the first place
3) They will be long dead before the the oceans reach the land they are selling today so they will never be held acoutnable

Try selling a 3 million beachfront home while the local newspaper is publishing an article saying that entire beach will be swept away in 70 years. It makes for a poor investment and hurts the value of what they are selling.

Passing a law that restricts the publishing of sea levels recorded after the year 1920 helps their business. They honestly don't care about what happens in 50 let alone 100 years. The money is too good. They will lobby hard for laws to block or deny sea level change so they can keep selling shit land, and politicians support them because it brings short term construction jobs and high property taxes..

>>130846176
so whats the policy prescription for something we "dont know for sure" about??

Surely its not to run around yelling "oh my god, ocean life is so sensitive to PH we are going to kill all ocean life because of CO2 emissions and muh carbonic acid"

>>130847506
Should we instead pretend that nothing is happening because the research hasn't been done yet?

>>130832883
If you lived through the failed "Global cooling" craze of previous decades, then you should be skeptical of global warming.

>>130834230
>get involved in meaningless nested arguments
No its all bullshit

>>130847778
Ill tell you what. I will concede the entire acidification argument to you if you can explain to me why inflated solar forcings were used in the IPCC AR4 simulations.

Here is my post, with sources
>>130836227

Until then, I win and even your citations show that we dont know. Your advice is to immediately become alarmist and spend billions of dollars we dont have trying to fix it

>>130832883
For the most part I am seeing more people who disagree with the methods given to combat it, rather than the idea that it exists.

The "Republicans don't believe in Global Warming!" thing is akin to the Russian meme. It's low hanging fruit without much basis in fact.

>>130847778
how about what I actually advocate and that is that we dont become alarmist unless necessary. The science doesnt show that to be necessary, in fact it shows that we need more science before we can say with certainty its one or the other

>>130848183
meant to include another AR4 post of mine
>>130833435

File: outer banks north carolina.jpg (405KB, 1624x956px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1624x956px

>>130847129
Just to illustrate why this is such a political issue in NC in particular. They have a weird "barrier" called the outer banks along their coast. They have ocean on both side and have an obscene amount of high risk beachfront land to sell.

Not only is the topic of sea level rise "banned" but the developers also lobby hard for the state to re-zone areas that have a historic flood risk. If they reclassify a flood zone they can swing it so homeowners are no longer required to buy costly flood insurance. Laws that exist to protect homeowners are being bypassed for profit.

>>130834230
>dont say that,
No fuck you. Do say that. The study is faked. That's always with pointing out.

>>130848183
I can't tell you why the solar forcings were inflated.

Also doing nothing about the oceans on the off chance the research shows there is no problem is a reckless way of going about it. Assuming there is a problem and taking steps to combat it is much better than burying your head and waiting for more studies.

>>130849286
>Assuming there is a problem
And there is the problem

When you assume a problem, you have to assume a solution and then you implement said solution and it skews further data collection to determine if there ever was a problem in the first place.

Also, what if your solutions make things worse? Where is your evidence that man made processes to reduce CO2 levels wont over-correct and throw the earth in to a precarious climate position in and of itself.

This is why you wait for facts, not feelings to make policy

>>130832883
This video is mandatory material for anybody wanting to talk about "Global Warming".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihnkZOEe378

John Coleman also points out where this "97%" originates from.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/take-a-look-at-the-new-consensus-on-global-warming/

>>130834042
>China has already stopped.....
Are you fucking retarded leaf or just trolling
I bet you haven't even read from the fucking Paris climate agreement which allows China to produce as much polution as they want for another 13 years then they are reqired to reduce their emissions by a % every year.... so they look at this and just build as many plants as possible to milk as much money as possible..... same exact thing for india....

>>130849286
>I can't tell you why the solar forcings were inflated.

Id say thats significant isint it?
Since you can see from the data, that solar forcings are inflated, will you concede that the IPCC AR4 simulations might be inaccurate?

FOR THE NTH TIME YOU FUCKING MONG AMERIDIOTS

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
AS IN R*E*A*L

THE REASON BEHIND IT IS NOT

THE PRINCIPLE IS
BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY

HUMAN ACTIVITY MIGHT BE ABLE TO AFFECT IT AND SLOW IT DOWN

FOSSIL FUELS ARE LAUGHABLE AND HAVE NO FUTURE IN THE SPACE AGE
FOSSIL FUELS ARE HOLDING US BACK

>>130849580
You're overestimating our ability to recapture CO2. It would be much wiser to reduce emissions. Reducing emissions won't make it worse or overcorrect. How could we possibly remove 200 years of CO2 from the oceans?

>>130832883
Probably cuz muh joos, amiright

>>130849964
They could well be. You are much more informed about the simulations than I.

>>130850423
and yet, you are the one being an alarmist and i am the one saying "lets do more science to resolve these data problems", "lets do more science and determine the actual effect of these processes"

yet, you argue against my position to advance your dogmatic narrative

>>130850278
>It would be much wiser to reduce emissions.
You mean like most countries are

If you want to curb emissions more, you need to drastically change the lifestyle of those countries already declining to make up for the ones who havent capped yet, ie China

>>130832883
sheep mentality. democrats are just incapable of being respectable aren't they?

>>130832883
You know, the fucked up thing is that even if climate change is occuring naturally and you guys are right, shouldn't we prepare for mass flooding of coastal areas as well as for the famine that follows from our farmland all drying up instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and acting like a child? To add on, look up a basic chemical reaction between carbon dioxide and water. You dont have to be a tenuous to figure out when you add more of a reactant it creates more of the product. Then research algea and it's affect on oxygen levels. The only reason th re is a counterargument against climate change is because big oil has pushed hard to keep what they have.

>>130832883

the scientific community is politicized as fuck in this regard

and they also largely miss the point

yes the climate is changing, but it's a natural process and it cannot be stopped

plus ww3 soon and will precipitate climate change on a scale that make these scientific warnings seem a walk in the park

>muh x cm sea level rise in x decades

File: chinaWaterPollution.jpg (2MB, 700x8069px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x8069px

Climate retards believe CO2 is a bigger threat to the world than this.

>>130851066
yea, its not because the data is bunk or anything
>>130833435

>>130850731
It's not dogmatic. The basic process of CO2 absorbtion and the notion this has had an effect on marine life can't be denied.

File: 1497779693991.png (280KB, 497x407px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 497x407px

>>130832883
>Explain why you disagree with (((97%))) of the scientific community
there it is

File: 1496681833540.jpg (55KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x640px

>>130832883
why are you such a bigot that you think the 3% who disagree are invalid?

why are you marginalizing the 3% because of a difference of opinion by explicitly implying that they are morons?

why are you such a narrow minded denier of science?

>>130851066
Acidification of the oceans from CO2 is a scarier prospect than either sea level rise or global warming.

>>130832883
>ITT people that don't know 97% of slide threads are guilty of 'begging the question' and 99% are '1 post by this id' and who are plebitards who don't know how to sage
sage all slide threads.

>>130851339
>The basic process of CO2 absorbtion and the notion this has had an effect on marine life can't be denied.

Well, according to your citation the severity of the effect can be denied. The inability of the organisms to adapt to the new conditions can be denied. The only thing your citation proves is that there is an effect. The extent of that effect and even a greater understand of the potential negative effects on the ecosystem as a whole are unknown

>>130832883
The other 3% proved them wrong


Global warming is natural, it is the BS that we are responsible and that we have to change the whole world for it through fear, lies and manipulation.

My city is supposed to be drowned since 2012 and I am still here


Ask China and India (Force them) to be cleaner instead to push this BS on the First World

>>130851339
>It's not dogmatic

Yes it is. Im calling for more experimentation and observation and understanding. You are saying "its settled, we caused it and we have to fix it"

One of these is a pro science position and the other is an anti-science position

I will leave you to decide which is scientific and which is dogmatic

>>130851297
So CO2 and water don't produce carbonic acid? Silly me.

>>130851844
But we are having an effect. Are you suggesting we should do nothing about it because it's expensive or that it might be inconvenient to change our habits?

>>130852094
Technically you are denying it has an effect, so you are literally doing the same thing he is.

>>130852191
I never said they didnt

>>130852300
Im saying we should learn more about it so we can present a measured response. Not an alarmist approach to a problem we readily admit we dont fully understand.

>>130852478
No im not, I explicitly said the we dont fully understand the effect. The citation he provided and I further cited specifically says that they dont know and further study is needed to fully understand it

>>130833317
Imagine being this cognitively dissonant
>The earth goes through cycles climate change isn't real xD
>Yeah China and co. are polluting and changing the climate with their pollution but we can't stop them so let's keep polluting
>Climate change is still bullshit tho muh cycles
Talk to your doctor about euthanasia for your terminal retardation

>>130834534
Yep. The models are garbage and climate "scientists" are a joke.

>>130832883
I acknowledge global warming I just don't like the politics pushed by liberals. So the planet is getting warmer? Why push meme technologies like solar and wind when we haven't even scratched the potential of nuclear, a sustainable reliable source of energy?

why cripple western economies to lower the forecasted heating gradient by a fraction of a degree? the earth getting warmer is the only thing scientists know. They don't know want else to do. they just want grant money to go to their solar/wind meme focused thesis.

>>130832883
Science isn't democracy. The truth isn't defined by majority belief.

>>130850133
FOR THE NTH TIME YOU FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE CULTIST FREAK

CLIMATE CHANGE MIGHT BE REAL

BUT WE ARE NOT REALLY SURE

CULTISTS DONT LET DEBATE TAKE PLACE, AND STUDIES ON COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS, BECAUSE ANYTHING SHORT OF FULL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ALARMIST STANCE IS DEEMED BLASPHEMY

RESULT: THEY SCREAM CARBON TAX WHEN CARBON TAX WILL INCREASE POVERTY, SLOW DEVELOPMENT, AND CAUSE PEOPLE TO DIE

I'm with /pol/ on plenty of things, but climate change denial is just aggressive contrarianism at this point. Do you all really want to make the hottest places (i.e. Africa) inhabitable so those living there migrate elsewhere? Fuck coal, let's get rich from nuclear.

FRIENDLY REMINDER:

So far not one climate change advocate has explained why the IPCC AR4 simulations used inflated Solar Irradiance data

there is no list of scientists(as it is impassible to make such a list as any one can clam to be a scientists/engineer) from which anyone can make a percentage of pro and anti nor does the number of scientists believing that something is true or false make it true or false.

people that make such comments dont fully understand how science works.

>>130832883
>Climate Scientists
did you know they cant get funding unless they produce results that fit the narrative? Just like Cigarette companies would only pay scientists that did the same for their cause. and why do you post this thread so many times a day? are you some sort of paid shill? of course you are.

File: 1494985210297.jpg (37KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x386px

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
Nice fallacy, retard.

>>130832883
>sience is now based on democracy.

>>130832883
Explain why morons like you can't read the very first image you see when coming on /pol/

>>130833197
I'm going to give you a task. Find research denying human caused climate changed that isn't funded by the Koch brothers or some other industrialist. I'll give you a hint, you can't.

You guys shit on Soros when you buy up bullshit from the other side. How does it feel to be stupid pawns?

>>130855405
Anyone who denies climate change is eating up Koch brothers propaganda. They've donated over 100 million hundreds of groups to deny climate change. /pol/ is consuming propaganda just because it disagrees with liberals. You guys are so fucking dumb.

>>130855304
you're telling me the earth is flat?

>>130859151
youre a sheep. did you know the paris agreement allowed india and china to increase pollution while stifling our economy?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1243054/weather-channel-founder-climate-change-is-a-scam/

A survey is not science, and anyone trying to pass one off as such has now excluded themselves from the pool of people who are considered trustworthy by intelligent people.

>>130832883
Please state source of your numbers.
If you do, you'll completely be BTFO.
This is why no one shows the source, they just state the misleading headline.

>>130832883
97% of those scientists were also able to keep their government funding. 3% of those scientists also loss all of their government funding.

>>130858815
Why would anyone want to try and do any actual research? There's funding and career security in backing the status quo. Going against it would be a huge struggle, see you ostracized from the scientific community, career suicide, and if you DID disprove climate change you'd have made an enemy of all the people making money from the hysteria.

>>130833727
Good. And by your admission, neither is Bill Nye; I'm glad we agree that the majority of your global warming gods are all fake news.

File: F8fR_z_m.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

Global warming research is an embezzlement scam.

>>130833435
Do you acknowledge that historically CO2 concentrations and historic temperatures have a strong correlations? Do you acknowledge that our current CO2 concentrations are historically reflective of higher surface temperatures than we currently have, and are still rising?

You are accusing others of cherry picking models, while holding up the scenario that best fits your prerogative. I'm going to guess that you are using satellite readings as your basis for surface temperatures as well.

I'm not saying that the media and common conceptions don't distort the reality, but any detractor who focuses so much on one element, in your case solar forcing in a few simulations, is usually full of shit. You are ignoring the very real scenarios where GHGs are capable of warming the earth to a significant degree. We really haven't had much GHG induced warming yet, but we will.

>>130860024
No, they kept their Koch brothers funding. They pay better than the government anyways.

>>130859307
Are you fucking retarded? Did I say anything about the Paris Agreement? No, that agreement is garbage. All I'm saying is the vast majority of climate change denial research and propaganda is funded by a small handfull of individuals with a vested interest in denial.