Tell me about climate change /sci/ I believe in it, but I think

>>8376398
Climate naturally changes, we've just sped it up.

/thread

>>8376398
yah, i mean if you want evidence you can find it down any avenue you really want to look.

if you ask "has the climate been acting strange lately?"

has the climate been acting uncharacteristically on a larger scale?

do the effects of these changes result in shifting weather patterns? why?


whereas if you look at the science against climate change, there's really not a lot. the best you will find that carbon dioxide is not the biggest contributor to climate change. and that's true, because water is. but water also evaporates at a pretty low temperature and there's a lot of it meaning a tiny increase in temperature and there's suddenly a lot more water in the air.

Get a two large bottles of water, add seltzer to one, and screw on the lids. Then direct a bright lamp toward both bottles for a few hours and measure their temperatures afterward. You should find that the bottle with seltzer water (more co2) is quite a few degrees warmer. Now extrapolate this to earth. The only thing humans have added to the atmosphere in large quantities over the past century is co2. This is because we burn fuels (containing co2) that have been buried for ages (kept out of the atmosphere). Water vapor, although it has greenhouse like effects, has largely kept to the same volume in the atmosphere because of the water cycle, and so is not really a cause of climate change alone, but it can respond to other changes in a negative way.

File: co2 ppm graph.png (98KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x437px

>>8376405
Thanks for that kernel of wisdom.
Unfortunately, if this is true, we've done far worse than speed up climate change
>pic related

That's what I'm interested in. I understand that Earth's atmosphere has a cyclic CO2 and temperature pattern, but I want a way to verify what's in the picture above, because that's the only way to refute people that criticize 'climate alarmists.' They believe that the Earth's recent record annual temperature last year is the incidental result of an El Nino. I'm looking for a way to demonstrate that we've *vastly* exceeded what's normal for that pattern *because* of our industrialization.

>>8376446
I like that a lot. Thanks anon
>/thread

Unfortunately there isn't much evidence to indicate that climate change is a result of human activity. It's true that humans exert large influence on the global environment, and it's true that the global climate trends we're seeing now are atypical. We both know that correlation doesn't equal causation and it's pretty unlikely the connection will be able to be proven.

>>8376446
Global climate is much more complicated that this anon pointed out, and we're not even sure that it's not temperature that controls global CO2 levels, rather than the other way around. Of course we've artificially added plenty of CO2 to the atmosphere, but temperature may have been the only mechanism for changing CO2 levels pre industrial revolution.

One thing worth pointing out is the inconsistencies in terminology. Not to be pedantic, but global warming and climate change aren't the same thing and the label pretty much changed when the temporary warming trend in the 2000s ended. The picture here >>8376452 would be justified if global temperature kept increasing, but it's more difficult to link this upward trend to "climate change" or "extreme weather events".

Regardless of the science, climate change alarmism only acts to stifle the west. Developing countries have no interest in clean energy solutions, and by disadvantaging ourselves we're set to lose a lot of global influence and economic prosperity.

>>8376520
Where's a good place to read about climate change without being swamped with leftist dogma?

>>8376398
There is no simple backyard experiment that will let you conclude anything about AWG.
Climatology is a complex science and there's a reason they need so much data and complex modelling.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing experts, you do that for most everything. Understanding climate science isn't a matter of reading a few blogs, it's years of study.

>>8376648
Yeah of course. i just wanted to know if there was a way for a non-scientist to understand the phenomenon firsthand.

File: erl408263f1_online.jpg (170KB, 412x366px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 412x366px

>>8376520
>it's a "global warming has stopped" episode
no it hasn't you git
Maybe people would take denialists seriously if they weren't lying through their teeth.

>>8376658
Please explain? Honestly it never even occurred to me to entertain climate change denial until today, so I'm not even familiar with the arguments they use. How does that normally go?

File: FR11_All_500.gif (212KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 500x322px

>>8376662
1998 was an anomalous extremely hot year, so they take the 1998 data point and say "oh look it hasn't warmed since 1998", while in reality the trend is still clearly upwards.

>>8376617
A good place is drroyspencer.com

File: last_20_years.png (7KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 640x480px

WFT now has another QC1 data series, UAH6.

>>8376669
>pointing people to a genuine intelligent design supporter
aylmao

File: UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-3s.jpg (146KB, 1500x900px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1500x900px

>>8376669

>>8376520
There actually is a lot of evidence and we can actually determine the source of CO2 in the atmosphere by the carbon isotope and calculate exactly how much was put there by human activity. It is pretty well established that human-induced CO2 increases have caused global warming (and ultimately climate change).

It's scientific fact OP. Just stay aware and do your part. There is no such thing as "too late" because the severity of climate change is still up to us, even if it is inevitable.

>>8377498
>Just stay aware and do your part
That sounds like war propaganda.
Even if earth was warming this is not atypical considering we are coming out of an ice age. Computer simulations of every carbon molecule on earth and their interaction with the climate is anything but scientific fact however since many new age climate priests get paid healthy salaries to produce these tending towards an end of days scenario there is no shortage of them, it is after all, their 'job'.

>charts show an overall 1.2 temp increase in the last century
>this is somehow significant and classifies as global warming

It's fucking nothing

>>8377544
>It's fucking nothing

Dude, what?
1.2 degrees in a century is an enormously accelerated change.

>>8377544
You do realise what that 1.2 degrees represents in terms of habitat destruction, right? Or even the fact that this trend is going to continue, even worsen.

>>8377554
>>8377562
>go outside
>fluctuations of 5-10 degrees every day
>but somehow a 1.2 increase will cause everything to go to shit and will melt ALL ICE CAPS

Good goys.

>>8377574
If you were honest about your low intelligence then you wouldn't be made fun off

File: CC.jpg (316KB, 607x819px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 607x819px

>>8377540

>>8377540
Nobody is preaching end of days though... And way to ignore my entire post you fucklord.

File: SORCE-PMOD-TSI.jpg (36KB, 465x625px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 465x625px

The Modern Warm Period will soon be over.

The real reason climate change is blamed on human activity is so one doesn't have to face the horror that there is nothing we can do about it.

>>8376398
>5% global CO2 is man-made
>CO2 in the atmosphere causes oceans to release even more CO2

This is all you need to know as a STEM major to see that we are in deep shit if we don't change something.

>>8376398
A good thing to look at would be dendrochronology and glacial cores, they have a good record of atmospheric gas concentrations over the last few thousand years. The current levels of CO2 haven't been observed to have occurred in such magnitude in the past as far as i know.

>>8376398
That's so deep dude. It's so fucking deep.

>>8376452
>extrapolating
dropped.

>>8377562

Do we know this for a fact? I mean, local climates would surely change, but does that really mean mass destruction of ecosystems? Species have adapted to the presence of humans and man-made (and non-man-made) changes to the environment in the past, why do we expect that to be different this time?

File: ipcc_rf.png (132KB, 774x789px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 774x789px

>>8376398
There's the IPCC. But nobody is going to bother with the actual research.
Just say they do it to make sure they keep getting money and you can dismiss anything it says without even having to have had a look at it. It's also much easier to pick out one specific part of it, finding (or believing to have found) an inconsistency and you're just proven climate change wrong.

>>8377581
Global fascism, I am actually surprised more energy reserves haven't been outright nationalized. Energy is life so everyone wants a slice of the pie from multinational energy corps to prototypical world governments like the UN. I guess the first question to ask is a global "authority" on anything a wide idea considering history? Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the UN is already a shining example wherever it sticks its enormous penor.

>>8377630
>fucklord
Wew, I am honored! Thank you sir!

File: I_T_T_meme.png (112KB, 499x329px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 499x329px

>>8376398
...then your professors and school are getting paid by Shell and Exxon Mobil lobbyists

>>8377540
>Computer simulations of every carbon molecule on earth
Oh look, it's YOU again. Do you know that it's possible to understand a system without simulating each individual particle separately?

There's an actual censorship put in place by media owner paid corrupted by corporation with interest in lessening charge and environmental regulation.

Like place were you are forbidden to write "global warming", but for the most part they have lost that "propaganda war" already because data don't lie. So the new field of battle is saying the warming is natural and not human made.

The per-reviewed data are available everywhere so there's no need to expand on that

File: NZ-20160809.jpg (28KB, 514x309px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 514x309px

>>8376398
>experience climate change myself?
If you're younger than 20 you never had the opportunity, but be patient. Solar cycle 25 may offer another one. Be aware that 'climate change' includes global cooling and that cold kills..

>>8376658

>30 years of data

fucking lelllllll

>>8376667

>30 years of data

into the garbage

>20 years of data

into the garbage

>>8377453

>19 years of data

you know where it belongs

File: IMG_6030.png (2MB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1891x4901px

Sigh

>>8379765
>>8379770
Are you retarded? I was responding to the usual claim that "warming has stopped since the 2000, which considers even less data.

>>8379790

How could you analyze a trend has stopped by only looking at the time period which somebody claims it has stopped during?

Don't you think you need to establish a trend first?

>>8376398
Global warming is pretty obvious in countries where there is a huge difference between summer and winter. I for example live in Finland and I remember when I was a kid that we used to be knee-deep in snow every November. Nowadays, there is no snow in November and very rarely any in December either. If I look at the last five years, we've had our first snow in like late January, and even then just very little. The change is just staggering. Also, the town where I live has a big river which used to freeze every winter back when I was a kid so people could go skating and walking on the ice. Nowadays we can't do that because the river never freezes properly.

>>8379795
What's even your point? The long term trend is even clearer.

>>8379807

>the long term trend is even clearer

???

See >>8379779

Please before you consider 150 years "long term" lmao

>>8379796

Whoa! Nice anecdote !

>>8379839
Yeah, I guess it's just a coincidence, right?

>>8379849

I just don't see how that supports the theory that the industrialization of humans is the cause for the change you are seeing

>>8376398
If you want to feel come to Austria. It's nearly October and the weather is hotter than the hole August.

Obligatory post
http://xkcd.com/1732/
>[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before

The problem isn't so much the idea that Earth was "never this hot" it's that it rose drastically at a rate it never did before and just as human started worldwide industrialization.

CO2 is an "just hypothesis" yes, so is gravity, so is General Relativity.
We've yet to see detractor show hypothesis that are more logical (and not bogus).

>>8379779
Nice graphic, too complex for most people to find the flaws, but easy enough to misinterpret into whatever anti-manmade-climate-change argument a troll want.
Several of those study actually demonstrate there's a direct correlation, let's take the last one on global temperature. Did you notice the varying logarithmic scale ?

"Hey look, it rose much more 20 000 years before"
(according to the graph it took 10 000 years for it to rise that much)

"Look at how low the temperature are today ! It's just another spike"
(this time, in less than a century the temperature is skyrocketing and human activity are the only variable that changed)

http://xkcd.com/1732/

>>8379887

Interesting you point out correlation, and not causation. General relativity and gravity both have predicted results that can be replicated (example light bending around massive bodies etc)
However there is not a sensible prediction that has come
True from global warming alarmists , i.e. "Florida will be underwater by 2020!!"

File: SLR_models_obs[1].gif (12KB, 450x317px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 450x317px

>>8379917
But model predictions have been reliable.

>>8379933

A fucking retard can draw a cone facing in the general direction of a local (key word) trend. Climate science is extremely politicized, and that is why 1000's of acredited scientists have openly dismissed anthropogenic global warming as non-rigorous

>>8376398
The current status of climate change is we can't stop it. Therefore the best preventative practice would be to amass as much money as possible to build infrastructure and economies that can withstand climate change ruining our countries.

Russian methane being blown out of Siberia is a good example. If that permafrost melts even if we became a 100% emission free world it would still fuck us royally. It's on target to melt eventually so dicking around with carbon credits or other band aids is a waste of time.

tl;dr Aquire currency, build fortifications, keep trust fund for your people in some kind of tangible resource that will be valuable when everything is flooded or food destroyed by climate change.

>>8376662
Fortunately for you, some of their most common arguments have been brought up for you in this very thread. For example,
>>8377540
>many new age climate priests get paid healthy salaries to produce these tending towards an end of days scenario
In other words, a worldwide, decentralized, coordinated conspiracy against honest coal miners and their families.
Or
>>8376520
>climate change alarmism only acts to stifle the west
In the words of the af[math] flu [/math]ent Republican nominee: Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to undermine American manufacturing. Apparently they've paid off all our climate scientists as well.
And another:
>>8379765
>>8379770
>the science isnt in yet

They all generally follow this pattern.

File: 1472140677907.gif (984KB, 342x239px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 342x239px

>>8376520

>>8377574
Don't you realize weather and climate are different?

>>8379949
Notice how he moved the goalposts from "there are no true predictions!" to "that true prediction is easy!"

Notice how he calls a global trend "local"

Notice how he uses circular reasoning to claim that climatology is wrong because it is "politicized" when it is only "politicized" because people like him deny the science for political reasons.

Notice how he talks about "thousands" of scientists without regard to whether they have relevant expertise to judge climatologists, while ignoring that the vast vast majority of climatologists support AGW (and if you press him to show who these "scientists" are, he will give you a composed mostly of non-scientist STEM majors).

These are the scumbag tactics of a delusional science denier.

>>8379865
It doesn't. That is a separate point which is proven by the fact that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, acts this started a positive feedback loop between warming and CO2/vapor release from the oceans.

>>8380016

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

>.03 cents have been deposited into your account

>>8380016

you want a clickbait website better instead? since you probably get your "science" from the huffington post

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1/#ar-giaever-5

>prinecton professors in physics
>nobel prize winners

"but but they're all rednecks! no respectable person could not believe the media~~~`111!!!1!"

>"but guys, there is a 97% consensus about anthropogenic global warming!"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#3bf36cd171b7

>>8380033
Where are the climatologists? Not one is mentioned in the first 20 pages. Thank you for proving my point. Scumbag.

>>8380062

>only climatologists understand the scientific method

and there are plenty of climatologists in that survey

>>8380062

logged off? somebody who doesn't think the same exact way as you is a scumbag?

lololol. i suggest reddit, they ban people who even question global warming. i think you will fit in there better

>>8380044
lol
that fucking idiot didn't understand the paper he read
Lefsrud and Meyer were exposing how experts in the oil and natural gas industry are negotiating their position by adopting defensive postures.

If anything, this paper showed that the "skeptic" experts are overwhelmingly on big oil payroll.

>>8380104
>>>/reddit/
They will ban people who cry about other's posts.

Keep deluding yourself.

A major counterargument I've heard is that in order to make a difference and stop global warming, we would have to reduce carbon emissions by obscene and impossibly high proportions (because of high consumption in developed nations, developing nations sooner-or-late becoming more like us and polluting tremendously too), and that basically the only thing that can save us at this point is technological innovation (renewables, geoengineering, trapping the CO2 back into rocks somehow).

So, instead of slowing our economies down and decreasing GDP growth predictions just to marginally decrease pollution, why not invest all that extra money into innovation? Make it an Energy Transition tax, spent it all on scientists and research.

Is there anything wrong with the above?

>>8380247
>in order to make a difference and stop global warming
We don't have to stop it to make a difference. We have already shat the place, but how deep we go is up to us.
As for technology, of course efficiency gains are a thing, but what you're asking is far beyond the (already amazing) previous gains, in terms of efficiency/year.

File: light_spectral_absorption_water.jpg (28KB, 399x324px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 399x324px

>>8377574
One reason everything will go to shit because of a slight temperature change has to do with water stratification

>45% of Earth's photosynthetic carbon fixation takes place within the first 15-20m of ocean surface water
>phytoplankton on the open ocean, seagrasses, kelp beds, and coral reefs (coral are animals that house photosynthetic symbionts) on continental shelves
>their abundance is heavily resource limited, or we'd have way more photosynthesis taking place
>Most light can't penetrate much deeper than 15-20m in the ocean
>the warmest water stays near the surface
>water column is stratified (warm water stays up top and won't mix with deeer, colder water)
>nutrients are abundant in deeper water, because they're taken up rapidly by phytoplankton near the surface and sink down as they die
>nutrients won't cycle back up without upwelling
>if you increase the temperature of surface waters, you're going to increase stratification, so mixing becomes less likely
>fewer nutrients on the surface means that fewer phytoplankton can reproduce
>fewer phytoplankton means less photosynthesis
>less photosynthesis means less oxygen and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
>more carbon dioxide means Earth will get hotter
>positive feedback loop
>earth becomes hotter at a growing rate over time
>area of polar ice caps continues to shrink year afer year

el oh el

Feel free to look into Hadley cells on your own time too. I don't feel like explaining here, but basically they're going to migrate toward the poles as the planet becomes warmer on average, meaning that the best weather for growing crops is going to move away from where the best soils are, and then lots of people might starve

Whether this is driven by human fossil-fuel burning is the question in the thread, and obviously I didn't answer it, because that wasn't what your comment as about. Just food for thought

File: 1447502533614.png (767KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1280x720px

The thing that upsets me the most about climate change is that, considering the common fault is seen as the spread of human made CO2, being against it implies being okay with pollution.

To me that's like sitting in a room that is getting warmer, but is okay, you are fine with it but then plastic starts getting burned and there's a awful smell, and you are coffing, and you grandfather just died along with millions other
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

and you still say that this totally fine and when posed further questions you throw a tantrum and call it a conspiracy.

>>8380247
Exactly which would be awesome and benefit everybody, but it would also mean raising taxes so the right instead pretends it doesn't exist.

>>8380312
This. But we also have good evidence that the CO2 increase that sparked the feedback loop was man-made.

>>8380319
Dudes can't even consider the long-term economic impacts of climate change. Selfish pricks.

>>8380347
2nd part was meant for you:
>>8380320

>>8380247
>So, instead of slowing our economies down and decreasing GDP growth predictions just to marginally decrease pollution, why not invest all that extra money into innovation? Make it an Energy Transition tax, spent it all on scientists and research.

I don't know for your country but that's what all those tax (and tax reduction) are for in the European Union.
We tax polluting industry in the hope they stop being moneybag cheater like Volkswagen, stop burning the world for short-term profit and develop technology less polluting.
Even CHINA care more about polluting less than the US, they know they need to do better than coal power plant and they have a dictatorship to do it.

File: 0 out of 10.jpg (52KB, 600x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x509px

>>8380039
in order:
>Freeman Dyson, a physicist who agrees AGW is real and a major problem but thinks that incomplete models are being given too much credence
>Bjorn Lomborg, an ECONOMIST who agrees that AGW is real, but thinks that the risks are exaggerated and that there are better ways to combat it than Kyoto etc.
>Myron Ebell, an ECONOMIST who works for a denier think tank and has no published articles to his name
>Kiminori Itoh, an INDUSTRIAL CHEMIST with no background in climatology or atmospheric scientist, who works for the Heartland Institute
>Ivar Giaever, a MECHANICAL ENGINEER and SOLID STATE PHYSICIST (the only Nobel laureate in this list)
>William Happer, an ATOMIC PHYSICIST
>Ian Plimer, a MINING GEOLOGIST
>Michael Crichton, a fucking NOVELIST
>Alan Carlin, an ECONOMIST
>Patrick Michaels, a CLIMATOLOGIST. Note that he's the only climatologist on this list...and also that he admits that 40% (!!!) of his funding comes from the oil industry.

So to sum up:
two physicists with no background in climate
a chemist, again with no background in climate
two economists
a mining engineer
a novelist
a climatologist who's directly dependent on oil money by his own admission
and two guys who actually agree that AGW is indeed happening.

nice list.

File: stop it, get some help.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

>>8380044
holy shit, you and the guy who wrote that are retarded.
>http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
basically what >>8380191 said

File: Cartoonist John Cook.jpg (12KB, 359x140px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 359x140px

>>8380748
>John Cook of SimpletonScience

But remember, a cartoonist turned psychologist is a paragon of climate science truth.

>Appeal to authority, muh Climate 'Scientists'
>(fake) Appeal to popularity, muh 97%
>Ad hominem, muh Evil Oil Companies
That's all warmists have.

>>8377667

If the climate were changing at the rate it naturally does, it wouldn't be a problem at all because you'd be talking about hundreds or thousands of years per degree increased, life and even our civilisation can easily adapt to that rate of change. But over 1 degree in a single century is unprecedented, there has NEVER been a period of such rapid heating, and there is no chance it won't lead to a catastrophic extinction event because animals and plants just can't adapt that quickly, and we won;t be able to help them because we'll be too busy trying to save our coastal cities and trying to re-home the ~1 billion people who will be displaced.

Heating is actually good, the earth IS currently in a mild ice age and a return to the temperatures of (say) the Cretaceous period would open up vast new lands in Siberia and Canada and Antarctica for life. The problem is, none of that will benefit us if the rate of change is so great that it wipes out 90% of existing life and with it our civilisations.

>>8380895
>That's all warmists have.
Besides tons of data.

File: Temp tampering 2000 to 2016.gif (129KB, 857x593px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 857x593px

>>8380949
Heavily tampered data - comparitor gif related.

>>8380961
>IT'S A CONSPIRACY

File: Opinion Discarded.jpg (222KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 500x500px

>>8380895
>a guy who's not a serious researcher thinks climate change is real
>therefore it's all a hoax
>it's not like there are literally thousands of people who ARE serious researchers all independently concluding that the earth is warming as the result primarily of human activity
kys

File: 1441940115632.gif (109KB, 229x199px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 229x199px

>another "climate change hoax" thread

File: Look Everyone Im Projecting.jpg (34KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x333px

>>8381222
>serious researchers all independently
> independently
(almost) All Paid For By Government/U.N.

>scientists have never been wrong before
Fixed continents
Phlogiston theory of combustion
Fixed Space and Time
Atoms are the smallest piece of matter

>>8381096

As always, the resort to ad hominem
>anyone who doesn't believe in an unfalsifiable pseudo-sciencie is a conspiracy nut.
> And Oil Companies are conspiring to trick them!
Projection Much?

File: NASA 1981 to 2015.gif (173KB, 657x594px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 657x594px

>>8381096
> I saw actual data proving the the temperature records have changed.
> Must deny my lying eyes
> I know, I'll call you a conspiracy wack job.
> Whew, pushed down that painful cognitive dissonance.

Do you enjoy shilling?
Get paid well for it?

>>8382900
go back to /pol/

>>8382900
Erm.
Data records are changed all the fucking time. Especially operational one's who go from NRT to REAN every couple of months. What exactly is the novelty here?

The last 5 satellite data records that I released changed every time, obviously, or else there wouldn't be a need to re-process the records..

File: NASA says Cooling Antarctica.png (334KB, 768x513px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 768x513px

>>8383040
>Data records are changed all the fucking time. Especially operational one's who go from NRT to REAN every couple of months. What exactly is the novelty here?

Idiot. Records from the same period of time shouldn't be changing.

But what's this?
Once upon a time, NASA said that Antarctica was cooling.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041014223623/http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html

File: NASA Graph of Cooling Antarctica.gif (171KB, 763x872px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 763x872px

>>8383057
>>8383022 Off to /x/ for you

Yup, they even gave a temperature map of the Cooling Antarctic
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003188/

>>8383057
>Records from the same period of time shouldn't be changing.

Of course they might. What else would be the point of reprocessing an entire multi-decade time series?

File: NASA says Warming Antarctica.jpg (74KB, 768x700px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 768x700px

>>8383058
But oh noes, that doesn't fit the Narrative.
So now they rewrote the temperatures to show a cooling Antarctica.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_antarctica.html

Go ahead and deny your lying eyes. Yeah, the cognitive dissonance must be painful.

>>8383064
> ...to show a warming Antarctic.

>>8383058
>>8383064

Oh noes. Two snapshots 4 years apart show a different spatial distribution? What madness is this?

File: South Pole temps.png (7KB, 568x320px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 568x320px

>>8383066
Because continental temperature trends always invert in 4 years. Yup just look at the satellite record. Pic related.

Whoops, negative trend.
Sorry buddy, stop defending the indefensible. Take your faith to a more noble cause.

>>8383072
Are you seriously referring to TLT? Have you looked at the bloody averaging kernels for the soundings? They are taken in limb mode ffs.

I never understood why anyone would bother with microwave sounders. Most of the UTLS temps have massive posteriori uncertainties.

File: South Pole temps 37 years.jpg (62KB, 484x292px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 484x292px

>>8383080
>TLT make the mistake of not getting the dictated 'result.'

Buddy, same thing for UAH. No warming. Deal with it. And get an honest job.
>nb4 evil denier, didn't cave into pressure like RSS did.
Someone's got to be honest.

>>8383080
BTW, when did you joint the "Rapid Response Team?, " the "Crusher Crew?" Does it pay well. How does it feel to sell you soul to promote an unfalsifaible pseudo-science?

"I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences." - Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

"I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the "team of crushers" then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I've been advocating the need to create a "crusher crew" for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife's chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website [...] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?" - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

>>8382891
>(almost) All Paid For By Government/U.N.
The UN doesn't pay shit. And it's not "The Goverment", it's many governments.

Also, why would you assume government involvement is proof of a conspiracy? And if it WAS, it wouldn't be to over-inflate AGW - most politicians are doing everything they can to downplay AGW because that's where the votes and industry money is.

>scientists have never been wrong before
Fuck you.

>As always, the resort to ad hominem
It's not actually an ad hominem.

>anyone who doesn't believe in an unfalsifiable pseudo-sciencie is a conspiracy nut.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "unfalsifiable pseudo-sciencie". Also, believing in massive global conspiracies involving thousands of independent parties absolutely makes you a conspiracy nut. I'm surprised that this is up for debate.

>And Oil Companies are conspiring to trick them!
Yes. There's fucking solid evidence that's happening.

>>8382900 >>8383057
>>8383058 >>8383064
>>8383072 >>8383097
>I'm going to assert without evidence that changes to data are occurring because of a massive global conspiracy!
>Why are you calling me a conspiracy theorist?

>>8383107
>Climatolgists argue with science deniers!
No duh.

File: NOAA Tampering.png (34KB, 654x448px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 654x448px

>>8383080
>massive posteriori uncertainties.
And you think that other temp data doesn't have posteriori uncertainties? Seriously? Like when they declare a year the "hottest year ever," even though its a few hundredths of a degree warmer?
Even though "corrections" to raw data are on the order of literally an order of magnitude more than the purported annual difference? Do you really expect me to take you seriously?

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

Pic related. Raw temperature data and "corrected" data.

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

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8383118
U.N. is seeking $100,000,000,000 a year. There's your motive buddy. Pic related.

>Also, why would you assume government involvement is proof of a conspiracy?
>Because governments never lie or shade the truth to become more powerful
>Politicians are paragons of honesty, you know.

What's this?
>>scientists have never been wrong before
>Fuck you.
Great answer. Well reasoned. Brilliant really.

Your relentless ad hominem and hypocrisy.
I post before and after pictures of global temps. You yell "conspiracy to post actual published results." Do you realize how delusional you are to look at actual published results, most of which are from NASA, and says "conspiracy theory!"

>>And Oil Companies are conspiring to trick them!
>Yes. There's fucking solid evidence that's happening.
Zero evidence supplied.
>nb4 one Harvard astronomer got $60K at year (after factoring in overhead), so anyone who denies climate change is true is an oil shill!
Prove his science wrong, buddy.
Meanwhile:

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

415KB, 907x587px

>>8383118
>- most politicians are doing everything they can to downplay AGW because that's where the votes and industry money is.
Huh? Are you serious? The president declared Climate Change/AGW a major security threat. John Kerry harps on it every day. So does HRC. And what of all these buddies of yours?

An assumption of an essentially tightly contiguous causal relationship, like your graphs imply is ridiculous. No one would make such an assumption about a very complex dynamical system; unless their salary depends on making the argument "Its not the sun or the oceans, so it must be CO2 !!!!!"

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

>>8383151
>U.N. is seeking $100,000,000,000 a year. There's your motive buddy.
I'm going to call bullshit on that. I've never seen a single source that actually claims the UN is trying to take $100B.

>Because governments never lie or shade the truth to become more powerful
>Politicians are paragons of honesty, you know.
You're doing an incredibly bad job of sticking to points I actually made.

>Great answer. Well reasoned. Brilliant really.
Nothing else was actually nessisary. If you want to batter against retarded strawman, I'm just going to call you a fuckface until you leave.

>I post before and after pictures of global temps. You yell "conspiracy to post actual published results." Do you realize how delusional you are to look at actual published results, most of which are from NASA, and says "conspiracy theory!"
What are you even on about?
I'm not doubting that the data has been adjusted - every fucking source out there will going to great detail about the how and why of the adjustments they make. I'm calling you a conspiracy theorist because you're making the assumption that the adjustments are being made for the sake of a conspiracy.

>Zero evidence supplied.
Exxon is the most famous, and they've spent decades giving money to deniers and bribing politicians to avoid getting charged. They're currently under investigation for it.
Besides them, go look up the Heartland institute.

>nb4 one Harvard astronomer got $60K at year (after factoring in overhead), so anyone who denies climate change is true is an oil shill!
It's not just one denier, it's almost fucking all of them. Any time the funding for a denier comes out, a big chunk of it is Exxon or Heartland or Cato.

>>8383159
>Huh? Are you serious? The president declared Climate Change/AGW a major security threat.
Doing too little 20 years too late isn't exactly exaggerating a threat,

>An assumption of an essentially tightly contiguous causal relationship, like your graphs imply is ridiculous.
It's not if you have a reasonable model of what the overall forcings are. Which we've had for ages now.

>No one would make such an assumption about a very complex dynamical system; unless their salary depends on making the argument "Its not the sun or the oceans, so it must be CO2 !!!!!"
Isn't that basically the argument from ignorance? "I don't understand climatology, therefore climatologists can't, therefore they're lying"?
Also, we can look at things like ocean energy content, which AREN'T "magical" complex system, they just track the Earth's radiative surplus.

>Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth said....
>Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said...
>Calgary Herald said...
I can't actually see any reputable sources for those quotes that aren't just denier blogs or opinion pieces by rambling asshats.

>In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Are you fucking serious?

I'd ask where you were getting all this shit from, but I actually already know:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
Just stop. Please.

>>8383151
that's $100B for shit like solar infrastructure and getting rid of coal plants...not for scientists, if you knew anything about science and weren't just some ignorant crossboard shitposter this would be obvious to you. the scientists are not the people making the money, science isn't like business or politics where helping your friend gets you paid, the only way to get published science results is to do the job right.

if you tried to argue all the false science is due to pressure to publish and community assertion of flawed scientific results, you would at least not look completely ignorant. but trying to pretend $100B for fixing our fucked up environment is payouts and bribes to scientists, is just full retard, especially when you are talking to (future) scientists who will never get a payoff like that in their lives. and especially when its the UN who can't actually levy taxes so they'll be lucky to get $10B let alone $100B.

>>8377581
The money reasoning doesn't work with the environmental scientist because they've been bribed with something more powerful than the dollar: social standing. The need to pump out papers, along with the desire to conform with the majority opinion, can easily cause a lock down on opinion in the scientific world.

>>8383257
>The need to pump out papers, along with the desire to conform with the majority opinion, can easily cause a lock down on opinion in the scientific world.
Except all of the attention and standing goes to people who push away from the consensus. Publishing shit that looks like everyone else's shit guarantees that nobody will care about your work.

>>8383136
>average annual temperature of all stations
>not weighted by area
Oh look, it's another braindead denier who can't even get simple empirical measurement right.

>>8383058
that's very interesting

have you considered fucking off back to /pol/?

>>8383257
also you

back to /pol/

>>8383159
>“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing
All the markers of any religion being forcefully propagated. Very political and merges with the state, Inquisition and heretic hunt, big money tossed around with universal tithes, grooming an army of climate priests who will prey on children before their critical thinking skills mature and of course it's all to save us from ourselves. Scary!

>>8376520
FUCK OFF SHILL

You reminded me of this:

https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c

>>8383324
>Scary!
Yes. Completely fictional, but very scary.

>>8383324
You say that like protecting the environment is a BAD thing... unless you're just trying to be an edgelord.

Besides, that religion already exists. In the form of hippies. Pretty benign, last I checked.

>>8383293
this.
a climatologist who proved all his colleagues wrong would get All The Pussy. a climatologist who exposed a massive hoax would get Even More Pussy. publishing new and innovative stuff that nobody's hit on before is what gets you Science Pussy.
now you may say that there are scientists doing that right now and they haven't gotten Any Pussy At All. and the reason for that is that their published findings don't stand up to scrutiny. remember all those deniers who predict that the warming trend will turn around and become a cooling trend in the next five years? they've been saying that for decades, and they've been wrong every time.

File: My Descendants.jpg (180KB, 450x840px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 450x840px

Welp, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go devolve and live in the woods before everything goes to shit. Hopefully, others will join me and our children will adapt to their new environment.

>>8383324
> All the markers of any religion being forcefully propagated
A little like the idea that capitalism and "rich merit their wealth" is propagated in my humble /pol/ opinion.

One of the main blocker to sustai....more rational management of resources is how people still believe that not taxing company will make it increase their salary.
And may Exxon and the GAFA protect their inalienable right to buy 1 Iphone per years and that shiny gas-guzzling car they want.

/just saying you can't have any solution that won't end up political.
Any step you take to force an industry to pollute less will change its competitiveness compared to another country.

>he fell for the climate change meme

its almost a religion now.

>you can't see it
>you can't feel it
>can't make any observable predictions about it
>you get ostracized for denying it
>there are powerful organizations who's existence depends on mass acceptance of it
>the main authority is a government lobby

lmao

this is the same as killing anyone who was accused of being a witch just incase lmao

File: loretta_lynch_act.jpg (22KB, 315x405px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 315x405px

>>8383939
How dare you.

The most worrying question is that while a large amount of species can survive and thrive in various climate conditions, can the same be said about the complex and fragile network of human settlement and sites of production?

>>8383939
Why are you shitposting?

why won't /pol/tards get the fuck off my board?

Nobody cares if some 500-lb retard from /pol/ has 'doubt' about climate change

>>8378247
>nationalized
Don't need to do that when you can just handle it with regulation instead of forcing goverements to handle what can be regulated private businesses.

>>8384779

?

insightful response

>>8385098
more insightful than your mindless shitpost

Hey guys, I'm an Earth Science student who knows about 20x more than anybody in this thread about climate, climate change, and man made climate change.

I'm not going to read the entire thread, I've heard the same stupid arguments 1000 times already but I am very willing to answer questions, as I have done so before, about climate change and why we know man is causing modern warming.

Questions?

>>8385188
To begin with, I don't even need satellite temperature records, ground based temperature records, or anything else to prove climate change. All your graphs mean nothing. The mountain of data in my favor is so vast and crosses so many disciplines in biology and the Earth sciences that you have to literally close your eyes and plug your ears to be right.

No temperature data needed.

http://nsidc.org

http://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/decreased-snow-and-ice-cover

http://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/climate-change-and-animals.html

https://www.bgci.org/policy/climate-change-and-plants/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071228-penguins-extinct.html

>>8385188
you're not missing much senpai
t. paleofag

File: flooding-miami.jpg (109KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1200x801px

>>8383939

>you can't see it
>you can't feel it

I can see and feel it pretty well, thanks.

Whelp, I'm going to bed, no meaningful discussion tonight.

Enjoy denying this jerks.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140725-climate-change-tropical-fish-animals-ocean-science/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/up-and-up-plants-and-animals-migrating-as-climate-changes/2011/08/18/gIQAzlTxNJ_story.html

>>8385188
Why are you such a socialist cuck shill? Does soros pay you?

>>8385403
What does this have to do with socialism?

>>8385408
Because you are promoting a SJW anti-white agenda with your so-called "climate science"

You leftist SJWtard cucks' days are numbered, mark my words.

>>8385412
>Studying reality is anti-white
So that's why /pol/ is so dumb.

File: b8.jpg (84KB, 627x456px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 627x456px

>>8385412

>>8385330

funny i am actually from miami. i live on an island called key biscayne which was supposed to be underwater by last year. but nice image youve supplied to this thread, useful idiot

>>8376398
>Tell me about climate change /sci/
>I believe in it
climate change is a theory
it is not about belief
Lrn2theory fgt pls