What evidence is there that global climate, the extent that we're

>>137571000
checked.
none.

File: SeaIce.png (18KB, 504x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 504x300px

nothing?

File: nclimate3013-f1.jpg (162KB, 946x600px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 946x600px

the rate, magnitude and the spatial characteristics of the observed warming are simply inconsistent with any known natural processes

and the response of the Earth system might therefore be similarly unprecedented, which makes the phenomenon all the more dangerous

I wonder if there are any good climate change debates between intelligent people. I cannot judge all of this by myself because i'm not competent enough to discern what is real and what is made-up or adjusted.

And the reason i don't trust "muh 98%" is because this issue became too politicized, and when there's politics involved you stop just believing scientists.

A debate would sorta give me an indication on who of the debaters is more smarter and makes more logical arguments. This is the only way that i think would work for me bar investing years of getting a phd.

Climate change is real you fucking cucks, and we are even facing a new problem. Sand. Yes fucking Sand.

Every year 19 billion tons of sand get used up for building.

And no, not desert sand, because it has too smooth edges to be used in building because of the wind, only sea sand. This is causing immense problems in the flora and fauna, also it threatens whole islands to sink, because sand is a natural barrier for water, and if there is no more sand on the beaches, the ocean takes soil from the islands.

This could even get more worse than actual rising sea levels.

>>137574712
All the people who are investigating climate science are only paid to research, what has been concluded to be, an existing phenomenon. It will be very difficult to find an iconoclast insider who will risk his career to support the opposite conclusion.

>>137574712
You can't really. All the "evidence" you get is just graphs and numbers, all of which could easily be forged. Everyone has some sort of ulterior motive, and going by all of human history, most of those people probably aren't telling you their side to "save the earth" or "save the economy" like they want you to believe. I suppose it comes down to what you as an individual want. If you want more resources for yourself and others, at possible cost of hastening the earth's demise, you shun climate science. If you want to prolong the Earth, at the possible cost of resources (the lack of may kill people in other ways), then you support it. I just don't see how else you can make a decision without learning all the shit and doing it yourself as you said.

>>137574712
the problem with live debates is that they are mostly determined by factors other than factual accuracy. Someone can easily "win" a debate by appearing as confident, charismatic and witty, regardless if what he says is 180° opposed to reality.

File: sks_co2_400kyr_850.jpg (51KB, 850x638px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 850x638px

>>137571000
Do you know the source of your data and the way it was measured?

Pic related will give you an idea. The first 800k years were taken from vostok ice cores, at a very low resolution, then normalized across that resolution to produce pretty data points for the graph. The very last data point was taken not with CO2 trapped in ice but with direct measurement of the air, and was not normalized thousands of years.

So is it a comparison of CO2 levels or a comparison of measurement methods?

i'm in the mountains, and i'm under water right now.

what evidence is there that pumping billions of tons of combustion gasses into a thin layer of atmosphere has any effect?

hahahahahahahahaha

Svante Arrhenius figured it out on a napkin 100 years ago, but there is too much money to be made by the hannitys and limbaughs keeping the proles dumbed down

File: wuwt.png (29KB, 500x193px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x193px

>>137576000
Now here is gisp2 ice core data, not normalized, at a high resolution

>>137576157
look at it you can see it rising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmPzbZVUp3g

File: easterbrook_fig5.png (113KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 480x360px

>>137576410
Another gisp2 graph

>>137575676
>I suppose it comes down to what you as an individual want
You've hit the nail on the head there. I'm all up for using renewable energy, taking care of the only planet we have, and ultimately i see that this future is the correct future to go for.

I just want the truth because i'm that autistic i guess. Even in understanding it, i would still support the "muh climate change is real" side of the argument, just for what it's underlying goal is.
>>137575271
>>137575943
Yeah i think I've seen enough of these confident and charismatic types to tell who is authentic.

>>137575271
>>137575676
>>137574712
Was wondering how anyone would fight the "consensus" and found this gem that just came out.
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7

File: leftists are subhuman apes.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>137571000
Absolutely 0 evidence.

Climate Hoaxers got BTFO when the UN panel got caught faking data to further their agenda.

>>137576454
>>137576410
>>137576000
The data points for this research ends in 1855, so it's not super relevant since we're discussing current climate change.

Temperature, especially since all of those data points are specifically for Greenland are going to be less accurate and more vulnerable to erroneous variability.

It's a decent point but has a lot of flaws in the data collection.

Climate change is real.

Man made climate change is a political cash grab.

>>137577023
and that's a "gem" why?

>>137577596
But we have evidence to support the notion that man-made climate change is real. Can you disprove it or have evidence that the current CO2 levels, land-ice/sea-ice, and temperature change are all natural occurrences?

File: co2_temperature_historical.png (298KB, 791x562px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 791x562px

>>137571000

this evidence.

the acceleration of the process is caused by human activity, but the end result will be the same

>>137577659
He makes the correlation between volcanic eruptions in Antarctica and ice shelf collapsing, which would make it a natural thing

>>137571000
take this shill shit to /sci
or, are you afraid of being laughed at like the dumbfuck you are?

>>137578124
in that case, people should read the papers before citing them, because the authors explicitly say that not only are these volcanoes not the cause of recent ice sheet disintegration (since the retreat is happening along the margins at the ice shelfs, calving fronts and grounding lines) but they also state they could even help to *stabilize* the ice sheet, since they act as "pinning points" in the bedrock that buttress the ice sheet and keep it from flowing faster

>>137578009
Are you retarded? The time axis on that picture is non-linear and compressed by a factor of 1000 compared to OP's plot. The two are not even remotely comparable.

>>137578143
Do you have an argument or just personal attacks?

File: co2cenozoic.png (54KB, 514x320px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 514x320px

>>137578009
what people have to realize about this graph (since it gets posted so incredibly often) is that there isn't a single definitive temperature or CO2 curve for the entire Phanerozoic.
I mean this graph doesn't even have an uncertainty envelope.

The only era that is known to a high degree of certainty is the Cenozoic. We can infer GAST from the stacked benthic oxygen isotope ratios recovered from ocean sediment cores and CO2 concentration from several independent proxies (notably the new boron/calcium ratios). And during the Cenozoic, temperature and CO2 track each other very closely.

In fact, even for times at which CO2 proxies give strange and sometimes contradictory signals, there is a strange case to say that the climatic changes are due to changes in the concentration of long-lived atmospheric constituents like CO2.

>>137571000
It's this crazy shit called science! Using ice core samples, we have temperature data going back 50,000 years

>>137579213
(strong*, not strange case)

File: 12d6.jpg (6KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x240px

>>137578845
for an idiot like you who can't understand that science isn't political?
kys, dumbfuck

>>137578576
Yeah that's some of the conclusion, but it also writes that it contributes to ice thinning and overall ice instability. I don't care about this either way but you only select the part that confirms your bias.

>>137579900
Climate change science is very political boy.

Just keep angrily lashing out because you have no proof of your statement.
>>137579262
We have reconstructed temperatures, but instrumental recording of temperature only started around 1650 as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though.

>>137579213
How does this data refute the lack of correlation of Temp and CO2 concentration in the data plot you don't seem to like? You've just posted CO2 over time which isn't very convincing if your argument is CO2 concentration drives global temps.

>>137571000
None.

Why does every climate change denying post has to come from America? why is the most powerful nation in the planet also the most ignorant? how is that possible?

File: 1496633064336.jpg (59KB, 531x471px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 531x471px

>>137579900
>science isn't political
It's not but how it is reported to the lay public certainly is.

>>137580764
>climate change denying
Nobody is claiming that the climate isn't changing. The argument being made is that a significant amount of the change in our climate isn't the result of human activity (aka the thing that has yet to be demonstrated using the scientific method). Once they can establish that causal link and demonstrate it through observably correct predictions using that theory I'm on board; until then it's fucking string theory as far as I'm concerned.

So far all I've got is, "Hey goy, buy an electric car that runs off the coal burning power grid."

File: lemmings.gif (933KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 320x240px

>>137580615
>climate change science is political
>not real science
kys for being a dumbfuck lemming and polluting the genepool

>>137580710
so, if the fact that the one era for which we have the most precise, high-resolution proxy data shows a strong relationship between CO2 and temperature (not only in general trends but also singular climatic events like the Paleogene hyperthermals, the Eocene-Oligocene boundary or the Miocene climatic optimum), what am I supposed to show you that would be convincing?

It's not that I simply dislike the graph, I explicitly said that it's misleading in so far as it suggests that there is a single known and definitive temperature- and CO2 curve, which is completely false.

And I also pointed out that there is good reason to think that CO2 was the main paleoclimatic driver, even when CO2 proxies give divergent answers.

>>137581497
You know lemmings don't really run off of cliffs right? It was a Disney animal show where a guy off camera chased them off the cliff that started that meme junior.

>>137581666
>defends being a lemming
kek

>>137571000
absolutely none, we would have noticed if there was some natural reason the Co2 levels are so high i should hope

>>137581546
>strong relationship
Show a causal relationship and I'm on board. They've been working on this for over 20 years and haven't come up with a model that can generate accurate predictions using CO2 as the causative factor. I was on board when the climate concern trolling began in the late 90s but stopped believing the hype when they couldn't show causation or make accurate predictions.

>>137581899
nah, i just said you're an idiot that believes anything he's told. lemmings are pretty cool though

>>137581546

Correlation does not imply causation.

A control is needed to account for confounding variables.This is basic statistics.

>>137573405
Anthropogenic rate and magnitude have been seen before human emissions as recently as the last few hundred years. Most of the time you charlatans hide that by heavily smoothing historical plots - so such spikes are hidden from the gullible.

>>137581497
>>not real science
I never said anything about "real science"
What I meant was that the issue it important in politics right now.

But here you, still just calling me stupid with no proof of your claim.

>>137574712
The famous 97% figure is based on an acceptance criterion so loose it includes most sceptics.

>>137582071
>believes anything they're told
like a climate change shill
>projecting your character flaws onto others
kys, dumbfuck

>>137571000

There is nothing to indicate that we can annihilate humanity off the face of the earth by altering the climate. It is self mitigating. Increased warmth, a little. Cancer, perhaps. Even still, not death sentences. Total extinction?

Never going to happen. Climatologists, like so many "scientists", don't have a broad enough view. They stick to their vacuum packed data, which is ironically, extremely unscientific,

>>137582208
>no proof you're a dumbfuck
your posts are all the proof that's needed

File: 1496389811744.png (415KB, 907x587px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 907x587px

The scam was revealed years ago.

>>137582428
What is Mars?

File: 1487602672151.jpg (144KB, 618x597px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 618x597px

>>137573405
>any known natural processes
>known
I guess we know everything there is to know about climate. Shouldn't be too hard to build a workable model that can be evaluated for it's predictive value if we know all the inputs and outputs
>the majority of non-linear self-referential differential equations are not solvable.
Have a peek at the behavior of Xn+1=rXn(1-Xn) as r increases.

>>137582428

total extinction will happen no matter what we do.

>>137582630

mars never had life as far as we know, and the planet has almost no magnetosphere, exposing its atmosphere to the solar wind, thus having it blasted away over billions of years.

>>137571000
It doesn't make sense to compare data from a half-million-year timescale to weather in the 10 to 100 years around now. If that graph has 1000 pixels from left to right, each pixel would cover 500 years, right? Now, the people who made that graph *could* have plotted a range from lowest to highest temperature seen in each 500 year period (well, only *if* they had that much detailed data to begin with). But they have not because it's just a regular line graph. So what you're seeing is some kind of average or otherwise representative figure for each 500-year period. Any shorter fluctuations would disappear into that single figure. So, because it is a line graph, it cannot possibly be showing past events similar to the ones that are meant to have happened recently. In fact, it's worse than that. There's also a clear lack of any high-frequency noise in the graph. But if you look at more detailed graphs, say of the last 10,000 or 1000 years, you'll see it should be there. So this plot has been "smoothed". Most of the detail below about 2500 years has been killed off in my estimation. Except the spike on the right, which has been "glued on" without any smoothing. The whole thing is designed to mislead.

>>137583218
Mars had life, jews come from mars. Read the Torah.
It was a weakening of the atmosphere from the inside that led to solarwind damage being critical. Same shit we're doing.

>>137583130
The nigger has a point.

>>137577978
>http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7
No, man. You're the one who wants to influence policy. So you present your ONE GOOD argument. 100 weak ones won't cut it, because in any sufficiently complex domain, there are 100 weak argument for anything.

File: cenozoic.png (19KB, 450x178px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x178px

>>137581996
this is global average surface temperature for the Cenozoic
you can kind of overlay this curve in your mind with the CO2 concentration shown here >>137579213

you can see that not only does it match in the general trend (high and rising CO2 concentration, coinciding with high and rising temperatures until around 50 mya, followed by generally falling CO2 concentrations and falling temperatures), but you can also see distinctive excursions of CO2 for times of sudden climate change. For instance: PETM, the middle Eocene climate optimum and the Miocene climate optimum are all visible in the CO2 proxy-record as upticks in CO2 concentration.

But the importance of CO2 can also be demonstrated by simply looking at the other forcings: Neither changes in solar luminosity, nor the forcing from a difference in position of the continents is anywhere near strong enough to induce temperature changes of this magnitude.

>>137571000
What's the resolution on ice cores or whatever they used to get that data? I'm sure we can measure more precisely now. If a segment of an ice core can only measure an average of the past and future 50 years, then that'd be a natural low-pass filter.

>>137578576
Yeah, in the "hand-waving conjecture" section of the paper.

>>137579213
You don't know if CO2 is long-lived from the historical data. You're assuming that.

A better question is: can humans adapt to climate change? If no, then we should put heavy food sanctions on China until they get adequate environmental protections, threatening total war if necessary. We're all going to die anyway, so the risk of nuclear war is a chance we have to take.

China alone can bring us past the point of no return, no matter how carbon neutral the west becomes.

>>137582612
>poor translation & combining two separate quotes.
His statements meant to say in the article that major world economies see almost a 1:1 ratio of economic growth and Percent CO2 emissions. Because of this world economies do not wish to curtail emissions as it could hurt them economically, and that the only way to reduce emissions on a grand scale is for agreements like the Paris agreement.

https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227

>>137583739
literally: >>137583776 >>137571000 >>137572002 >>137572041

>>137571000
>>137571000
>>137571000
>>137571000

You can't just draw a graph supporting you views and claim it is reality.

Also I would think the one with the unnatural explanation would be required to produce the proof.
I'm no genius but it seems more logical that the ones who feel a change is not a natural process would be required to produce some evidence.

>>137581497
Lemmings allow their economy to get screwed over some "chicken little" fantasy. Or is it a sacrifice to your rain god?

>>137583739
ah, you are the one that wants to influence policy also....

and you have zero arguments in your favour that stand up to any scrutiny at all.

not just weak, not even weak, just worthless.

stop being a contrarian for the lulz, get a real clue, come back as a decent human being genuinely worried about other people.

>>137581546
Your causal link from CO2 to temperature is just a fantasy until you finish the experiments. How are they going?

>>137584228
Honestly, no one really wants to say that there's no way to cut enough. Period. Even if you bought climate change hook, line, and sinker, no proposed solution even puts a dent into the problem. Which is why it's been politically and economically hijacked. It's a problem that a large number of people are willing to pay into with absolutely no concern for actual results.

>>137581497

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Here's a great paper for finding out why some science is 100% valid (physics, for example), and why some science is close to 100% bullshit (sociology, for example).

Global warming suffers from 4 of the 6 likely factors for why its results are bullshit (check out the corollarys)

>>137584566
Cheap equivalence argument doesn't apply.

Your arguments are required first. There's no way to examine the validity of an unstated argument.

Don't bother talking about "decent human beings" until you've grasped the basics.

File: 6437969.jpg (896KB, 2000x711px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 2000x711px

>>137584104
Controlled experiments normally don't exist in nature, but in a sense it has already been conducted for us.
I mentioned PETM for example:
This was 55 million years ago, when an enormous amount of carbon got injected into the atmosphere and ocean within not more than 20.000 years.
As a response, the planet warmed by more than 5°C, ocean sediments suddenly turn dark red (because of a shoaling of the lysocline), precipitation strongly increased, there is a huge exstirpation and turnover in marine and terrestrial species, mass migration of mammals, changes in soil chemistry and transient dwarfism of animals.

A single one of these events would be enough to demonstrate a link, but there are actually several of these events in the Eocene alone (albeit with a smaller magnitude).

>>137584426
>You can't just draw a graph supporting you views and claim it is reality.
What you think I just whipped this up in photoshop?
>Industrial revolution and technology from that point forward releases huge amounts of CO2, methane, Chlorofluorocarbons, N2O into the atmosphere
>We know that these "greenhouse gasses" have the ability to erode the ozone layer and trap energy from the sun in our atmosphere
This is a valid explanation.
Unless you can come up with a better explanation for higher CO2 levels, sea temperature rising, air temperature rising, ice sheets receding; then you have to concede to my evidence.

>>137583072
if all you can do is take refuge in an appeal to unknown unknowns, then I leave you with it

>>137585369
that doesn't prove their research invalid though. The only thing you proved was that there is a possibility for error.

File: IMG_3680.gif (142KB, 2150x1280px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 2150x1280px

>>137571000
The solar cycle.

(((They've))) convinced millions of people that the sun couldn't possibly be responsible for climate changes on earth.
It's the single biggest case of cognitive dissonance anyone has ever seen.

We are entering into a grand solar minimum. The earth will cool and they will blame co2.

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

42KB, 685x598px

>>137571000
>What evidence is there that global climate, the extent that we're currently seeing, change is a natural process?

There used to be like several kilometers of ice where I live just over ten thousand years ago. The general trend in temperature is upwards.

>>137586757
the experiments used to blame CO2 use boxes with lids (sealed boxes)
our atmosphere has no lid and is not sealed

>>137586757
We've received lower irradiance levels since 1978 and we've had the hottest decades since then; so no the answer is not that the sun is causing it.

>>137585744
The fact that controlled experiments don't exist in nature doesn't mean you get to say "oh well, let's just assume our theories are righ then".

Your PETM example is nothing like an experiment. You didn't "inject" CO2 into the "system". In fact you have no idea where it came from. You don't know that CO2 emissions weren't an effect of the rise in temperature. You *imply* the CO2 suddenly appeared before the warming but you don't actually know that either - your data aren't accurate enough.

Only a fantasist would think that was anything like an experiment.

File: IMG_3681.jpg (126KB, 640x445px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 640x445px

>>137586757
As solar activity diminishes, galactic cosmic rays increase causes more cloud cover, atmospheric electrical events and increased volcanism which increases the
albedo effect Further cooling the earth.

>>137587765
Wrong faggot shill.

File: 78_Q3-solar-irradiance-740PX.jpg (106KB, 740x772px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 740x772px

>>137587951
Sweet evidence broseph.

>>137587810
you should look at >>137586059 >>137571000

>>137585744
I will additionally address your comment "A single one of these events would be enough to demonstrate a link, but there are actually several...".

Firstly this reads like indoctrination/brainwashing language. "there are more, and more, and more". It belongs in the trash can, along with "overwhelming consensus" and "denier".

You can produce 100 weak arguments in favour of ANY overall thesis about the climate system, because it is complex, poorly understood and hard to model.

We just need ONE convincing argument. In an earlier reply I indicate why this is no such thing.

>>137587765
Thermal inertia. NEXT!

>>137588319
>We just need ONE convincing argument.
There will clearly never be an argument convincing enough for you.

>>137588037
Fuck off with your fake data, acting like weather services all over the world haven't been caught falsifying their data.
Oh look, here's just the latest one.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/
If you wanna whine about the source, I can find you as many as you want.

File: IMG_3682.png (77KB, 900x227px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 900x227px

>>137588612
And the long solar cycle chat (((they))) don't want to talk about.

>>137588557
It seems likely that you're right. Climatology is unlikely ever yo produce a "two slit experiment" of its own.

But of course, if advocates stopped going on boards trying to trick people into thinking that has been achieved, and instead maybe tried to help achieve it, well I suppose it would be more likely.

>>137587810
>>137588319

so let me get this straight:
we have an event of sudden warming, coinciding with a sudden release of gases that are known to influence surface temperature - and the we are supposed to reject that in favor of ... what exactly?

anyone who has spent 10 seconds thinking about it would realize that a) the source of the carbon doesn't have to be known for it to perturb the climate (the radiative properties of CO2 derived from unknown sources is the same as that of CO2 from known sources) and b) carbon was almost certainly also released by the warming as an amplifying feedback

>>137589419
You're assuming your own conclusion - making a circular argument. All you have is warming and increased CO2 at about the same time.

You DO NOT KNOW which happened first.

You DO NOT HAVE an external source for that CO2. So it's release could have been caussd by the climate system.

All you have is an assumption that global warming theory is ALREADY TRUE, which you sneakily insert using the words "gases ... known to influence surface temperature". It was clever of you to say "gases" and not "CO2" so as to obfuscate the cheat (obviously you've done this before you rascal ;-) ).

Anyway, taking out the cheat and noting the important things you don't know which I have called out above, alternate hypotheses in which warming causes increased CO2 are equally well supported.

And then at the end you sneak in another CAGW-hypothesis as an assumption: "amplifying feedback". Another unproven beauty.

>>137589419
By the way, for anyone else who is interested, Watts Up With That thoroughly destroy this guy's PETM argument in plenty of detail.

>>137590663
Here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/another-half-done-press-release-wheres-the-science-citation/

>>137588612
>website run by Marc Morano
>Sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
>Funded by Exxon
They're citing an issue with the recording equipment, it's being investigated currently. Really not compelling evidence that a few stations fucked up therefore global climate change isn't real.

>>137590365
Retardation in action is a fascinating sight.

>>137590828
Did losing the argument make you angry, so that you had to lash out?

>>137590993
And here is yet another example of the spread of retardation following the invasion of inbred fucks to bongistan.
Not the guy you replied to retard.

>>137580194
Even if the phenomena was a contributing factor, it doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change isn't also doing damage. Obviously, the natural phenomena that were responsible for changes in climate on Earth haven't gone away and are still active, but the only thing climate scientists doing research on climate change are trying to say is that the human contribution is causing dangerously rapid change to the climate.

So no, what the anon you're responding to you is pointing out isn't just "some of the conclusion" that you can just pick and choose, it directly goes against your idea of what's going on.

>>137591347
The 1978-1998 rising period was exaggerated due to urban heat island effect and "adjustments" of dubious merit.

Even if you accept those dubious figures, there's nothing unusual about it.

The whole point of this discussion is that sneaky climate activists produce graphs in which the OLD (i,e, before human emissions) data has been smoothed down so much you literally cant see the rapid fluctuations on the graph, while the NEW data (since human emissions) has not been smoothed.

So they've taken two INCOMPATIBLE plots and just stitched them together, to cause alarm.

>>137590365
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't an assumption, it's the necessary consequence of the absorption spectrum of CO2, a negative atmospheric lapse rate and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If anyone else reads this, this is what your choices are:

you can either accept what we already know about the properties of CO2 and its effect on surface temperature and think that there is a cause and effect relationship between the observed spikes in temperature and the spikes in CO2
OR
everything we know about atmospheric physics, radiative transfer and thermodynamics is wrong and that Earth's climate is driven by a process that is somehow capable of increasing temperatures by 8°C in a few thousand years, yet has completely escaped detection.

You have to ask yourself: what is the most parsimonious explanation?

I'm adressing this to everyone else isntead of you, because I suspect that some who casually rejects simple and self-evident concepts like positive feedbacks will not tend to make a reasoned judgement

>>137584414
>the only way to reduce emissions on a grand scale is for agreements like the Paris agreement.

An agreement that cannot be enforced and rewards the first person to betray it is the solution to this problem? Are you unaware of the prisoners dilemma?

The only solution to climate change is a one world government with total authority, and everyone at the top levels knows this. Whether they support "solutions to climate change" is a great indicator of whether they support one world government, actually. As far as increased CO2? I see nothing but benefits to myself and my race.

>>137585744
>This was 55 million years ago, when an enormous amount of carbon got injected into the atmosphere and ocean within not more than 20.000 years.
>As a response, the planet warmed by more than 5°C, ocean sediments suddenly turn dark red (because of a shoaling of the lysocline), precipitation strongly increased, there is a huge exstirpation and turnover in marine and terrestrial species, mass migration of mammals, changes in soil chemistry and transient dwarfism of animals
And there were absolutely no confounding factors, you just know.

Don't have time to wade into all of this but this longish video was a really good presentation on climate change (ignore the clickbait title) that some of you might find interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

>>137586424

no it certainly doesn't prove their research is invalid, but it does give you reason for suspicion. Indeed there's lots of heretics out there pointing out that the models they use have historically over-estimated the amount of heating (149 of 153 used in the IPCC report, to be exact), or that in general their models do not reflect the appropriate physics but instead are more numerical in nature with various fudge factors (just read a paper on their models, seriously).

>>137580615
It wasn't always that way. The concept of the greenhouse effect dates back to the 19th century, and it was really in the 1960s that scientific findings on climate started to reach policymakers. The data for the famous Keeling curve was collected before then, and you can find examples of newspaper articles reporting on climate research long before the 60s. For example:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review_intro.png?w=720

>>137589419
>coinciding
Key word. The crux of your argument of that "natural experiment" is that correlation==causation, which is demonstrably false.

>>137571000
They have been fiddling the data , it's cooling not warming

https://realclimatescience.com

>>137571000
>400,000 years
>Relevant

Earth is billion of years old. 400,000 is nothing

>>137593133
that's the only plausible mechanism for which there is any evidence. In that sense: yes, we know.

>>137593583
Again, let me pose you the same question I asked earlier:
We have in front of us a known, plausible and measurable mechanism, whose impact can be observed through time.
If that doesn't mean anything to you, what (theoretically) would I have to present here that would convince you?

>>137588612
sad thing about demoralised propagandised people, they won't accept the truth no matter how much you try to show them.

>>137571000
My God, you'd think that with the 14 words, people on this board wouldn't be signing future generations up for the misery of a worst case scenario of climate change. But no, a bunch of climate deniers here, why? Because oil companies don't like the idea, we shouldn't accept it?

>>137593963
>impact can be observed
>data has been modified
you're observing manipulated data that shows falsehood

>>137592350
First of all, readers should not be intimidated by wording like "everything we know ... is wrong" added to the option he DOESN'T want you to choose.

We are examining ONE question. That is, does the PETM event significantly or entirely justify climate alarmist. And, of course, your conclusions can and should be whatever damn well follows, not some binary choice weirdly imposed by the protagonist (with one option scary-ised).

To the science. Clearly, the greenhouse effect as it is understood to operate on Venus (where there is a *lot* more OC2 than on earth) will not account for the amount of warming seen (were it caused by CO2). The discrepancy is not "in the noise". It's a FACTOR of about 10. So, greenhouse effect is NT a hypothesis for causation going CO2->warming in this case - the numbers just don't add up.

Notice how he keeps on inserting presuppositions in order to draw his conclusion. He's trying to say, I'm right because I'm right. I quote for example "accept what we already know about the properties of CO2 and its effect". Of course, he's asserting his hypothesis here. He has not justified any of that stuff, and so is asking you to take it on trust - but it's just the conclusion he's trying to argue for!

I accept the basic greenhouse effect is known. But the numbers don't add up - it's 10 times too small. So he needs other hocus pocus, which will turn out to be the "positive feedbacks" he mentioned before (unproven, unsupported by experiment, unable to produce successful prodictions). That's probably where he's heading when he name drops "absorption spectrum of CO2, a negative atmospheric lapse rate and Stefan-Boltzmann" without incorporating them into any kind of argument. (Hint: they're only there to lend authority - to fool you).

>>137594143
No, because people here aren't stupid and can actually take an objective look at the facts and make a rational assessment.

Once you do you find there is nothing but bullshit behind it.

>>137594143
Man, if it's "big oil" you hate, why not go punch an oil rig, and leave our energy policy alone.

>>137592025
Wasn't the whole point of you pointing out that study so you can show that human caused climate change isn't real? I was merely telling you that this is not what the study says and that climate changing forces before human caused carbon emissions don't have to no longer exist for anthropogenic climate change to be true. I don't know how anything you wrote to me here has much to do with the point I was raising.

And I'm quite sure if the issue was so obvious that it would be seen in how they were graphing their data, that non-climate scientists would easily pick out this issue and climate scientists wouldn't be able to "dupe" anyone, but I have heard no non-climate scientist picking out such an issue. I've heard of physicists who believe that the warming we are seeing is being caused by cosmic rays and that the climate models on which scientists are faulty, but I've never heard a scientist try to argue against climate scientific findings by talking about faults obvious in the graphs...

>>137594633
I forgot to repeat myself on the PETM points:
your challenges about the unknown source and the relative timing are both irrelevant because one is inconsequential as well as an argument from ignorance, while is based on a (willful, it seems) misunderstanding. An increase in CO2 concentration can both be the result and the cause of warming. That's why I mentioned the positive feedback.
It's simply a matter of fact that there is no other plausible, known mechanism for which there is evidence and that can account for the observations.

I don't know if this is the case for anyone else, but the part about Venus reads like total word salad to me.

I can explain how those things I listed relate to the greenhouse effect if challenged, but I mentioned the feedbacks because many of them are based on even simpler physics than GHGs and Stefan-Boltzmann.

Take the water vapor feedback for instance:
It's essentially dictated by Clausius-Clapeyron.
What's your refutation of that?

>>137594729
Between all the insults and faulty inferences I've seen climate deniers on this board make, I highly doubt that climate deniers are such because they are so rational.

>>137593963

>We have in front of us a known, plausible and measurable mechanism

No we don't- The numbers don't add up, so your "only plausible mechanism" is just fairy dust added with hopium of climate jews.

>>137596363
and what numbers would that be?

>>137595345
Punching an oil rig does nothing. And why would you want to keep running on fossil fuels? Even if you disregard climate change, it's still toxic and dangerous to human and environmental health. Nuclear, with all its faults, is far better than fossil fuels, and other forms of clean energy are now economically competitive with fossil fuels.

>>137596240
We're not deniers. It isn't happening. Fact after fact after fact after fact has been released showing that 100% of any "warming" has been due to the manipulation of the data, not the data itself.

From taking temperatures that are "too cold" and deleting them. From taking stations that are in cold areas and moving them to warmer areas. From literally just changing the numbers to suit the agenda.

Because it is an agenda, and there are billions of dollars at stake.

The real science demonstrates with as much certainty as can be had from science that rises in C02 levels LAG the warming trends by as much as 800 years.

Since in the past ALL of the warming trends preceded the increase in C02 levels, it is IMPOSSIBLE that higher C02 levels cause global warming.

FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.

But Al Gore wants to sit on the Chicago Carbon Trading Board and sift through 14 TRILLION DOLLARS in carbon credits, and you think he has NO MOTIVE to lie to you.

You are an IDIOT.

>>137595727
OP asked whether natural variation could account for recent changes. This was because he'd found a graph that mislead him into thinking it could not. I simply explained why the graph was misleading, and that natural variations in fact can account for it.

You make an interesting point about the level of obviousness in that graphing trick. You say " non-climate scientists would easily pick out this issue"... well, I did :-).

Decent climatologists wouldn't be fooled, but it would not be good for their careers to point this out. It's real-politik. The governments who are paying these scientists want the people to be alarmed. So the graphs just keep "popping up".

If you don't believe me, how do explain the continual re-emergence of the "hockey-stick graph" which was thoroughly debunked over 10 years ago?

>>137596240
piss off agent smith.

>>137595727

Since there have been ice ages (cold) and non-ice ages (warm) before humanity existed, isn't it fucking obvious the climate changes from ice age (cold) to non-ice ages (warm)?

Isn't that fucking obvious?

>>137596525
>economically competitive with fossil fuels.
I agree with you that we should move away from fossil fuels and I do believe in man-made climate change but I don't think clean energy is truly competitive with fossil fuels, unfortunately.

>>137597336
The argument is that the current climate change is far more rapid than anything the earth has seen before, and that it's due to human interference.

File: anigif_enhanced-buzz-16793-1365446381-3.gif (2MB, 448x324px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x324px

>>137595961

In an earlier comment , you state "A single one of these events would be enough to demonstrate a link, but there are actually several of these events in the Eocene alone (albeit with a smaller magnitude)."

But, you can't show that the CO2 increase was not entirely caused by warming, unless you assume the positive feedbacks part of CAGW theory is already correct.

But if you're going to assume that, then what possible relevance would PETM have?

All your circular reasoning does is show that PETM is *consistent* with CAGW being true. But it's also consistent with CAGW being false. So nothing is gained.

I made the point that 100 weak arguments does not equal one strong one. You presented PETM as an example of a strong argument and I have shown that it is weak - and feeble.

>>137571000
They should change the graph to affect, since many gases are "green house" gases and some gases are 3 times "stronger". They realy need to have a combined graph with just how mutch of the sun rays we trap now compared to before.

>>137597647
It's not an argument. It's a hypothesis. It has zero data to demonstrate that it is a valid hypothesis, because the data is being intentionally corrupted and manipulated to fit the hypothesis.

That is not how science works. That is not how people find out what the truth of the matter is.

And the truth of the matter is that many people are lining their pockets with fat stacks of climate change cash.

>>137597834
They couldn't program their simulations for "heat rises". What makes you think they can ever program a simulation that actually mirrors reality?

>>137595727
I originally linked the paper. My point was that new climate influencing phenomena are continually being discovered. Despite the obvious impact on global climate, authors goosestep around any conclusion that would not be directly in line with anthropogenic global warming.

While you may not see a paper refuting anthropogenic global warming directly, evidence papers like these that beg the question are all too common.

>>137598318
They're not being discovered. They were always there.

Sun. Clouds. Sea. Air. Water. And a massive melted core of iron that periodically erupts through volcanoes.

>>137597337
The game's been changing with respect to renewables. Coal India (largest coal mining company in the world) has retired 37 mines because it was no longer economically viable, as the increasing competition from renewables has been making it economic success harder:
>http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/worlds-largest-coal-company-to-retire-37-mines-in-india

Germany recently awarded a contract to an offshore wind company in a power auction, indicating that offshore wind is becoming an economically viable force:
>https://thinkprogress.org/offshore-wind-is-competitive-with-nuclear-c4218113f6fe/

In fact, the predictions now are that the U.S. will even satisfy Paris Accord goals by sheer economic force alone:
>https://qz.com/1024520/renewable-energy-is-becoming-so-cheap-the-us-will-meet-paris-commitments-even-if-trump-withdraws/

>>137598622
Wait until the subsidies get withdrawn.

>>137598017
>It's not an argument. It's a hypothesis.
not a big difference.
I thought you were legitimately asking what the discussion in climate change was.

And you can't just claim that data is being corrupted without something to refute it.

>>137571000
Wtf I want to ride my bike to work and pay carbon taxes now?

>>137598318
These factors of climate change have been known to scientists for a long time. In my class on extinction we were taught all of this-- we know that volcanoes have an effect on temperatures, you don't even need to be a scientist to know that.

>>137599014
>And you can't just claim that data is being corrupted without something to refute it.
wtf? it's not a claim. the data has been 'homogenized' (modified)
ask for raw data and you meet a brick wall

>>137597827
Let's talk about a specific scenario:
probably the most common hypothesis for the source of the carbon is Antarctic peat bog.

A small initial orbital forcing raises temperature in the high southern latitudes where these peat bogs have formed. Because the soil carbon reservoir shrinks and turns into a source with higher temperatures, carbon is released into the atmosphere, raising the temperatures further, causing more carbon to get released.
The orbital forcing alone isn't able to raise global temperatures in any significant way, it just induces a small zonal temperature anomaly, but with the resulting rise in CO2 raised temperatures globally by several degrees.

No let me ask you directly:
what's physically wrong with this feedback and how is this inconsistent with global warming in the present?

The main reason people such as myself deny climate change is man made is because people like gore tried to monetize it after promoting the perils of it.

>>137596955
>You say " non-climate scientists would easily pick out this issue"... well, I did :-).

I probably should have made my point clearer, but I was referring to scientists who do not study climate (and are therefore not "in" on the conspiracy, if such a conspiracy exists). Most of the climate skeptics in the scientific community point out uncertainties in the models or some kind of unaccounted for variable, but I have never heard a climate skeptic in the scientific community say "look at the graphs, it's obvious!".

>If you don't believe me, how do explain the continual re-emergence of the "hockey-stick graph" which was thoroughly debunked over 10 years ago?

Was it? Because I'm pretty sure the numerous recent reconstructions, all coming out with with conclusions supporting the original reconstruction, have indicated that the original holds up.

It's interesting how the largest forces behind climate change skepticism are fossil fuel company aligned? From the history of climate science it is obvious who the real political enemies to science are.

>>137597336
No, it's not that obvious. Any introductory level course will teach you about these natural fluctuations, but that's not what scientists are talking about when they refer to anthropogenic climate change. Here they are referring to the human contribution of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere for over a century causing sharp increases in the rate of climate warming.

>>137599449

Your scenario is only *consistent* with CAGW. It's not a strong argument in favour of it. And it's only one scenario,

Counter-scenario: the solar forcing was large and accounted for 90% of the warming, which in turn released CO2 from peat bogs, which then caused the other 10% of the measured warming.

My scenario is consistent with events, but inconsistent with CAGW, and it wins on Occam's razor because it doesn't need positive feedbacks at all.

You still seem to be trying to drag other things from other areas of CAGW to bolster your argument. This time it's "global warming in the present". Why do you even NEED to invoke that, if PETM is so convincing?

Each part of CAGW has its own flaws. "Global warming in the present" is beset by data manipulation and ever-multiplying post-hoc excuses for the "pause". It's another pile of weak arguments.

You can give me 100 weak reasons for your theory, but every theory has 100 weak reasons. Want me to go and look up the CAGC (cooling) rationales from the 70s? I'll find plenty of weak arguments. Of course, you won't be convinced by them, and (this time) rightly so.

But you CANNOT disagree that the double-slit experiment from QM DESTROYS classical physics. No-one can. That's what a strong argument looks like, and you don't have one.

>>137597247
Well, thanks for contributing more evidence for my claim.

>>137600110
So because some opportunists are taking advantage of a crisis, that means the crisis isn't happening? Does poverty not exist, either, because there are people making money off "solving" it?

>>137598937
Even if subsidies get withdrawn, what the points I bring up show is that if renewables were an infant from before, they're now walking on their own now.

>>137600862
Well, I can't account for what you haven't heard. Should I understand the claim that you didn't hear it in a particular community as your idea of a refutation?

Yes it was.

Why don't you give me your full appraisal of the "forces" behind skepticism, and we can swap notes.

>>137601656
and what's the evidence that a) the sun actually did increase in luminosity to raise GAST by 5 to 8°C for 200.000 years and b) what's the evidence that this is even possible for a main sequence star?

There are two big ironies in your post:
the scenario you pulled out of your backside DOES require positive feedbacks (in the form of carbon release from peat bogs)
and your scenario ISN'T favored by occam's razor because it requires a completely unknown (and I would say completely implausible) new heliophysical process.

>>137602528
>raise GAST by 5 to 8°C for 200.000 years

Why would I provide more detail in my scenario than you provided in yours?

And why can your scenario introduce solar heating but not mine?

It looks like you may be trying to sneak in a particular value for thermal sensitivity to solar irradiation variations. Naughty. It's an assumption in your scenario. Mine is still simpler.

Oh, and the amount of feedback multiplier in my scenario is 10% In your's (and in CAGW generally) it's 500% to 1000% That's a big difference. Obviously Occam's razor would favour the former, as the latter is close to runaway!

>>137571000
Dont bother, the industrialist scum will still deny it because of muh industrial competition with China

>>137596938
If we're talking motives here, don't you think that all these fossil fuel companies have a huge economic incentive to cover up the facts behind climate change?

It's not like companies haven't done this before. The events leading up to the Montreal Protocol, where scientists came to the the conclusion that CFCs were harming the Ozone and were fought against heavily by representatives of the aerosol industry, should be a kind of lesson in this kind of denial. DuPont would make the very same kinds of claims that you hear every fossil fuel industry representative make to this day.

Climate change denial is the same story, just different names: scientists develop conclusions based on observations, the relevant companies get scared, and things get politically heated. This isn't an isolated phenomena, and people shouldn't be falling for the same old stories, but they are.

Fossil fuel companies and the politicians that support them are making money off all this big time.


But no, Al Gore on his own is a stronger force than some of the richest companies in the world and their leaders and politicians?

>>137603299
to sum up:
what you're trying to peddle here is that we should abandon the most parsimonious explanation which has actual evidence (CIE, ocean acidification) and a known physical mechanism (opacity of CO2 in the infrared spectrum) behind it, in favor of a mechanism for which there is no evidence that it ever happened, let alone possible in the first place - all in the name of reason and good scientific standards.

'Golly' is all I can say

>>137584566
If you were really worried about other people you wouldn't be shutting down perfectly good coal fired power stations and raising energy bills purely so your best mates can profit off of renewable energy

>>137602157

I know Wikipedia isn't a scholarly source, but if you want lists of people and a short explanation of their views, I think it suffices:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

It seems that global warming skeptical scientists fall into 4 groups: those that question the accuracy of the climate projections, those that argue that observed climate change is a result of natural causes, those that argue that we don't know what's causing the observed increases, and those that argue that it's happening, but it won't hurt us much.

If the issues were so obvious that they were right there in the graphs, there would be a good amount of scientists who would argue as such, but it seems that the problems these scientists have with climate change have to do either with future projections or explanations for observed increases. But it doesn't seem many are arguing against the observed increases.

>>137604611

You began with

>A single one of these events would be enough to demonstrate a link, but there are actually several of these events in the Eocene alone (albeit with a smaller magnitude).

Now you're down to

> ...most parsimonious explanation...

before you go off into the physical mechanisms within your theory, which are irrelevant, as the theory is far from proved and then go on about evidence, as if there's a whole bunch hidden somewhere you just happened not to cite.

Golly, indeed.

>>137605347
There's validity in all four areas of concern.

Skeptics are not obliged to find a SINGLE problem with a theory.

The misleading graphs could be said to be a FIFTH thing wrong with climatology (though of course that only apples to the climatologists and PR people who create them; the topic is however germane in this thread, because the OP has received such a graph and is concerned about it).

>>137605876
there is no contradiction between those two things
looking for the most parsimonious explanation is everything the natural sciences do ever since Mechanism got dropped in the 18th century.

All you presented to me in this thread was arguments from ignorance, misunderstandings of the climate system, outright rejection of known physics and a fabricated alternative explanation that hasn't got a single shred of physical evidence.
I rest my case, honestly.

>>137606840
and I REST MY CASE that you have nothing like the double-slit experiment. Saying "science is parsimony" is an insult to serious, experimental science. The kind that brought us technology and real insight. You should be ashamed.

>>137571000
>What evidence is there that global climate, the extent that we're currently seeing, change is a natural process?


4 billion years of history.

File: asd.jpg (206KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1280x800px

Why does that graph go back in time?

>>137607762
To show historical trends

>>137608094
No I mean look at my pic related at the red circle. If real data points were used to chart this graph, it makes absolutely no sense.

>>137606328
>The misleading graphs could be said to be a FIFTH thing wrong with climatology (though of course that only apples to the climatologists and PR people who create them; the topic is however germane in this thread, because the OP has received such a graph and is concerned about it).

Okay, but my issue is: why isn't there that fifth category/issue? If it were so easily debunked, why isn't this an obvious go-to position for scientists? Why is it that the problems most scientists seem to have is more with explanation and prediction, and not with observed data?

>>137608268
Oh I see it now. Sorry about that.

File: 656768765865.jpg (35KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x500px

>>137571000
man made climate change is real anyone who say otherwise has a uncle that was a coal miner or has has their hands in big oil