Why are you doubting global warming?

They can't even get the weather right in my country half the time, why would i think they can predict with any accuracy what will happen decades from now?

>>8362628
>I can't predict the precise moment I'm going to take a shit tommorow therefore it's wrong to predict that I will take a shit tommorow
(You)

I don't think it isn't true, I just don't care that much.
Imo overpopulation is a much bigger issue.

>>8362631
I don't usually shit every day and I'm not even joking when i say i just went and took a shit in between posting that and seeing your reply so it would be probably be wrong if i predicted a shit tomorrow.

>>8362628

weather and climate are completely different things brainlet

>not knowing this
>posting on /sci/

>>8362632
This is not to be a stalker, It's to see how psychological worries are. Where are you from?

because politics

Because we're being told to pay no attention to our lying eyes, to the numbers, the data. Instead listen to the scientists who are receiving huge grants

It was "global cooling" 25 years ago due to some political reasons. Same amount of charts, scientists and data showed up to support global cooling. Now it's "global warming" due to some other political bullshit.

I'm just not playing.

File: frcrfcs.jpg (5KB, 188x201px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 188x201px

>>8362654

lmfao

another brainlet detected

>gottdamm global warmin', we's been havin tha coldest winters yet - how is that warmin mr college man?
>scientists dont know what theyre talking about

climate change operates at both extremes fucking brainlet cunts
- severe storms
- lower lows
- higher highs

>>8362664
I can't hear you over the noise of you smashing your keyboard with rage :^)

This board is being very severely raided.

>>8362624
>global warming meme
>>>/x/ you dumb paranoid schizo freak

>>8362669
And its fun
>>8362673
I said nothing about beliefs in it.

>>8362664
>mr college man
>believes in global warming meme
AHAHAHAHAHAHA how pathetic are you ? Do you think /x/tards like you even have any degrees?

Take this schizo garbage thread where it belongs >>>/x/

>>8362641
I'm from the Netherlands

>>8362676
Nope go back to 8gag you nigger.

>>8362624
climate change is real.

global warming doomsday has about as much credibility as flat earthers do.

My issue is the time frames and reference points.

We're still in a Icehouse environment and the world has spent 80% of its time in a Hothouse environment.

We have hard evidence going back a few hundred thousand years on a cycle that works in millions of years. Carbon and methane heat things up in a tiny lab so the IPPC go off that in the main as they can't gather enough data on a planetary level set of variables.to a) accurately predict or b) politically stop Co2 levels.

All in all, some developing nation, under huge political demographic pressure will resort to enviro-engineering within the next century. Bangladesh or Pakistan would be favourites.

File: 4444444444444.jpg (12KB, 180x280px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 180x280px

>>8362691

>doesn't understand the difference between global warming and climate change
>doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather

this is literally my field, undergrad

>>8362761
>can't tell different posters
>resorts to ad-hominems
>resorts to /b/-tier reaction image posting
I feel sorry for your parents for wasting their money on your worthless existence :(

>>8362770

hey /b/ro wanna rate my dick?

>>8362776
>also a /b/tard
typical global warming memer. I bet you can't decide if your home board is /b/ or /x/

>>8362770
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>8362635
At the end of the day they are still trying to predict what the weather will be like in x number of years; calling it climate or whatever doesn't change this simple fact.

Also /sci/ has and always will be a meme board.

>>8362631

>claim to have a scientific model proving global warming exists
>just about every prediction from your so called model, is wrong

nope.jpg

>>8362624
Because all their earlier predictions failed.
Numerous studies have been proved to inflate the numbers in order to be published.
Heavily politicized = heavily biased .
Big bucks flowing on both side.

>>8362720
>We're still in a Icehouse environment and the world has spent 80% of its time in a Hothouse environment.
How is that relevant to whether or not AGW will harm us?

>We have hard evidence going back a few hundred thousand years on a cycle that works in millions of years.
So you are concerned about what will happen millions of years from now and not about what will happen in the next hundreds? This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW.

>Carbon and methane heat things up in a tiny lab so the IPPC go off that in the main
Except we can directly measure the infrared spectra of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is what the radiative forcing methods are based on, not experiments in a lab. Where do you people get this nonsense? And then you write as if you know anything about climatology. You're only fooling yourself. It's pathetic.

>>8362925
But it's not based solely on any one model anon. It's based on observational evidence and simple physics. The idea of climate change has been discussed since the late 19th century by the scientific community and was largely resolved by the mid-20th century. It usually takes a long time for the public to come grips with what the scientific community readily understands to be true. But it could all just be a conspiracy right anon?
>>8362927
>Numerous studies have been proved to inflate the numbers in order to be published.
Show me a reputable source that says climate change isn't real. In addition, there would be no reason for climate scientists to "make up" anything. That's not how funding works. Once you've resolved an issue, you lose funding. This means if climate scientists were in it for the money, they would say "climate change may or may not be real so we need more funding." Instead, they're saying "why are we still debating what has been accepted by the scientific community for 50 years? This is a tremendous waste of time, money, and energy."

If you want talk about money, let's talk about the fossil fuel industry. Those guys have a lot of money riding on us forgetting about climate change. It's way more than pennies most researchers get (you do not get into science to make money).

File: pepe4.png (301KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 453x604px

>>8362624
Climategate

>>8362938
http://www.petitionproject.org/
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
>there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere

Stop pretending all the scientists agree with you and only retards don't.
Those who disagree are just not shown in your medias.

File: famous.jpg (63KB, 734x604px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 734x604px

>>8362624
>Why are you doubting global warming?
I don't doubt it. I doubt that it's important that the US spend billions of dollars to manage it in other countries. Other countries that find the need so pressing they're willing to spend exactly zero on it themselves.

Scam politics on real science.

>>8362947
31000 seems like a big number, until you realise there's a 97% consensus on AGW

>>8362968
>meme statistics
If you don't know why this is an obviously memed number then you don't understand climate change science.

>>8362947
How many of them have a degree in an actually relevant field?

>>8362985
Please, tell me more

>>8362994
Never mind, found it.
> I) Atmospheric Science (112)
>II) Climatology (39)
I guess "151 people whose opinions carry any credit have signed this petition" didn't sound as good.

>>8362947
Must of them are not scientists, just people with a STEM bachelor's degree. And essentially none of the few scientists in the list have any expertise relevant to climatology.

>>8362994
Your mother didn't have a degree in whoredom but she still managed to take enough dick to produce you.

File: 1460864194225.png (76KB, 645x512px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 645x512px

check potholler54's channel who is an science journalist and has a series on global warming which is the most scientifically accurate


for the short version, AGW is happening and it is due to increased CO2 in the atmospher(of hwich we are only partly to blame). But the right wing is a bunch of morons who think it doesnt happpen and the left wing are a bunch of morons who think i'll be the apocalipse and distort the science.

Global warming has incresed the sea level by some centimeters and in 200 years at the current rate, the sea level will increase by up to 1 meter(which is still something we can manage). It is predicted that global warming will produce damage between 5%-20% of the global GDP if we don't do anything about it.

>>8363059
global warming also made me fail my calc2 exam

damn global warming :(

>>8362778
lmfao

>Professor Youtube has a doctorate in blogology confirmed

kys

>>8362921

.......cant accurately predict weather

can accurately predict climate

what are you not understanding here?

>>8362925

not how models work fuckwit

>multiple models
>multiple scenarios
>we are on a trajectory for x
>y is fucking likely to occur

uhhh duuuuhhhh derrr derrr derrrrrrrrr duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

>>8362628
>I have the most basic understanding of climate science possible, what would someone who has spent years studying it know that I don't ?

File: predictions.jpg (98KB, 589x482px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 589x482px

>>8362925
>just about every prediction from your so called model, is wrong
But that's wrong.

>>8362634
>Missing the point

File: average temperature over the years.jpg (121KB, 589x482px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 589x482px

>>8363133
Nice photoshop

>>8362646
so you rather trust 1 out of 10 scientist that are paid by oil companies because 9 out of 10 scientist say global warming is real and receiving grants from other sources?

topkek

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Someone on TV said global warming was real.
Then someone onTV said it was fake.
I guess weather its real or not is just a matter of opinion.

>>8363173
Kek
AGW SHILLS BTFO

>>8362646
Financial motivation doesn't make sense; oil companies have a lot more money, and would be happier to give more to scientists showing AGW a shit

>>8363093
wow you're dumb. try reading before you post.

File: 1280px-GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicenced_annotated.jpg (19KB, 1280x99px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1280x99px

>>8362936
>How is that relevant to whether or not AGW will harm us?
How is it relevant that the normal? No, erm predominant state of the Earth is a hothouse environment? That without humanity, the Earth is highly likely to revert back to a hothouse environment. That's the relevance. It isn't about how it will harm us or not, it's about the probability of a hothouse environment occurring with AGW or without and there is no way of knowing if it would have occurred sooner or later without humanity. We simply don't know and to say you do is fruitcake territory.

>So you are concerned about what will happen millions of years from now and not about what will happen in the next hundreds?
No, you've missed the point. We're trying to gauge something that works in cycles, variable and data masses we can't as yet understand. Nevermind predict.

>This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW.
ad hominem. It's not about denying AGW, we've (humanity) has had a affect on the environment since we began cutting down trees and domesticating wild life.

>Except we can directly measure the infrared spectra of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is what the radiative forcing methods are based on, not experiments in a lab. Where do you people get this nonsense?
>ad hominem. So laboratory work is not involved or used by the IPPC to further it's understandings of the data provided? Brilliant, so it's all based off greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. Thanks, didn't know that. Oh, erm how do they know what 'radiative forcing methods' results imply? Big question. Hint: from a Lab.

>And then you write as if you know anything about climatology. You're only fooling yourself. It's pathetic.
See, i not fooling myself, the IPPC is well aware that AGW is a thing and that whatever a bunch of cunts having isn't going to stop humans like Pajeet and the millions like him burning coal to heat his tea or cows farting.

File: Miami_high_tide.jpg (386KB, 720x578px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 720x578px

>>8362967
>I don't doubt it. I doubt that it's important that the US spend billions of dollars to manage it in other countries.

But we're paying for the costs of global warming right now.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article102127612.html

>>8362654
No it wasn't, global cooling due to upper atmosphere aerosols was never a mainstream hypothesis and the idea that is was is pure revisionism.

because we only have data from 150 years back

File: UN IPCC on logarithmic CO2 effect..jpg (76KB, 578x351px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 578x351px

>>8362936

>>We have hard evidence going back a few hundred thousand years on a cycle that works in millions of years.
>So you are concerned about what will happen millions of years from now and not about what will happen in the next hundreds? This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW.
>Its happening soon, therefore its true!
Thems some nice circular reasoning


>>Carbon and methane heat things up in a tiny lab so the IPPC go off that in the main
>Except we can directly measure the infrared spectra of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Meme science. CO2 induced temp increase is logarithmic and almost all energy that CO2 can absorb has already occurred.

>>8362654
>It was "global cooling" 25 years ago due to some political reasons. Same amount of charts, scientists and data showed up to support global cooling. Now it's "global warming" due to some other political bullshit.
Almost no scientists said this. Shit media /reported/ on it, but media has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted to report honestly on science.

>>8362654
oh here we go with this again

why don't you try googling global cooling instead of remembering a rush limbaugh talking point

as an anon stated above, it was not considered mainstream and that specific talking point has been debunked countless times

>>8362654
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions."

File: 0 Global Cooling.jpg (63KB, 509x304px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 509x304px

>>8366089
Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

Sorry buddy, but the global cooling fear was very real, with an 83% scientific census.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

>a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Papers
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
More papers
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
Even more papers
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

File: Consensus on Global Cooling.png (240KB, 513x460px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 513x460px

>>8366782
Absolutely FALSE
>>8366792

>>8366792
>notrickszone.com
read an actual study you right wing shill
>>8366782
refer to that post you fucking pleb, you dont belong here. why is /pol/ leaking into this board?

>>8366795
that doesnt say anything about a consensus, thats a news article.

File: Hubert Lamb Global Cooling.png (501KB, 703x588px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 703x588px

>>8366780
Why don't you get your facts straight?
>>8366792

>>8366802
>Climatologists now believe
>One professor from a UK university says the temp has dropped half a degree in the last 30 years
Where does it say there was a consensus?

>>8366802
Everyone, this is what it's like to have an IQ below 90.

>>8366800
285 PEER REVIEWED GLOBAL COOLI|NG REFERENCES RIGHT HERE!
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs


Bryson, Reid A., and Gerald J. Dittberner. "A non-equilibrium model of hemispheric mean surface temperature." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 33.11 (1976): 2094-2106.

Wendland, Wayne M., and Reid A. Bryson. "Atmospheric dustiness, Man, and climatic change." Biological Conservation 2.2 (1970): 125-128.

Kosiba, A. "The problem of climate cooling after 1939 (in Polnisch)." Czas. geogr 33 (1962): 63.

Fletcher, Joseph O. "Polar ice and the global climate machine." Bull. Atomic Scientists (1970): 40-47.
"... the cooling effect of the 1950s and 1960s shows that some other factor is more than countering the warming effect of CO2.... Man's contribution to the atmospheric dust load is increasing at an exponential rate.

Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate." Science 173.3992 (1971): 138-141.
" An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971.

EUSAESSER, HUGH W. "HAS MAN. THROUGH INCREASING EMISSIONS OF PARTICIPATES, CHANGED THE CLIMATE?." Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants (1974): 41.

Frisken, W. R. "Extended industrial revolution and climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 52.7 (1971): 500-508.

>>8366800
>>8366813
Lamb, Hubert H. The current trend of world climate: A report on the early 1970's and a perspective. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1974. "Much has been written about the global cooling... has been overstressed as regards to its practical implications... There are solid grounds for regarding this as a dangerous misconception."

Kukla, George J., and Helena J. Kukla. "Insolation regime of interglacials." Quaternary Research 2.3 (1972): 412-424. "...the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experiened hitherto by civilized mankind."

NEEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. "LAWRENCE UVERMORE LABORATORY." (1972). "Global cooling of natural origin could exceed in magnitude changes experienced in historical times.

Potter, Gerald L., et al. "Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation." (1975): 697-698.

Kukla, George J., and Robert K. Matthews. "When will the present interglacial end?." Science 178.4057 (1972): 190-202.

Gribbin, John. "Cause and effects of global cooling." Nature 254 (1975): 14.

File: Hansen 1981.png (120KB, 689x628px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 689x628px

>>8366800
>>8366813
Lamb, H. H. "Changes of climate." Wright & Moseley (1975): 169-188.

Fletcher, Joseph O. MANAGING CLIMATE RESOURCES. No. RAND-P-4000. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1969. "We may already be inadvertantly influencing global climate. ... a weakening circulation, southward shifts of ice boundary..."

Braslau, Norman, and J. V. Dave. "Effect of aerosols on the transfer of solar energy through realistic model atmospheres. Part I: Non-absorbing aerosols." Journal of applied meteorology 12.4 (1973): 601-615.

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have Had An Ambiguous Climatic Influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.

Carter, L. J. 1970. The global environment: M.I.T. study looks for danger signs. Science 169: 660-662. Increased turbidity causes gobal cooling.

Lamb, H. H. 1969. Activite volcanique et climat. Revue de Geographie Physique et de Geologie Dynamique 11: 363-380.

Paterson, J.T. and Bryson, R.A. 1968. Atmospheric aerosols: increased concentrations during the last decade. Science 162: 120-121.

Bryson 1974. A perspective on Climate Change. Science. 184:753-760. The "debunking" paper falsely classifies this as "neutral." Bryson thought anthropogenic aerosols were causing global cooling.

Byerknes, J., 1958: "Related Fluctuations of Trade Winds and Northern Climates," Geophysics Helsinki, Vol.6 , No. 3-4. 169-177

Budyko, Mikhail I. "The future climate." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 53.10 (1972): 868-874.

File: gtemps.jpg (2MB, 2706x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2706x1944px

Global warming is not an isolated event. It's happened hundreds of times in the planet's history. The current average global temperature isn't even the highest it's been in the last 800 years.

File: Global Cooling with NASA GISS.jpg (80KB, 937x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 937x568px

>>8366811
>>8366813
>>8366815
>>8366816

285 PEER REVIEWED GLOBAL COOLI|NG REFERENCES RIGHT HERE!
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Sorry you got BTFO

>>8366816
>basing global temperature predictions off of a time period of only 136 years

try harder

>>8366824
Meanwhile Warmists; AKA watermelons; Green on the outside, red on the inside. Are certain of CO2 induced death by 30 years of temperatures.
See: >>8363133

Sorry you got BTFO. >>8366820

Changing the subject won't help you much.

File: Capture.png (140KB, 1918x559px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1918x559px

>>8366816
>>8366820
try looking farther back than 1880

File: The Butthurt is Strong.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>8366831
> look at me, i posted temperature proxy data with a time resolution of 100 to 100,000 years!
> Then I tacked on instrumental data with less than a year resolution.
> then just to scare you I tacked on wildly speculative 'predictions' for 2050 and 2010
> So climate change is true!
Speculative graphs mean nothing.
And the instrumental 'spike' in temps from about 1950 to now?
Put that spike through a 100 year average smoother and it disappears.

Lrn2stats buddy.

And you're still trying to change the subject. Must really hurt to get BTFO
>>8366813
>>8366815
>>8366816

285 PEER REVIEWED GLOBAL COOLI|NG REFERENCES RIGHT HERE!
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>>8366831
This pretty much says it all.
>global temps have been more stable in the last 10k years than at any time in the hundreds of millions of years before it
>current global temps are WAY below what they have already been in the past
>the data people are using to corroborate global warming represents about 1 millimeter on this graph (or about 0.003% of of the total timeline of earth)

File: Cooling 1969.jpg (49KB, 631x430px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 631x430px

>>8366779
Utterly False
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/
>>8366813
>>8366815
>>8366816

285 PEER REVIEWED GLOBAL COOLI|NG REFERENCES RIGHT HERE!
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>>8365629
>How is it relevant that the normal? No, erm predominant state of the Earth is a hothouse environment?
Again, so what? It's not normal to humans.

>That without humanity, the Earth is highly likely to revert back to a hothouse environment.
In millions of years, yes. Again so what? I am concerned with the harmful effects of rapid warning on humans. I see no reason to be concerned with what particular climate the earth usually is or will be in millions of years.

>It isn't about how it will harm us or not, it's about the probability of a hothouse environment occurring with AGW or without and there is no way of knowing if it would have occurred sooner or later without humanity.
This moronic attempt to distract from AGW by pretending to care about events millions of years away is pathetic.

>No, you've missed the point. We're trying to gauge something that works in cycles, variable and data masses we can't as yet understand. Nevermind predict.
The cycle you are trying to distract people with is on a timescale so large that it is irrelevant to AGW. That's what the thread is about. You are trying to the waters of the debate with read herrings and its failing.

>ad hominem
Explain to me how its an ad hominem.

File: 303.jpg (71KB, 486x806px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 486x806px

>>8366857
>notrickszone.com

>>8365629

>So laboratory work is not involved or used by the IPPC to further it's understandings of the data provided? Brilliant, so it's all based off greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. Thanks, didn't know that. Oh, erm how do they know what 'radiative forcing methods' results imply? Big question. Hint: from a Lab.
This is tedious sophistry and dishonest arguing. You claimed that the IPCC based its conclusions off how greenhouse gases behave in a lab (as if this is somehow derogatory). I then corrected you by telling you that the effects of GHGs are measured directly. Now you are arguing as if I said lab work is not used at all. So are you unable to understand the argument or are you deliberately misrepresenting it?

Someone who is secure in their position does not need to lie and misrepresent arguments in order to argue for it. Maybe you should reconsider your position.

>>8366776
>>>So you are concerned about what will happen millions of years from now and not about what will happen in the next hundreds? This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW.
>>Its happening soon, therefore its true!
>Thems some nice circular reasoning
First you completely avoided the question and then you made up an argument I never made. Scumbag rhetorical tactics.

>Meme science. CO2 induced temp increase is logarithmic and almost all energy that CO2 can absorb has already occurred.
Ah so you admit CO2 is a GHG and causes warming. Now I suggest you go research how much warming will caused by a doubling of CO2. Then research the effects of such warming. Then we'll be done.

>>8366886
>>>>So you are concerned about what will happen millions of years from now and not about what will happen in the next hundreds? This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW.
>>>Its happening soon, therefore its true!
>>Thems some nice circular reasoning
>First you completely avoided the question and then you made up an argument I never made. Scumbag rhetorical tactics.
What did you say? Oh yeah, "This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW." You just assumed AGW is true; without demonstrating it. Yup, that's called circular reasoning

>>8366886
>>Meme science. CO2 induced temp increase is logarithmic and almost all energy that CO2 can absorb has already occurred.
>Ah so you admit CO2 is a GHG and causes warming. Now I suggest you go research how much warming will caused by a doubling of CO2. Then research the effects of such warming.
>Then we'll be done.
Oh NOES! He's so tough when he hides behind his keyboard.

Research Results:
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

>>8366898
>>8366886

>Then we'll be done.
Oh NOES! He's so tough when he hides behind his keyboard.

More Research Results:
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

>>8366900
>>8366886

>Then we'll be done.
Oh NOES! He's so tough when he hides behind his keyboard.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C >referring to last entry

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C

Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

>>8366903
>>8366886

>Then we'll be done.
Oh NOES! He's so tough when he hides behind his keyboard.

Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C


Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters

Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C

An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila

Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C

>>8366807
>science reporters
Not exaggerating everything while heavily implying the "truth" they want to push.

>>8366904
>>8366886

>Then we'll be done.
Oh NOES! He's so tough when he hides behind his keyboard.

The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C

Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °

A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle

Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °
Alarmist Studies Debunked:

Libardoni and Forest (2013)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study (actually a corrigendum to a study originally published in 2011) uses an informative ‘expert’ prior distribution for ECS and an inappropriate uniform prior distribution for ocean heat uptake efficiency (the square root of ocean effective diffusivity, Kv). Use of such prior distributions will have biased, most probably upwards, the study’s ECS estimate. Using one surface temperature dataset, Libardoni and Forest find ECS to be lower,Kv
to be completely unconstrained, and aerosol forcing to be more negative, than the other two datasets are used. Yet with green-house gas forcing being offset to a greater extent by negative aerosol cooling and more heat being absorbed by the ocean, energy conservation implies that ECS would need to be significantly higher to match the twentieth-century rise in global temperatures, not lower. Since the Libardoni and Forest results thereby defy conservation of energy, they should be discounted. Although various errors pointed out in Lewis (2013) were addressed in this corrigendum, at least one was incorrectly dealt with, and the unsatisfactory way surface temperature data was used (see Lewis, 2013) was not altered, which may account for these problems.

>>8366906
>>8366886

>Then we'll be done.
Oh NOES! He's so tough when he hides behind his keyboard.

More Alarmist Debunking

Lin et al. (2010)
Although this study is dealt is really an energy budget study that uses numerical solutions of an energy balance model. The recent TOA imbalance is derived from an outdated AOGCM-derived Earth system heat uptake/TOA radiative imbalance estimate (Hansen et al. 2005) of 0.85 W/m, taken as applying over the final decade of the 1885–2005 period used. That heat uptake is twice as high as the best estimate per AR5 over the same decade. Moreover, no allowance is made for heat inflow into the ocean at the start of the 120-year period. The method and model used, in particular the treatment of heat transport to the deep ocean, is difficult to follow and appears non-standard. In view of the greatly excessive system heat uptake estimate used and the questionable methodology, it is difficult to regard the results of this study as constituting a realistic estimate of ECS. The IPCC authors evidently also had doubts about this study’s ECS estimate; its range is marked as being incomplete at both high and low ends.

>>8366911
>>8366886

More alarmist debunking

Olson et al. (2012)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study estimates ECS, ocean effective diffusivity and an aerosol-forcing scaling factor, using only global temperatures and a wide uniform prior on the aerosol-forcing scaling factor. That is an unsatisfactory method. Since greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing histories are extremely closely correlated (negatively), one can obtain a good match to historical global temperatures with a wide range of suitable combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing strength. That problem results in the study’s estimated PDF for ECS being almost unconstrained when using uniform prior distributions, which biases its ECS estimate upwards. The use of 0–700-m ocean, as well as surface, temperature changes provides only a very weak constraint on what ECS–aerosol-forcing combinations are feasible. Ozone forcing, which is significantly positive, was omitted: that can be expected to have increased the estimate of ECS substantially. Given all these problems, the Olson et al. instrumental ECS estimate cannot be regarded as realistic. Olson’s PDF and range for ECS shown under combination estimates is dominated by a non-uniform prior distribution for ECS that matches high AR4-era estimates for ECS, including from AOGCMs, as represented in Knutti and Hegerl (2008). Since the study’s combination ECS estimate is dominated by an initial distribution based on AR4-era ECS estimates, it should not have been treated in AR5 as if it were an independent observationally-based estimate. The Olson et al. combination estimate for ECS should therefore be disregarded.

>>8366914
>>8366886
More debunking
Schwartz (2012)
>Schwartz flip-flopped into an alarmist, probably to retain his funding.
This study derived ECS from changes up to 2009 in observed global surface and 0–700-m ocean layer temperatures, and changes in forcing based on forcing histories used in historical model simulations. Two methods were used. One was zero-intercept regression of temperature change on forcing minus heating rate, fitted to post-1964 data. Whilst this approach appears reasonable in principle, subject to the forcing and OHC history estimates being realistic, the regressions are very noisy. No allowance was made for heat inflow into the ocean in the late nineteenth century (estimated in Gregory et al. 2002, to be non-negligible); that can be expected to have biased upwards its estimate of ECS slightly. For two of the six forcing datasets used, the regressions did not explain any of the variance in the temperature data – their R values were negative. ECS best estimates derived from the other four forcing datasets varied between 1.1 C and 2.6 C.The mean R value for their regressions approached a value of 0.5. The second method derived ECS by combining the results of similar regressions (but without deducting the heating rate from forcing) with an observationally-estimated heat uptake coefficient.

>>8366919
>>8366886
>continued
These regressions gave significantly higher R values. The second method gave similar results for the four forcing datasets for which the first method provided a valid estimate of ECS, with an overall range (allowing for regression uncertainty) of 1.07–3.0 C. A fifth forcing dataset, which gave a positive R only for the regression in which the heating rate was not deducted, gave an ECS estimate using this method of 4.9±1.2 C. That accounts for the ECS range for this study given in Box 12, Figure 1 of AR5 extending up to 6.1 C. The regression R for this forcing dataset was low (0.29) and the study concluded that the forcing dataset was inconsistent with an energy balance model for which the change in net emitted irradiance at the top of the atmosphere is proportional to the increase in surface temperature. The 3.0–6.1 C segment of the ECS range given for this study in AR5 relates entirely to this one forcing dataset and, in view of the problems with it, should be regarded as carrying significantly less than the one-fifth total probability that would otherwise naturally be assigned to a part of a range
that related only to one out of five datasets.

>>8366924
>>8366886
More alarmist debunking

Tomassini et al. (2007)
The Tomassini et al. model–observation comparison study involved a complex subjective Bayesian method. For ECS, a set of priors varying between a uniform prior and a deliberately informative lognormal prior with a mean of 3 C, both restricted to the range 1–10 C, were used. A very inappropriate uniform prior was employed for ocean effective diffusivity (Kv) – the square of ocean heat uptake efficiency. The choices of prior for ECS and Kv will both have biased upwards the estimate of ECS. Although the method used encompasses inverse estimation of aerosol forcing via a scaling factor, only global mean observational temperature data is used, so the inverse estimate arrived at will be unreliable. The very high (negative) correlation between the time evolution of greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings on a global scale makes it impossible robustly to distinguish between different combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing values that each satisfy the energy budget constraint. The posterior distribution for Kv is multiply peaked, which should not be the case. The trace plot of the Markov chain Monte Carlo sample used to estimate the parameters reveals instability not only as to what Kv values are favoured but also as to with what combination of ECS and (indirect) aerosol forcing. In some sections of the plot it is not obvious that the combination of Kv, ECS and aerosol forcing values is consistent with conservation-of-energy constraints. In view of all these issues the ECS estimates from this study should be discounted.

File: 100 Billion is all we want - IPCC.jpg (169KB, 1537x715px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8366886
>>Meme science. CO2 induced temp increase is logarithmic and almost all energy that CO2 can absorb has already occurred.
>Ah so you admit CO2 is a GHG and causes warming. Now I suggest you go research how much warming will caused by a doubling of CO2. Then research the effects of such warming.
>Then we'll be done.
Oh NOES! He's so tough when he hides behind his keyboard.

Let's see, plenty of studies showing low sensitivity (about 1.0 degrees C) for DOUBLING CO2.
>>8366906
>>8366904
>>8366903
>>8366900
>>8366898

Yeah, that means going to 800 ppm. Which is just about impossible. (Hint CO2 atmospheric half-life is about 5 years; yes I have the references.) So all this is a tempest in a tea pot. What's really going on? U.N. "spread the wealth" socialists trying to steal our tax dollars.

Oh, and the fearmongers have been debunked
.>>8366928
>>8366924
>>8366919
>>8366914
>>8366911

there's no way this fucking guy doesn't have autism

File: 1472623032354.jpg (38KB, 481x358px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 481x358px

>/pol/ continues to raid /sci/ not realizing how dumb they look

>>8362704
what a coincidence so am i.
and overpopulation is sorta on my mind

>>8366978
This is why I fucking hate this board ..everyone thinks they're so damn smart n shit and how other ppl are insignificant. Respect average ppl cuz without them u wouldn't be ABOVE average.

>>8366891
It would only be circular reasoning if I used the argument to conclude that AGW is real you moron. As anyone with half a brain could see, I was simply pointing out that talking about hothouse/icehouse cycle is utterly irrelevant and an attempt to distract and muddy the waters of the discussion. Instead of showing how its relevant to the discussion you attacked an argument I never made by pretending that my pointing out an irrelevancy in your argument is somehow an argument that AGW is real. So are you unable to parse simple arguments and conclusions or are you deliberately misrepresenting them? Either way, you should leave the discussion.

>>8363330

climate and weather are different things fucking brainlet

e.g. we cannot predict when a storm is going to happen in the far future - we can predict that they will be more ferocious and common, due to predicting climate trajectory

>wow you're dumb
kill yourself little brainlet

>>8362628
> bait of a tier this low
> plenty of people still biting

I swear it looks like it's your first time on the Internet

>>8366818
Yes but now we can tax it!

>>8367022
Overpopulation is not a problem as there are more people to tax.

File: akchually.jpg (124KB, 589x482px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 589x482px

>>8363133
>>8363173

Accusations of climate change is just problematic Earth shaming. Just because the climate is different doesn't mean it is bad or not beautiful. You should all just learn to accept the Earth as it is during its period of discovery, rather than grasping onto your outdated notion of what the climate should be.

>>8362634
>I don't usually shit every day
That's not good.

>>8362676
It's not funny you niggerfaggot. Brainlets get out!

>>8366978
I'm pretty sure is Alex Jones

>>8363250
No company is as rich as a government

File: YWK9z19.jpg (86KB, 640x714px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x714px

/pol/ really needs to leave

>>8369252
Oh boy. You have never worked in academia. Get out you silly brainlet

File: 1472431945775.gif (2MB, 450x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x259px

>>8369252
Fucking kek

>>8369252

Even the most senior meteorological / earth science / climate researchers in the vast majority of departments don't earn as much as the average 22 year old code monkey in Silicon Valley.

Money? No one working in academia is in it for the money. There isn't any.

>>8362624
i dont

i just want my house to stop flooding