is global warming real?

>>8565310
Brought to by those that want to tax you more, and who said that there would be a lot of countries underwater by now.

Climate alarmism is big business.

>>8565310
this is an issue that has been under heavy debate for a long time and i'm wondering where /sci/ stands on this issue

>>8565310
How can global warming be real when the earth being a globe isn't real?

>>8565310
Yes. And it's caused by humans.

>>8565326
>>8565329
Fuck off. There's nothing to debate anymore.

>>8565310
Yes

>>8565310
>is global warming real?
Yes.

>>8565326
>Brought to by those that want to tax you more
That makes no sense.
Firstly, governments don't have particularly strong control over what public researchers publish.
Secondly, the people making funding decisions don't benefit from increased taxation - they actually often suffer for it, thanks to industry lobbying.
Thirdly, governments already have the authority to raise taxes: if they wanted more money, they wouldn't need to construct a massive international conspiracy to trick people into giving to them.

>>8565388
>There's nothing to debate anymore.
They're be plenty to debate so long as PR companies keep getting paid to push denial.

>>8565388
It is true that there are people who have taken the scientific fact of global warming and twisted it and exaggerated it to their own benefit, to the encumbrance of science.

Yes.

>>8565310
No, listen to the lobbyists who sell you gas and oil. Trustworthy people

The deniers have slowly gone from "its not HAPPENING!" to "its not happening because of HUMAN activity".

And literally all of them get their salaries from oil and gas companies.

>>8565310
It is

The problem is that the hippies who imply that bullshit tend to apply a very stagnant development of technology, implying we'd have the exact same technology which is exactly dependent on coal as it currently is in a few decades. That we'd have the same pollution effect without ANY advances in green technology whatsoever. They like to ignore the ever-growing industry of electric cars and alternative energy in their equations, pretending that not regulating or taxing the fuck out of half of our companies RIGHT NOW will kill Earth permanently. And then if you attempt to deny their retardation, you're automatically a conspiracy theorist who denies global warming in general and probably vote drumpf as well

>>8565310
It surely is rational

Fuck sake can some fuck just put a general summary of global warming on the sticky. You get one of these fucks every day.

I think "sc2ing it" will be the kind of phrase used decades from now.

>>8565446
It's a /sci/ meme like flat earth.

>>8565310
Yes, though the term results in confusion.

Unfortunately, most people see extreme winters and say "see, the world can't be getting warmer" because they're only concerned with local effects, not global occurrences. They see people swap to the term "climate change" to try and clarify that the effects of GW are more complicated than they think, and instead believe this is because environmentalists are trying to make up some new schlock, because most of the world's amateur debate faggots actively avoid any credible source that doesn't agree with them when forming an opinion and refuse to even consider the validity of information that doesn't.

>>8565468
Unlike flat earth GW is false.

>>8565424
There are multiple observed states of denial that scientists have observed:

1. It's not getting warmer
2. It's getting warmer but it's not CO2
3. It's getting warmer because of CO2 but it's not man's fault
4. It's happening but it's not bad
5. It's happening and it's bad but fixing it will cost more
6. There is no objective morality, humans have no purpose, us dying is natural

>>8565535
My favourite is

>Did you know that humanity is only in charge of 3% of the total CO2 output?

>>8565326
>>>/pol/
You have to go back

>>8565326
Go home /pol/
>>>/pol/

>>8565535

number 6 masterrace here

>>8565310
>>8565326
samefag

It's real and it's caused by humans.

However, we can only be sure of the possibility of it actually affecting the climate.

We can map out those possibilities.

Without a positive water vapor feedback, we're looking at maximum warming of 1.2-1.7C. Which is within normal variation and therefore pretty much nothing.

The established science has moved from 'OMG we're gonna warm 8C' to 'OMG 1.5 C will cause all the weather patterns to chance and kill us all'. Which it won't. The denialists have taken this shift as evidence that the whole thing is bunk, which it isn't.

1.7C max. If all the cards fall correctly. Screenshot this.

>>8565392
>"Firstly, governments don't have particularly strong control over what public researchers publish."

you're part of the machine

>>8565841
He's right though. There are loads of topics scientists can't touch with a ten foot pole, but the reason isn't government meddling but rather norms and trends within the scientific community.

>>8565844
like?

>>8565844

>"but the reason isn't government meddling but rather norms and trends within the scientific community."

guess who influences the community and sets the "norms" :'( Everything is masked with a "government approved" sticker and everyone accepts it with facts and try to argue it with another "government approved" sticker. People like you are trained to be open minded in a closed box


>>8565841 <-- this is me

Maybe.

Problem is, climate science is one hair away from being a pseudoscience. Climate change fails two important tests of a good scientific theory, namely falsifiability and being able to make good predictions. Even more worryingly, if you asked anyone in the academia if publish or perish climate (negative or inconclusive results being discouraged, people fudging or literally falsifying data, p-hacking and creative statistics etc) is a problem, you'd get various levels of yes. Not in climate science, mind you, climate science as the one of the most publicised, politically and ideologically involved sciences, is simply immune to such mundane issues.

Take climate sensitivity for an example. It has something of a 60% chance to be between 1.5 and 4.5, so it either needs a single doubling or three (2^3=8 times the increase) to reach 4.5C of warming. Never mind the other 40% or whatever percent that are out of that range. Great, only almost an order of magnitude.

Meanwhile you have the green faggots, borderline anarchoprimitivists, and doomsday con artists thriving on selling fear. Alternative to being a fucking hippy are "nothing is going on" shills. Great.

Interestingly enough, green fags are too busy being smug and morally superior to encourage research into methods of stopping the impeding destruction they claim. You'd think they are lobbying for investing hundreds of billions into iron seeding research. Nope, it's subsidies for Chinese made solar panels, shitty solar farms and other feelgoods.

>>8565852
But the USA government is full of oil shills. Why the fuck would it support climate change?

>>8565934
Climate science is easily falsifiable and had been successfully projecting global average surface temps and sea levels for decades. You're just spouting lies about a field you obviously know nothing about. The ease with which deniers lie in order to reach a conclusion convenient for their political ideology is startling.

>>8565934
>. You'd think they are lobbying for investing hundreds of billions into iron seeding research
To be fair, iron seeding is pretty fucking risky simple because it is next to impossible to actually gauge the potential ecological damage, but yeah, fission is much more viable than solar energy, and increasing the investment on fusion research should be a top priority.

>>8565959
When did that happen?
>1980
Hurr by 2000 most of the costal areas will be submerged
>1995
Hurr in 2008 lots of isles will be submerged
>2005
hurr in 2015 sea level will rise as fuck
>current year
We're all gonna die. Muh 6°C by 2030.

>>8565969
Nigga, I think you are mistaking sensationalist headlines with scientific study.

>>8565959
>Climate science is easily falsifiable
I'm all ears.
>and had been successfully projecting global average surface temps and sea levels for decades
Some of them, inside a high range of uncertainty. A metric shitload haven't.

You are claiming there's a drift in a stochastic process, which is literally a Russell's teapot level of falsifiability. You can claim it, and your claims can be criticised, but there's no way of conclusively falsifying the claim, aside of waiting for the claims to be wrong and you to come up with new claims.

Funny, you haven't written anything about my horrible lies about climate science being immune to regular academic bullshit.

>>8565962
True, but those are the people who believe that in 50 years there will be an huge extinction event, sea levels will rise dramatically and millions of lives and trillions of dollars will be lost, hunger due to droughts will decimate both human and animal populations etc. That sounds worth at least looking into it more, but no, humans are capable of completely fucking over the whole fucking planet and the only thing we should do is turn vegan and drive a prius. Seriously.

>>8566014
10 things that would falsify AGW:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

>>8566014
>You are claiming there's a drift in a stochastic process, which is literally a Russell's teapot level of falsifiability
Deniers LOVE to ignore the fact that AGW is first and foremost a causative explanation for warming. It is not simply the claim that there is a statistical trend in temperatures and that this trend correlates with CO2. The greenhouse effect is eminently falsifiable. Its basic chemistry.

There is nothing substantive in the rest of your buzzword filled rant besides a statistically tortured rendition of climate sensitivity. The confidence range of 1.5 to 4.5 does not mean that 4.5 is as likely as 1.5.

File: 1478977181765.jpg (12KB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x200px

>>8565951

Because $$$. Fear is the most profitable thing in existence. They know it is a shamboozle but everyone will panic and donate to an organization or purchase "reusable bags" or something familiar which are 3 times as much as a regular bag or what ever is "recyclable"/Eco friendly

btw still me

>>8565534

Fuck you.

>>8566086
Oil is the most profitable thing in existence

>>8566086

Anon please. The money being made on the businesses who benefit from environmental "unfriendly" practices far outstrips what you'll make off "eco friendly bags".

Like, where do you think all the "climate change denial" data is coming from? It's just one big (or more likely, multiple big) misinformation and confusion campaigns sponsored by big businesses who have lot to lose on the regulations that climate change would cause.

Heck, why do you think climate change denial is more common in US than EU? It's because corporate shilling has always been stronger in the US than in the EU since the EU has way stronger government than the US.

>>8565977
People here get butthurt when anyone brings up An Inconvenient Truth, but the fact of the matter is that is what got most people to really give a shit about global warming/climate change/whatever it's called this week, and many of its biggest/most remembered claims have been total bullshit, like Kilimanjaro having no snow by 2015.

The fact new and burdensome regulations were passed to try and curb the effects of global warming naturally makes people suspicious. Massive boondoggles like Solyndra just make that worse.

tl;dr- tell the ridiculous alarmists to shut up if they're spouting bullshit.

And stop saying "it's not a debate" or "it's settled science," the former makes you sound like a jackass and the latter is an oxymoron.

>>8566134

I dunno. I wonder how much of the alarmist stuff is actually corporate falseflagging (look at these craaaazy headlines! That means everyone is just making shit up!).

For a lot of companies, paying a few shills to cause a ruckus is probably cheaper than having to change business practices because of new regulations.

>>8566145
That could be the case with some, but I highly doubt Al Gore is in that camp.

>>8566014
>Some of them, inside a high range of uncertainty. A metric shitload haven't.
Another baseless lie. Check the IPCC in 1990.

>tfw climate change deniers don't see that it's in our own interest to stop pouring CO2 into the atmosphere and Cadmium into our drinking water

>energy independence isn't enough of a reason to move away from fossil fuels

It's amazing that these retards manage to put their pants on in the morning.

>>8566210
I thought you accused 'denialists' of cherry picking starting points?

>>8566243
Can't provide a single piece of evidence that "most" projections are wrong? That's what I thought.

>>8566038
>>You are claiming there's a drift in a stochastic process, which is literally a Russell's teapot level of falsifiability
>Deniers LOVE to ignore the fact that AGW is first and foremost a causative explanation for warming. It is not simply the claim that there is a statistical trend in temperatures and that this trend correlates with CO2. The greenhouse effect is eminently falsifiable. Its basic chemistry.
Well thank fuck you can conflate CO2 greenhouse effect with the whole climate science because CO2 is the only variable amirite? Surely there isn't a host of other, quite unknown variables, like cloud albedo? What a retard, nobody is claiming basic building blocks of peer reviewed science are wrong, we're claiming that shitty blockhouse you've built has some issues.

> The confidence range of 1.5 to 4.5 does not mean that 4.5 is as likely as 1.5.
What the fuck does that even mean, you statistically semiliterate nigger? Estimated ranges go from 0.5 or something to fucking 12, with IPCC giving 60% probability of it being withing [1.5,4.5] range, other extremes being unlikely or very unlikely. From what are you inferring both the claim and the refutation you're providing?

>>8566145
>I dunno. I wonder how much of the alarmist stuff is actually corporate falseflagging
Yes I'm sure corpurashions pour millions into climate alarmist because there aren't enough hippies and scientifically semiliterate people who parrot whatever they are said is scientific consensus.
>hey guys, let's plant ridiculous climate alarmist articles, surely people would become suspicious about it
>"all icebergs everywhere to melt for the fifth time, scientists say"
>everybody completely buys into it, for the fifth time
What kind of a retard corporation would shoot themselves in the foot like that?

>>8566331
1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

****

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

>>8566331
5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****

6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

****

7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

****

8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

>>8566331
9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

****

10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

****

11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000

****

12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

****

13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

****

14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

****

>>8566331
5. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

****

16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

****

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

****

18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

****

19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

>>8566331
20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006

****

21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

****

22. “Winters: wet and mild”
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

****

23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

****

24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

****

>>8566331
25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

****

26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

****

27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

****

28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

>>8566331
29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

****

30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

****

31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

****

32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

****

33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

****

34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

>>8566331
35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

****

36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

****

37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

****

38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

****

39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

>>8566331
40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

****

41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2007

****

44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

>>8566331
45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

****

46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

****

47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

****

48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

****

49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

>>8566331
50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

****

51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
[BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]

****

52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

****

53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

>>8566348
>>8566352
>>8566356
>>8566360
>>8566361
>>8566363
>>8566364
>>8566366
>>8566369
>>8566378
>>8566380

Not the guy you're replying to, but I was wondering where the fuck you were getting all these from, if it was a list you kept yourself or what, but googling the first study brought up the link to this list:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

I appreciate how this is a way to make a point but Jesus Christ, anon.

>>8566348
>“Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
>Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006
>>8566352
>>8566356
>>8566360
>>8566361
>>8566363
>>8566364
>>8566366
>>8566369
>>8566378
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/totally-bat-shit-crazy-anthony-watts.html

>>8566387
Well, he asked.

>>8566388
>http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/totally-bat-shit-crazy-anthony-watts.html
You can go look up every paper in that list, but just linking to someone saying 'nuh uh' is probably a better option huh.

>The people saying its real are scientists who study it
>The peoole saying its not real are owners of oil companies, news channels owned by these people, and people who watch that news
Really causes one's mind to ponder, doesn't it?

File: Frequency_distribution_of_climate_sensitivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png (6KB, 652x152px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 652x152px

>>8566347
>Well thank fuck you can conflate CO2 greenhouse effect with the whole climate science because CO2 is the only variable amirite?
I'm sorry you don't understand what falsifiability means, even though you pretended to understand what it means. The greenhouse effect is a fundamental principle of AGW. Since it's falsifiable, so is AGW.

>What a retard, nobody is claiming basic building blocks of peer reviewed science are wrong, we're claiming that shitty blockhouse you've built has some issues.
You claimed it right here, moron:
>>8565934

>What the fuck does that even mean, you statistically semiliterate nigger?
What exactly is hard to understand about the statement? Getting angry at others because of your own stupidity does not hide your stupidity.

>Estimated ranges go from 0.5 or something to fucking 12, with IPCC giving 60% probability of it being withing [1.5,4.5] range, other extremes being unlikely or very unlikely.
Wow, it's almost like you get confidence ranges from ensembles! Oh I forgot, you have no idea how these figures were generated or what the confidence range actually means, because you are merely pretending to know what you're talking about.

>From what are you inferring both the claim and the refutation you're providing?
From the AR5 report. You should read it, since you cited a result from it.

>>8566394
He did, but you're just fast forwarding this thread to 404'ing by doing that.

>>8566399
He didn't just say "nuh uh" though. I was thinking some of the same things as I was reading the titles of the studies in that last. You can't say they didn't come true when they're talking about whats going to happen in 2050.

That doesn't make them all invalid, but it makes it much easier to disregard the rest of it when a chunk of it turns out to be bullshit.

>>8566400
You're naive as hell if you think there isn't massive pressure on climate scientists paid with government grants (which is ultimately YOUR money, mind you) to come up with reports that back up the current government's agenda.

The White House just had a DoE scientist fired because they went off script and gave too much of the truth to Congress about a study on low dose radiation, and the WH was worried Congress appropriating money to look into that further would take money away from studying climate change.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-19-Final-Staff-Report-LDRR.pdf

>>8566400
>the people who are for nuclear power tend to be climate change deniers
>the people who are against nuclear power tend to believe in climate scientists

I know I paint with a broad brush (especially with the latter comment) but it feels like no one fucking takes shit seriously, and that no one can be happy.

But arguing "ad populum" is fucking retarded for science. The science should stand on its own without needing to cite the number of scientists. I also think alarmists exaggerate the science and hurt the community with their 'boy who cried wolf' behavior.

>>8566399
I'll read all the papers when you read every paper supporting AGW. I think I'll finish first.

Until then, I don't think I'm going to bother when most of them are for predictions that can't be evaluated yet, and most of the rest are just Anthony lying about what's in them.

>>8566348
>>8566352
>>8566356
>>8566360
>>8566361
>>8566363
>>8566364
>>8566366
>>8566369
>>8566378
>>8566380
>Asked for evidence that most projections are wrong
>Posts list of allegedly failed predictions without calculating what proportion are wrong vs. right

Are climate deniers illiterate or do they think everyone else is?

>>8566426
You're thinking he didn't say 'nuh uh' because you didn't read the papers in question. Talking about 2050 or other points in the future does not mean 'well anything can happen man it's not there yet'. Data is not following the trends that the author established to make that claim. That's why it's in the list. You'd know that if you read the corresponding paper instead of just going with what 'felt right, man'.
>>8566428
I've read every paper supporting AGW published in all major English scientific journals and the few important ones that have been published in other languages (translated, mostly Chinese). Your turn.

>>8566426
>You're naive as hell if you think there isn't massive pressure on climate scientists paid with government grants (which is ultimately YOUR money, mind you) to come up with reports that back up the current government's agenda.
I can't wait to see all of these climatologists reversing their position and publishing that AGW is false now that Trump is president. That's how it works right?

>>8566428
Also, all those papers SUPPORT AGW you blathering illiterate syphilitic swine.

>>8566439
Point out the right ones anon. Enlighten us.

>>8566445
Clearly they don't if they are predictions based on the theory that didn't come true. You do know how science works right?

So which is it? Do they disprove AGW or support it?

>>8566450
You can try to cover for your mistake, but everyone saw it. Pottery.

>>8566448
OK, so apparently you are illiterate. I'm saying that this does not tell us that publishing n amount of "failed" predictions does not tell us that most predictions are false, which is the statement being replied to. I could collect 10 black swans, but this tells us nothing about the proportion of black swans in the population, especially since by selecting to show only black swans, it's not a random sample.

>>8566455
You're an idiot. Where did I say they didn't support AGW? That's what YOU claimed.

>>8566455
I can understand why someone who is not familiar with science would make the mistake of conflating "making a prediction based on a theory" with "supporting a theory". The former implies that the author may agree with the theory, but a prediction by itself is not evidence. A *fulfilled* prediction may be evidence. Why would I ask you to read papers that make a prediction based on AGW, when I am trying to make you read papers that prove AGW?

>>8566459
Every single paper there was written in support of AGW. Point out where I claimed otherwise.
>>8566426
You're wondering why I would fast forward this thread to 404? Because anyone intelligent is afraid to discuss this, because doing so rationally would place them in the corner of 'race realists' and paid oil shills and they lack the moral integrity to be unafraid of that. This thread will yield nothing. This conversation has yielded nothing for a decade. The science has yielded nothing for a decade.

Want to look up a precedent for global action based on real science? Look up how we decided to phase out ozone destroying refrigerants at a time when the world was much, much more divided than it is now.

>>8566469
>Every single paper there was written in support of AGW.
I didn't ask you to read papers that were written by authors who agree with AGW, I asked you to read papers that support AGW.

Not to mention that I never claimed these papers didn't support AGW, YOU claimed that.

>>8566467
AGW has been proven for decades, you blathering ass. The issue is not whether AGW exists, but the extent of the warming effect and whether it's within normal variation. If the warming effect is within normal variation or within a variation that will not cause adverse effects worse than the cure, then it's FUCKING NOTHING and if you automatically exclude that possibility from consideration you're an academic coward.

>>8566443
>Talking about 2050 or other points in the future does not mean 'well anything can happen man it's not there yet'. Data is not following the trends that the author established to make that claim.

That's not what you said. You replied to "Can't provide a single piece of evidence that "most" projections are wrong?" with a list of studies that don't all seem to do that. Which ones specifically show a projection and then prove it wrong? I can't read all 107 of them, and from googling a few of them all I'm seeing is that same list of studies over and over copypasta'd on different sites.

>You'd know that if you read the corresponding paper instead of just going with what 'felt right, man'.

I admit I haven't read all those papers, but that's not what I said either.

>>8566444
Probably a few of them will, but not terribly many. What I was getting at is they won't get funding anymore because they won't have a client that wants to listen to them any more. It's not like all scientists agree AGW is real. They'll just hire new ones.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Im sure there is research funded by non-governmental sources which will continue, but as I understand it much of the funding for this comes from Uncle Sam. If that's wrong let me know.

>>8566469
If you don't want to discuss it fuck off and let people who do want to argue with each other do so.

>>8566479
You can read all 107 of them, and many more, and if you want to talk about this issue you need to. You can read a paper relatively fast, especially if you learn how to selectively focus on the data and conclusions that need focus and whir through the rest, reviewing as necessary. If you want to take this issue as a hobby it's an absolutely necessary skill.
>>8566479
I am discussing it. If you think 11 posts in a /sci/ global warming thread is going to push 11 good posts off of the thread you are very new to /sci/. The vast majority of the people that browse /sci/ hid this thread hours ago.

Racist thread

File: 720.png (63KB, 720x237px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x237px

>>8566473
>AGW has been proven for decades, you blathering ass. The issue is not whether AGW exists, but the extent of the warming effect and whether it's within normal variation.
Ah I see you're on stage 4 of climate change denial >>8565535

>If the warming effect is within normal variation
Well if you acknowledge that there is a warming trend caused by CO2 emissions, you've already acknowledged there is an abnormal variation, since natural climate variation is either random or cyclical. It doesn't trend in one direction continuously. Man does not have a natural stop, only man can consciously decide to stop.

As to the magnitude, yes the rate of warming is quite unprecedented. It appears that the climate has not or rarely had such an extreme rate of change. Why is this so hard to believe when the source of that change is unprecedented?

>>8566479
Bush Jr. wanted to undermine climatology as much as Trump. I don't think he managed to get funding reduced. All he managed to do was get embroiled in a minor scandal where his administration kept trying to push fringe papers into government reports.

>>8566497
Fuck off with your bullshit stages faggot
>>8566497
You've got to be some dumbass biology student. Climate variations range from high to low. If the warming effect falls within the high range then AGW is nothing but an interesting study on how industry affects global climate, not an emergency call for a global tax on industry. I'd bring up refrigerants but given your repetitive 'dis iz how sienz werkz man' statements you'd probably have to google what that is. It's what keeps your Zuma cold.

'It appears'
'Only man can consciously decide to stop'
'Ah'

Never mind you're just a faggot.

>>8566497
Not the guy you're replying to, and this is a little out of the scope of the topic of this thread but it's 4chan so who gives a fuck.

What do you want to do about it? I'm not saying this to be a dick, it's an honest question.

Personally I think AGW is probably real, but I also think it's being used to line some pockets by people in various governments. I've heard over and over though how even if the US and Europe stopped outputting any carbon it wouldn't affect things at all since China and India are going to just do whatever they want anyway.

What is the environmentalist's dream scenario? Is what I've heard about us being fucked already just a meme or should we just focus on building a space-based sunshade or something? Fossil fuels will go away eventually anyway just because they're basically not a renewable resource at the rate we use them anyway. Subsidies for anything, not just green energy, rub me the wrong way.

Only an absolute fucking retard believes in global warming, only an idiot would believe the politicized bullshit that involves the whole "green" industry.

>>8566526
>What is the environmentalist's dream scenario?
Obviously its a global socialist government that reduces the world population to 1 billion, where most just live as agrarian serfs to benefit the few elite.
They would be part of the elite, ofc

>>8566526
Not the guy you replied to bi4cswgaf

The best solution would be to develop carbon neutral technologies that are better, not meme ones like wind and solar but molten salt nuclear with hydrogen generation plants that have a better ROE so that other countries naturally gravitate to that economy, reducing all of the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction, not just carbon.

>>8566522
>Climate variations range from high to low.
This is meaningless.

>If the warming effect falls within the high range then AGW is nothing but an interesting study on how industry affects global climate, not an emergency call for a global tax on industry.
How does that follow? AGW is or isn't an emergency depending on your sense of time and scale. It's not an emergency in the sense of a shooting or a heart attack. It's an emergency on the order of several decades involving costs which individual humans find hard to comprehend. It doesn't mean the end of humanity, it means the slow accumulation of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in costs from a more extreme climate and an ecology that can't adapt fast enough. So of course it's convenient for you to describe AGW as "alarmist" or "an emergency call" as a strawman, because the real thing doesn't look like that on a typical human scale.

It's more of an insurance accountant's emergency. They tell you you should take some minor steps to preserve a comfortable future, but you don't listen. Question is, why do you need to lie and claim that a minor tax would be catastrophic for industry if you actually have a rational argument against it?

>>8566534
While the two groups do overlap a lot, it's possible to be an environmentalist and not a Marxist Globalist.

>>8566537
There's no reason for that not to be the dream of Exxon and other fossil fuel companies too, as long as they're the ones that will be building the reactors, but that doesn't answer my question. I've heard multiple times that even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we're too far gone for it to make a difference. Is that bullshit or what? Like >>8566534 said I'm sure there are people out there that want us all to live like substance farmers, but that isn't the majority of people.

So what do they want?

If we're too far gone already, why waste time on wind and solar? Shouldn't we focus on something that will actually address the problem of warming?

>>8566526
>What do you want to do about it?
A small tax would reduce emissions enough to save many billions of dollars in future damage. Economists calculate an "optimal" carbon tax that maximizes the amount of money saved vs. lost to taxes. What's great is that this is simply the effect of having the tax. If the tax revenue is spent on research and technology, we can mitigate the damage even further. This can be done in individual countries and it would still save a certain amount of billions. But obviously it would be better to get every country to implement an optimal tax.

In addition, more funding should go to nuclear power, especially fusion, and other clean power sources since they will have to be developed anyway. You might not like subsidies, but's that's just how science is funded. And it's better than useless defense spending.

>>8566542
HAHAHA YOU'RE A FUCKING BIOLOGY STUDENT I BET IT'S MARINE BIOLOGY BECAUSE YOU LIKE DOLPHINS YOU FAGGOT

>>8566558
Wrong, math major currently in law school.

>>8566560
You should have stuck with the fucking dolphins then.

>>8566562
Nice argument.

>>8566563
Who's arguing? I'm just laughing at you at this point, mainly because of your hilarious insurance metaphor.

>>8566551
>A small tax would reduce emissions enough to save many billions of dollars in future damage.

Ok, the concept of spending a little now to avoid spending a lot later makes sense so ok on that. My problem is when you tax something used to generate power that literally everyone uses, it makes power more expensive for everyone. What is the amount of money they claim they need? All these Hollywood celebrities flying all over the world in private jets while telling me I'm an asshole for driving my car surely will donate to this, right?

And just food for thought, it's been shown that lowering taxes leads to increased government revenue, at least in the US:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#6587960748a3

I'd rather the government just spend less overall. The US is in so much debt right now it's insane. If you count intragovernmental debt and unfunded liabilities, we're well over $100T in the hole.

>In addition, more funding should go to nuclear power, especially fusion, and other clean power sources since they will have to be developed anyway.

I'm fine with that. I'm not against government funding research, but I'd like it to go towards something useful.

>You might not like subsidies, but's that's just how science is funded.

By subsidies I meant bullshit like Solyndra, ethanol and the wind power meme.


None of that really answered my question though. Are we fucked as is, and if so what do we do about it? Rather than spending countless dollars on research and wind subsidies, can't we pick a solution and just go for it? I've heard about launching a bigass sunshade that would orbit the sun and block some sunlight from hitting Earth. That might be a total meme for reasons I haven't thought of, but it seems much more plausible than stopping fossil fuel use overnight.

>>8566572
Please stop confusing government debt with your credit card debt

File: Global Relative Humidity.jpg (72KB, 581x494px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 581x494px

>>8566021
>https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/
> 10 strawman arguments.
Nobody said the world hasn't warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. None of those arguments distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. Or more importantly Anthropogenic warming that will have a catastrophic consequence. Almost no one says that CO2 does absolutely nothing.

But here's an interesting falsifiability criterion:
"7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature"

But what's this? NOAA data show that relative humidity has been falling, yet they also say that temperatures have been rising. Pic related. (Graph data from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.)

So Climate Change has been falsified, and we can all go home.

Don't hold your breath. This is when the Soros-funded shills engage in their double-talk.

>>8566601
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/17/you-think-the-deficit-is-bad-federal-unfunded-liabilities-exceed-127-trillion/#25488f6f10d3

File: Phase Relation of CO2 and Temperature.jpg (60KB, 402x204px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 402x204px

>>8566038
>Deniers LOVE to ignore the fact that AGW is first and foremost a causative explanation for warming.

Yeah, that's why an increase in the rate of temperature change happens BEFORE an increase in the rate of CO2 concentration change.

I thought cause had to precede effect.

>nb4 hurr, durr lagged noise. An effect this robust isn't noise.

File: Predict vs Measure.png (108KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1440x1080px

>>8566331
Here's all the evidence you need. And yes, Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama. And all your hurr, durr creationist ad hominem is utterly irrelevant to the depicted science.

And SkS and Schmidt have been thoroughly debunked.

Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>nb4 denier blog. Don't care. Try facts and logic instead of ad hominem. If you can.

File: 03 - AR4 Fig 10-26.png (40KB, 560x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 560x480px

>>8566331
And before you tout the Simpleton "Science" argument about recentering. Let's look at an actual IPCC graph, pic related. Notice that the graph given here:
>>8566636
has the same starting point as that given by the actual graph taken from UN IPCC AR4.

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
Graph In the lower left hand corner of the page, enlarged with updated data.

Summary: Once again, John Cook is shown to be a lying sack of crap. You've really got to stop trusting a cartoonist turned psychologist.

File: IPCC 2013 prefinal draft.png (135KB, 550x417px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 550x417px

>>8566331
>>>8566243
>Can't provide a single piece of evidence that "most" projections are wrong? That's what I thought.

What's this? A draft graph from the UN IPCC pre-final draft. Projections so wrong, that the U.N. IPCC took them out of the final product and replaced it with a graph where they add much more variability to the "projections" guaranteeing unfalsifiability.

>nb4 "John Crook" said that graph is centered wrong.
Again, a bald faced lie. Look at the graph here from the actual IPCC report:
>>8566646
It starts at the same place.

File: Not hockey stick loehle.jpg (736KB, 600x488px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 600x488px

>>8566497
>Look at my picture!!!
>Look, I stapled high frequency, high variance instrumental data onto low frequency, low variance proxy data. So climate change is true!

A statistical abomination. What happens if you consistently use the same data type (non-instrumental) and don't conveniently redate proxies (unlike Marcott)? You get pic related. No big deal. And no hockey stick.

>>8566605
Wow, do none of you deniertards know what falsifiability means?

>None of those arguments distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming.
What are you talking about? If it's natural warming then there is no reason why you couldn't see a drop in temperature, a drop in global sea level, forcings would be different from what we think they are, warming of the stratosphere, errors in satellite measures of outgoing radiation, or falling humidity. If you don't understand how these falsify AGW then you have no business calling AGW unfalsifiable.

>But what's this?
A misleading graph which cherrypicks data, ignores humidity on Earth's surface, and improperly combines a homogenized and unhomogenized data set to create a false trend.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract;jsessionid=C4E12EABE02E813875B036FAD052F227.f04t02

But at least you admitted climate change is falsifiable, moron.

>>8565326
Big Oil is big business

https://youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

>>8566622
>Yeah, that's why an increase in the rate of temperature change happens BEFORE an increase in the rate of CO2 concentration change.
Yeah I'm sure someone has already explained to you that there is a positive feedback loop between warming and CO2/water vapor release from oceans, which is why historically you see CO2 increasing after warming started by increased solar radiation from Earth's eccentricity. Yet you keep posting this meme, even though you KNOW it's wrong. You're simply a liar.

File: Erasing Global Cooling.png (193KB, 768x462px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 768x462px

>>8566675
>What are you talking about? If it's natural warming then there is no reason why you couldn't see a drop in temperature,

You mean that huge drop in temperature from 1945 to 1975? The one that NASA GISS had to erase?

Thanks for the unfalsifiability!

File: water vapor.png (237KB, 800x580px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 800x580px

>>8566675
>>But what's this?
>A misleading graph which cherrypicks data, ignores humidity on Earth's surface, and improperly combines a homogenized and unhomogenized data set to create a false trend.
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract;jsessionid=C4E12EABE02E813875B036FAD052F227.f04t02

Look at this paper! After the relative humidity measurements didn't support our theory, we tampered the data until we got the desired result!
.
Humdity data fits prediction => Climate Change is TRUE!
Humidity data does not fit prediction => So much the worse for the data. Tamper it until we get the desired result. Then Climate Change is TRUE!
Thanks for the unfalsifiability!

Pic related. Humidity predictions failed.

>>8566669
Meanwhile, in the real world....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

>>8566675
>But at least you admitted climate change is falsifiable, moron.
Huh? No, I called your bluff. Knowing damn well that your answer would be either, "that's not what we predicted or Look at our tampered data!"

And here's more of your unfalsifiability. Moron. As I've said before, Climate Change has been falsified.
There was no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. Prof. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval).
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."

Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

Proof that temps flat-lined: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

>>8565852
Do you remember to wear a tinfoil hat?

I wanted to show Before The Flood to someone but then I found out it was only available for free for a limited time!

Guess man-made climate change isn't that big of an issue if they want people to pay to have their awareness increased!

File: UAH CO2 Phase Relation.png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>8566681
>Yet you keep posting this meme, even though you KNOW it's wrong. You're simply a liar.
> I'm so angry I got my panties in a bunch!
If that was a graph of a mere feedback effect, the original effect, why you purport to be much stronger would dominate that graph. Instead, its nowhere to be seen in that graph.

>>8566636
Debunked meme: No hotspot
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=F5DA2B623B95CC8EF70F32DA4C92BDEF.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

>>8566646
>Actual IPCC graph
Lie.

>>8566653
>A draft graph from the UN IPCC pre-final draft.
Yeah, an improperly baselined graph. You can't post without lying can you?

>>8566669
>What happens if you consistently use the same data type (non-instrumental) and don't conveniently redate proxies (unlike Marcott)? You get pic related.
Yeah but that never happened. He didn't consistently use the same type of data

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

>>8566682
Yeah yeah, it's all a conspiracy. Don't you have a pizza parlor to shoot up?

>>8566569
Holy fuck anon. Ever considered cyanide pills?

>>8566688
>Here's what's wrong with your graph, and here's the data that disagrees'
>>No, that disagrees with me so it's tampered!
You're projecting so hard here. I explained what was wrong with your data, when are you going to show me how they tampered with mine?

>>8566696
>Huh? No, I called your bluff. Knowing damn well that your answer would be either, "that's not what we predicted or Look at our tampered data!"
If you knew that, why can't you come up with an argument against it?

>waaaaah it's tampered!!!

>There was no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years.
Classic denier cherrypick. You can find any trend you want if you ignore most of the data and choose arbitrary start or end times. Oh and what a surprise, you started at the El Nino. Gee whiz. You fucking liar.

File: DontBMaddB.jpg (6KB, 206x218px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 206x218px

>>8565310
Who the fuck cares, OP, if globoTherm doesn't do us in, Korea is willing to step up to the plate. If that doesn't work, we reside next to a fucking asteroid belt, so calculate that. If that doesn't work, the sun will expand and we'll really experience global warming. And if that doesn't work, gamma radiation will statistically and inevitably melt every sign of life on this planet. I can think of thousands of different other things that are trying to go wrong for us; and not one thing comes to mind that naturally serves our benefit. Just fuck your bitch, take the hummer to work, and toke it up on weekends because life is short no matter how many plastic fucking bottles you recycle.

>>8566681
>there is a positive feedback loop between warming and CO2/water vapor release from oceans,
This is the theory upon which the whole narrative is based

Whether its real is something totally different

Building a few meters of dykes a decade from now is literally nothing compared to the trillions of dollars that reducing CO2 will cost us

Even if its all true
The only thing to do is allow the economy to grow & technologies to develop to make the problems insignificant

File: Infrared_absorption.png (155KB, 758x1008px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 758x1008px

Now that the spell is broken & the trumpocalypse en route, another nail in the coffin of the CO2 hoax. This is a paper for people who prefer the physics and math of infidels over the fatwas from the Book of Goremon.

Could it be that the "very different origin" is nothing but the (ignored) natural climate dynamics that a coupled nonlinear chaotic system is capable of producing without any 'human forcing' whatsoever? There is this persistent rumor that climate was always changing, even in pre-industrial times..

The author also refers to this >>8562360 and this >>8565384

To the Peddlers of Doom and their Merchants of Smear: The Guillotine of Science is awaiting!

>>8566704
>If that was a graph of a mere feedback effect, the original effect, why you purport to be much stronger would dominate that graph.
I don't speak gibberish.

>isolate:60
You're an idiot.

>>8566742
OK, tell me which part isn't real:

1. Heat makes water vapor and CO2 evaporate from the oceans

2. Water vapor and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere

>>8566764
water vapor also blocks lots of sunlight.

Heat doesn't automatically mean more water vapor either

>>8566768
Water vapor, does not block sunlight, only condensed water does that.

>>8566758
Yes, clearly we should prefer the radiative forcing calculated from unrealistic assumptions, grossly over-simplified physics, and cherrypicked temperature data instead of direct measurement of the infrared spectra of CO2. You are so scientific.

>>8566768
>water vapor also blocks lots of sunlight.
Wrong. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, it acts in a very similar manner to other greenhouse gasses in re-directing energy back towards the planet surface in a positive feedback.

>>8566709
I don't expect the guy to respond to you, but I'm glad someone is actually bothering to respond to that idiot.

File: yes.gif (1MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x180px

>>8565807
kill yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dbR2JZmlWo

File: assburger and proud.png (62KB, 302x389px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 302x389px

>>8566551
>Defense spending
>Useless
You only deserve a reaction image.

>>8565326
>Climate alarmism is big business.
You're retarded if you think it's bigger business than fossil fuels.

>>8566839
but muh green industry conspiracy... muh solar panel subsidies... muh wind subsidies... muh uh... environmentalism..?

>>8566768
>water vapor also blocks lots of sunlight.

kys

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Chemical/watabs.html

>>8566897
His statement is retarded, but in his defense sunlight does not just mean the visible spectrum, the type of light that the greenhouse effect concerns is infrared and UV, not visible spectrum.

Yes and it's a natural state EVERY planet goes through. People who believe it's chiefly caused by humans are willfully ignorant of what's going on, on different planets. Humans may perhaps further hasten it but they're far from the cause. I would look more into it and on how much humans if at all contribute to it but it's 2AM and i got work in the morning :/

>>8566915
> I would look more into it and on how much humans if at all contribute to it
I'll save you the hard work:
It's somewhere between 80% and 120% of the observed warming.

>>8566915
>How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

>The human fingerprint in global warming
https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

>CO2 is main driver of climate change
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

>Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?
https://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate-intermediate.htm

>>8565310
Yes

>>8566704
The greenhouse effect DOES dominate the data that graph is produced from. The issue is that the graphs you posted don't show most of the data. By taking the differences between 12 months or isolating the noise, you have removed the main trend in the data. What both graphs show is the increasing of CO2 from the AMO, which is minuscule compared to the larger trend dominated by man's emissions.

File: co2_phase_lag_solubility.png (16KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 640x960px

>>8567265
Of course you remove the trend when you only want the phase relation and you also remove the 12 month Keeling component. This doesn't introduce a time shift and neither does the scaling. Can you prepare a graph (from the same datasets that >>8566704 used) where CO2 leads temperature? That would be nice.

>>8566331
You just got assblasted mein freund.

>>8566991
>skepticalscience
>not an academic source.

nice try fossil shill.

>>8565310
Yes, and everyone who denies it were fossil shills that rather doom humanity than to allow oil to be abolished.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

The earth has had 1200ppm levels of CO2 in prehistoric times and we didn't experience runaway effects.

In fact those levels of CO2 spawned massive growth of plant life allowing the planet to support life forms the size of which is not possible now - ie. dinosaurs.

The fact of the matter is the climate is changing but there is clearly some sort of balancing effect we are unaware of or else we would have became mercury 160 million years ago. It's not a zero sum game.

>>8567391

>and we didn't experience runaway effects.

Having no polar ice caps and a higher sea level is a run away effect.

>>8567391
>geologic time scales
those concentrations of CO2 took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate and took hundreds of millions of years to be fixated and buried

the issue is that the current rate of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere is much faster than expected

>>8567395
And did they come back or not?

>>8567396
What's the argument you're making?

Our predictions were wrong congratulations, antagonizing people for their opinions won't change that.

The average individual in the western world has little affect on CO2 levels its nations like China and India that are the biggest problem and they don't even acknowledge the climate is changing to my knowledge.

India maybe but not China.

>>8567400

Yes....after 200 million years.

>>8567404
Point being?

>>8567408
We'd be dead before then.

>>8567408

Point being if Antartica and Greenland melt and the sea warms up leading to thermal expansion, it will cause a lot of problems for humans and species all over the planet, not least the sea level rising. There will be billions of climate refugees. Britain would become as cold as Siberia because trans-alantic conveyor would stop functioning due to the huge amounts of fresh water dump into the ocean by Greenland. And that's only one country.

>>8567403
I'm saying global warming is real. I'm not blaming you, your country, or your dog for it.

would destroying the ozone layer a bit mean less heat trapped in the earth's atmosphere therefore negating the effects of global warming for at least a few years until people get around to handling it? tldr bring back hairspray with ozone depleting chemicals

>>8567433
no it wouldn't, the ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet radiation and allows complex life to exist

>>8565431
>pretending that not regulating or taxing the fuck out of half of our companies RIGHT NOW will kill Earth permanently
how mentally retarded are you? there's only so much oil in the planet, you know oil takes millions and millions of years to form, right? (Im asking ironically but I fear you might actually not know about it..)

our fossil fuel production has been growing steadily over last 100 years. fossil fuels, at current rate of consumption, may run out before the end of the fucking century.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEAN YOU FUCKING MOTHERFUCKER?

it means we need to act NOW, because we're blowing CO2 into the air NOW. doesnt matter that in 1000 years we will not be using oil because the CO2 will already be in the atmosphere you goddamn nigger

>>8567435
that's fine and dandy, i didn't say bring it to 0, i said destroying it a bit, just bring it back down to how it was in like the 70s

>>8567437
the ozone layer doesn't trap heat, greenhouse gases trap heat and greenhouse gases are what we are emitting en masse

>>8567436
Also
>running out of oil
See this:>>8566215

according to google the ozone hole does have a minor cooling effect in an article from 2010, id say its worth a shot

>>8567347
The phase relation of what? Waves have a phase relation, a trend does not. The only thing your graph shows is that temperature changes drive the short term variability in CO2, which has been known by climatologists for decades. Its just CO2 being produced by the AMO.

>Can you prepare a graph (from the same datasets that >>8566704 # used) where CO2 leads temperature? That would be nice.
Of course, any graph of temperatures will show temperature increasing after CO2 increases. It will also show CO2 increasing after temperature increases. If you want to see the former in the data you used just remove the short term variability instead of isolating it.

>>8565310
nah m8

>>8567437
>just a bit

You're literally retarded.

>>8567371
Showing 10 black swans is not evidence that most swans are black. Also, most of the swans he showed aren't black.

>>8567447
rates of melanoma would go through the roof, just going outside would be a hazard

>>8567465
This is why nobody wants to deviate from the accepted line on this subject, if anyone is curious.

>>8567456
succ
>>8567462
we're bringing leather back then, hats too.

>>8565310
there is zero evidence to support /x/tarded theories

>>8567484
not everyone likes leather

>>8567415
Prove it.

>>8567491
wear a bigger hat, and get used to it

>>8567465
>so that others may learn what we have
what, b.o. and folders full of ancap memes? fuck off

You really gotta go back
>>>/pol/

>>8567495
not an argument /x/tard

>>8567498
I'm sorry, you have to go back
>>>/pol/

>>8567500
I'm sorry, nobody cares about your tears
>>>/x/

>>8567502
>>>/pol/

File: tinfoiler.jpg (374KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1024x768px

>>8567506
>>>/x/

>>8567509
>>>/pol/

>>8567513
>>>/x/

>>8567517
>>>/pol/

>>8567519
>>>/x/

>>8567520
>>>/pol/

>>8567520
>>8567524
just kiss holy got damn

>>8567465
>the average idiot believing that their opinion is somehow important
>This is why /pol/ is so important
What did he mean by this?

>>8567526
>hehe i said bad things about a board
Man up and specify who you're accusing brainlet. /pol/ isn't a person.

>>8567525
Laughed harder than I should have.

>>8567525
>>>/lgbt/

>>8567532
>>8567532
>/pol/ isn't a person.
The same thing could be said about blacks

:^)

>>8567532
>/pol/ isn't a person.
but you're a pol person, mr oil-shill al-abdul shekelstein.

go suck saudi cock somewhere else

>>8567532
politics has no barrier to entry, you don't actually have to know anything to discuss it, unlike mathematics where you need a cursory understanding if you want to be taken seriously

/pol/ is where the average idiot goes to spout their average, uninformed opinion, so your two statements are contradictory. /pol/ is one of the most normalfag boards on the website

>>8567545
and you're a SJWtard person mr, I'm a dickless cuck and I deserve to bow down to libtard media.

We don't suck saudi cock, we just humiliate and ignore you anti-establishment millenial retards until you turn into a transtesticle and die from HIV, while we build Trump towers, use natural earth resources and make business with world leaders.

I like how you paid for Bernie's lakehouse though, that was really progressive :^)

>>8567552
Go back.

>>8567552
>sjwtard
>cuck
>libtard media
>saudi cock
>anti-establishment
>millenial
>trump
>bernie's lakehouse
you couldn't fit more shitty /pol/ memes into that shitpost if you tried desu

>>8567561
>getting mad at everything SJWtards are triggered by
Who are you trying to fool?

>>8567561
How about numale?

>>8567565
oh yeah, day of the rope too

>>8567567
Yeah nice one, something about Jews too.

>>8567565
>>8567567
>>8567573
Why are you listing the things that trigger you SJWtard?

>>8567465
....And thus the entire thread went to shit.

Way to deny climate change for the sake of the Ruling Class shill.

>>8567391
>Blogger with no relevant experience in the field
Christ sake anon.

>>8567436
Fossil fuels are limited, yes but

>may run out before the end of the fucking century.
That is not correct. The world has enough oil to last us a very very long time, especially with advancements in oil technologies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/06/25/how-much-oil-does-the-world-have-left/#744257db5dc5

Also, how do you get rid of CO2? Plant more trees. We can already convert CO2 to O2 at a small scale. Maybe we should invest more money into doing that at a larger scale instead of taxing offenders of dumping CO2 in the air.

>>8567677
Planting trees is more expensive than not emitting the CO2 at all.

>>8567660
Doesn't matter when he is presenting data from NASA and NOAA.

>>8565969
Can you provide a source on any of that stuff?

File: co2-forcing-ts.png (69KB, 710x453px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 710x453px

>>8567632
If I were the ruling class I would always pay both sides of the divide (and conquer)
>>8567715
The Book of Goremon.

>>8567758
>If I were the ruling class I would always pay both sides of the divide (and conquer)
No, you stick to one side, empower them, then divide, empower, divide, empower, up to the point that your representatives can only caters to you and you alone.

Also, Oil tycoons are the ruling class.

>>8567789
That's ludicrous the financial industry is more profitable and worth more than oil.

>>8567858
If that's the case, then they should've killed oil by now.

>>8567879
What makes you say that?

File: sci_hierarchy_.jpg (28KB, 350x236px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x236px

>>8567789
ruling class = ruled class, pic
>Oil tycoons
middle management, Tillerson a tycoon?
>>8567858
yup, virtual economy .. and in the darkness bind them
>>8567879
subsidiary

>>8566764

3. water vapor condenses to form clouds which cools the earth.

>>8566785
Sorry, I forgot to mention that an increase in radiative forcing for CO2. will be happen at a very weak logarithmic rate.
I also forgot to mention that heat energy can also exit the atmosphere by emissions at other wavelengths via other molecules. And I forgot to mention that 6/7 of atmospheric heat transport is via convection, not radiation.

Problem is, I get scientific "truth" from the psychologist, John Cook at SkepticalPseudoScience.

File: 800 year lag.png (294KB, 949x690px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 949x690px

>>8567449
>Of course, any graph of temperatures will show temperature increasing after CO2 increases.
Then show the graph buddy. And a vague, "look at the correlation" graph won't do it.

Show A Graph With High Temporal Resolution.
A graph which clearly shows CO2 increasing BEFORE, in a casual fashion, before temperature goes up.

I won't be holding my breath.

>nb4 the inevitable low temporal resolution "they go up at the same time," graph. As soon as you post that, I'll call you out as the fraud that it will demonstrate you to be.

>>8568514
Whether water vapor condenses is dependent on other factors, it's not automatic. And clouds still trap heat in the atmosphere.

File: 05 Sherwood trys to find a hot spot.gif (71KB, 1017x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1017x400px

>>8566709
>>>8566636
>Debunked meme: No hotspot
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=F5DA2B623B95CC8EF70F32DA4C92BDEF.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Look we used a wind-based measure to get a tiny hot spot! Pic related.
Explain, with specificity, who adding data from a time period where there was no warming in the troposphere would lead to the discovery of the "hot spot." And what caused the flip flop? I heard warmists lying over and over again here, about how the hot sport wasn't relevant to climate change theory?

And isn't it funny how satellite data and temperature measurements from weather balloons never show a hot spot? Why is something as ridiculous as a wind derived measure better than a direct measurement?

PS Notice the author's deceptive graph where a mere 0.25 degree change is graphed as dark red. That ain't a hot spot. Normally that color denotes a full degree change.

>>8566709
>>Actual IPCC graph
>Lie.

You Sloppy Soros Shill. You didn't even bother to check out the reference. So I'll repeat it:

UN IPCC AR4,
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
Graph In the lower left hand corner of the page, enlarged with updated data.

File: CTR Nerd Virgins.jpg (166KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 800x800px

>>8566709
>>>8566653
>>A draft graph from the UN IPCC pre-final draft.
>Yeah, an improperly baselined graph. You can't post without lying can you?

Still making up crap to protect the faith huh? Look at that graph again:
>>8566653

It has the same starting point as that of the UN IPCC AR4
>>8566646

That fact that your responses are so reflexive and sloppy is all the proof needed to show that you are a Paid Shill.

Are you getting paid better now?

>>8567381
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

didn't even look at the links did you?

File: Loehle 2008 Correction.jpg (30KB, 528x336px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 528x336px

>>8566709
>>>8566669
>>What happens if you consistently use the same data type (non-instrumental) and don't conveniently redate proxies (unlike Marcott)? You get pic related.
>Yeah but that never happened. He didn't consistently use the same type of data
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

How convenient to run to a Paid Shill site and pretend that Loehle didn't issue a correction in 2008. But he did:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
Pic related.

And he was vindicated by Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier. "A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia." Geogr. Ann. A 92.3 (2010): 339-351.

Better resort to ad hominem, real fast. "Hurr, durr, evil denier journals don't count."

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-29 at 11.00.23 PM.png (84KB, 525x435px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 525x435px

>>8566829
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm-j3GT1p0s

>>8565852
>Hi im a government who doesnt control the means of production but wants to meddle in everything else.

If what you were saying was true then you'd expect many governments to be funding anti-GW research.

File: noise removed.png (5KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 640x480px

>>8568523
OK, here you go.

>>8568526
>And clouds still trap heat in the atmosphere.
Blocking the sun generally has an overall cooling effect.

File: co2_temp_1900_2008.gif (13KB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 450x360px

>>8568523
And here's more data.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what exactly isolating the noise was supposed to prove.

>>8568584
Yeah, but blocking the sun is not the main effect of water vapor being released from the oceans.

>>8567552
Lol ya man youre totally part of the TRUMP EMPIRE. he thinks about u ALLLLLL the time

>>8568584
It's not that simple.
Cumulous clouds have a net cooling effect, but high-altitude cirrus clouds tend to radiate surface heat back toward the ground.

File: Exxon_Mobil.png (17KB, 803x578px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 803x578px

>>8568567
>"Hurr, durr, evil denier journals don't count."

File: 04 CO2 from Industrial Revolution.jpg (140KB, 1161x1024px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1161x1024px

>>8568582
Sigh. I told you that if you did a low resolution, "look at the correlation" graph, I'd call you a fraud. The only thing I see is temperature bottoming out at about 1955 and going up from there. And WOW, you show CO2 going up starting at 1958. Big deal.

YOU ARE A FRAUD.

And why aren't you showing CO2 levels at 1945? If needed, get the data elsewhere.

Oh yeah, I know why. Overall, there's no temperature increase from 1945 to 1975. Even though CO2 goes way up during that time.. In fact, 1945, post WWII was the start of the second half of the industrial revolution. There has an enormous increase in anthropogenic CO2. Yet no increase in temperature. NASA had to erase that inconvenient truth.
>>8566682


Pic related.

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

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8568598
Soros Shill

>>8568585
Once again, the phoney correlational graph. And anthropogenic CO2 flux sky-rocketed in 1945. Yet temperatures decreased.

File: CO2 correlates with Data Tempering.png (21KB, 659x524px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 659x524px

>>8568585
>>8568582

Looks like the "rapid response team" is working over time to hide the utter failure of their science. What could be more basic than causality?

Cause must precede effect. Doesn't happen in Climate "Science."

I'll credit you though, CO2 levels have a high correlation with data tampering. Pic related.

>>8568535
>Look we used a wind-based measure to get a tiny hot spot!
>And isn't it funny how satellite data and temperature measurements from weather balloons never show a hot spot? Why is something as ridiculous as a wind derived measure better than a direct measurement?
Thank you for once again showing you have no idea what you're talking about. The paper uses radiosonde data which is weather balloon data.

>Explain, with specificity, who adding data from a time period where there was no warming in the troposphere would lead to the discovery of the "hot spot."
So you didn't even read the paper. It explains this in the abstract.

>And what caused the flip flop? I heard warmists lying over and over again here, about how the hot sport wasn't relevant to climate change theory?
It isn't relevant to the theory that man's emissions cause climate change. The hotspot is caused by warming that has already been observed, regardless of the cause of that warming. But nice try at distorting the argument.

>>8568535
>PS Notice the author's deceptive graph where a mere 0.25 degree change is graphed as dark red. That ain't a hot spot. Normally that color denotes a full degree change.
kek, you're just making this shit up as you go along, and you know it. Why do you feel the need to lie?

>>8568615
Are you seriously calling someone a shill and then whining when he doesn't monitor the thread waiting for you to post?
>Cause must precede effect. Doesn't happen in Climate "Science."
I am not that guy and have no interest in climate science, but global average temperature is affected by things other than CO2 levels. CO2 warming effect can overlap with many other things and you can't always expect a clean correlation at any interval as much as you can expect a general correlation. Your argument is some weak shit really and nitpicking that our planet's atmosphere isn't idealized model.

>>8568540
That reference doesn't give the same graph. The graph you posted has a temp trend line overlayed over the black, but it's clearly misaligned as you can see it goes outside of the black line.

You guys should watch this, le "not an argument" maymay man BTFO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M&t=0s

>>8568550
>It has the same starting point as that of the UN IPCC AR4
The issue is not the "starting point," it's the baseline. The AR4 graph you linked to does not mention what it's baselined to, nor can you tell by scaling the graph. Since it didn't seem to sink into your thick skull the first time, let me explain this again so that you can reply substantively instea dof just doubling down on your shitty graphs.

The reason why baselining is important is because if you baseline on an arbitrary single year you can choose an extreme year, which will then propagate the extremity of that year as an error throughout the entire projection. Which is exactly what happened in the graph.

>>8568635
>potholer54
Doing god's good work.

>>8568603
no u

>>8568649
He rarely posts videos anymore, but his have always been excellent, even though he's not a scientists or climatologist, the way he presents his arguments with sources / data is perfect.

Honestly, I used to be heavy into the climate skepticism stuff back when I was in younger, around 2008. It was actually watching his videos around that time that slowly changed the way I viewed the """debate""" and got me interested in science, which also led me to study Geology. There's simply so much misinformation spread by climate denial groups these days it's honestly criminal. It's went from some skeptical questioning about the models, to full-blown denial of basic scientific concepts that have existed for decades, if not centuries.

>>8568567
He corrected the faulty labeling of 1950 as present day and clumsy errors in averaging. He didn't correct the fundamental flaws in his choices of data, which is what I mentioned. But of course you would have to actually read the paper you're posting to know that. Instead you just read secondhand that he corrected the paper and assumed that he corrected the flaw I pointed out. You made an ass out of yourself, again.

>And he was vindicated by Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier. "A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia." Geogr. Ann. A 92.3 (2010): 339-351.
Can you show me where he is vindicated in this paper? This paper agrees more with standard reconstructions than Loehle. Not to mention that it supports present warming being anomalous and that there is high climate sensitivity, which is what you are trying (and failing) to argue against.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm

>>8568661
>Geology
Hell yeah brother. I'll graduate with a degree in Geology in Spring

>>8568601
>Sigh. I told you that if you did a low resolution, "look at the correlation" graph, I'd call you a fraud.
The graph is not low resolution at all. Modern temperature records are the highest resolution possible. You are making shit up once again, because you don't even understand what you're arguing against.

>The only thing I see is temperature bottoming out at about 1955 and going up from there. And WOW, you show CO2 going up starting at 1958.
Which is exactly what you asked for. Again, what I showed you is the trend in temperature and CO2 with noise removed, which shows temperature following CO2. You are so hypocritical and dishonest that you won't accept evidence according to the same standard you argued with your isolated noise graph.

>And why aren't you showing CO2 levels at 1945?
Because Wood for Trees has no CO2 data before 1958. I also did show you CO2 levels at 1945 in this graph >>8568585

Moron.

>Overall, there's no temperature increase from 1945 to 1975
Isn't cherrypicking trends to start at a strong El Nino ever going to get old? It's like you want to get caught arguing dishonestly. Or you are so delusional that you can't even see how so obviously dishonest this trick is.

>>8568615
I'm still waiting for you to explain what exactly isolating the noise was supposed to prove.

You don't even know do you? You just post graphs and words without having any idea what they mean. It's comical really.

File: yfw anthropogenic climate change is fake.jpg (29KB, 605x328px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 605x328px

>>8568615
>Climate "Science"

>>8568603
Soros suck Koch's Cock.

>>8568603
You've never even given a source for that slide.
I'm starting to think you made it yourself.

File: en_co2.png (83KB, 422x948px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 422x948px

>>8567347
Transient rise of CO2 following El Nino. You can even see it in the raw data.

File: loehle-heresy.jpg (21KB, 420x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 420x360px

>>8568567
>vindicated by Ljungqvist
Largely, yes, but how did Loehle 2008 manage to miss the Roman Warm Period?
This is from ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf:

The highest decadal average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest towards the end of the seventeenth century. Although the highest reconstructed temperatures occurred during the Medieval Warm Period and in the twentieth century, the second century, during the Roman Warm Period, is the warmest century during the last two millennia according to our reconstruction. .. Our reconstruction is the first large-scale multi-proxy synthesis that shows that mean temperatures of the Roman Warm Period were higher than, or as high as, mean twentieth-century temperatures.

The major unsolved climate mysteries still remain:
- Where did the Romans and the denizens of the tenth century get all that CO2 from?
- Why did the Vikings stop all emissions which subsequently caused the Little Ice Age?

[^_^]

>>8569189
You think chariots are fuel efficient or something?

Ass

File: sci climate thread simulator .png (169KB, 792x653px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 792x653px

>>8565535

>>8567494
>all the extra cows would negate any cooling caused by your 'just a bit' hole in the ozone.

retard

>>8569345
Earth isn't a Rhombus, it's a fucking disk you dumb fuck.

File: Loehle_locations_corrected.png (160KB, 653x855px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 653x855px

>>8569189
The reason seems to be that Ljungquist does extra-tropical northern hemisphere using almost all available data while Loehle & McCulloch do global with only non-dendro proxies. Anyway, both invalidate all the carefully forged hockeyshticks of the recent past..

Why the fuck is it so hard to just have a graph of temperatures from 1880 or whenever measurements started being taken regularly and today? Have there actually been corrections to the data, and if so for what purpose?

It seems like it should be such a simple thing.

File: 16.jpg (35KB, 700x311px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x311px

>>8569763
The graphs usually go by the amount of of deviation from from the expected value.

>>8569387
lol

>>8569763
NOAA is tampering with the data.

>>8569766
>East Anglia
Data discarded. Obviously any "data" that is processed through the AGW meme machine is tainted.

>>8569942
/pol/tard sighted.

File: philmail.png (23KB, 490x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 490x300px

>>8569942
cru mail

File: koch-bros.jpg (94KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 700x394px

>>8568817
Actually it's "cocks" in plural.

File: Loehle2008+modern.gif (14KB, 500x316px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x316px

>>8569739
Yes they sure did invalidate the hockey stick by proving the rate and magnitude of modern warming is unprecedented and making more hockey sticks!

File: MobergMannLjungkvist.gif (32KB, 570x386px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 570x386px

>>8569189
His analysis comes to the same conclusion as the originators of the hockey stick graph, so why do deniers keep claiming the opposite? They apparently never even read Ljungvist's paper.

File: (You).jpg (246KB, 870x722px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 870x722px

>>8569942
>>8570053

>>8566824

Haha, nice, you probably got triggered because you wouldn't last a day in a truly darwinian environment

Looking forward looting your corpse senpai

>>8569942
>Data discarded
There was literally nothing found in those leaks

File: hockey2.gif (15KB, 507x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 507x320px

Mann (2008) is NOT the hockey stick, that was a decade earlier.

From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate - until 1900 AD. At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control.

The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's 'warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.

If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also? If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?

more at www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

earth identifies as an octagon pls respond

>>8556735 →

>>8571904
lel

File: ZombieApocalypse.jpg (65KB, 550x432px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 550x432px

>>8565310
You know, I used to care. But I'm 60 now, no kids. I'm tired of arguing against the fools who don't want to think, and who hope that by saying it's unreal it won't happen. So go ahead, burn your coal, oil, methane... dive your cars, buy crap shipped from China, insist on fruits out of season from halfway around the world, and throw a party. If the ice caps melt completely, sea level rises 60m. That should take care of most of the crap along the coasts, and create a whole new set that might reconsider how to live.

>>8572124
Chicago will save the world in the end. So glad we have the world's largest supply of fresh water.

Don't come here. We have rats, you wouldn't like it.

File: 720.png (62KB, 720x237px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x237px

>>8571180
>From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate - until 1900 AD
You don't understand how to read graphs. Pre-1600 there was large uncertainty in the reconstruction.

>At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands)
Utter nonsense. Urban heat island effect has been studied extensively. Berkeley Earth showed that you get the same trend even if you ignore all urban areas.

>The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control.
Which is exactly what every other reconstruction, including Loehle and Ljungvist, show.

>The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's 'warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year.
Even if you remove 1998, you still get the same dramatic rise. And if you continue the data to now you get... the same dramatic rise.

>It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.
Go ahead and prove it. The satellite records have the same rate of warming now that UAH's diurnal error was corrected.

>If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?
The warmth is not unusual, the rate of warming is unusual. How many times does this have to be explained to you retards? Currently, the warmth happens to be higher than the Medieval Warm Period, but this whole line of argument misses the point. The Medieval Warm Period developed over many hundreds of years of slow, variable warming.

>>8571180
>If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?
No. Models which input solar activity but ignore the greenhouse effect have not reproduces modern temperatures. Solar activity has been decreasing since the 1970s, but the temperature hasn't.

Why do you want to ignore basic physics to answer a question that has already been answered?

>>8565310
It doesn't matter whether you believe in global warming or not, what matters is if important people accept it as fact

File: IMG_0957.jpg (167KB, 640x306px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 640x306px

>>8572332
The problem is that many of the most important people are greedy bastards, content to keep all of us (left and right) cucked by consumerism and shitty media.

>>8572343
Yes clearly the fact that people want to buy crap and want to watch crap is a Plot by the Elites.

>>8572343
Therein lies the problem not much we can do about it

>>8572347
If you're the CEO of an oil company or entertainment group, than you want customers to buy or view your products. It's not plot, it's just basic fucking economics.

>>8572377
LOL no one started an oil company in order to get people to buy oil. No one started a media company to convince people to watch TV. They give what people already want.

>>8567459
whatever

BTFO and wont admit it

>>8573777
Yes, you sure did BTFO by misrepresenting sources and not even responding substantively to the argument. If global warming "skeptics" had a coherent argument they wouldn't need to lie so much.

>>8566605
>But what's this? NOAA data show that relative humidity has been falling, yet they also say that temperatures have been rising. Pic related. (Graph data from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brianji/sgc/climatemyths.html

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf

>>8574028
Relative humidity is the proportion of moisture content to moisture capacity. Warm air has a higher moisture capacity than cold air. Go back to pol before you embarrass yourself any further.

>>8574028
Sorry, I'm tired and forgot what greentext signifies. 2017 already got me on edge.

>>8572409
Nobody in their right mind wants their energy rationed by global governmental - corporate bureaucracies when living in the oil age so AGW is a hard sell in that regard. The carrot and stick I suppose is save earth or die, but either way you are going to die.

Someone deserves a marketing award is all I can say. Save earth! That's was a good one!

>>8574485
>Nobody in their right mind wants their energy rationed by global governmental - corporate bureaucracies
Scratch a AGW denier and you'll find a conspiracy theorist. Always.

No matter how long you argue physics or data with them, no matter how reasonable they sound when you started, they'll always fall back onto their political views eventually. The truth of a claim (to them) depends on who makes it and who profits, rather than any evidence or logic.

File: ImageSearch133830519.jpg (142KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x750px

>>8565310. There is global warming but it is not caused by us..it is a natural process dealing with the slowdown of the earths core. A natural act that happens at intervals of time you can read about it.

>>8576275
>There is global warming but it is not caused by us..it is a natural process dealing with the slowdown of the earths core.
False.

File: 300px-Geomagnetic_polarity_0-169_Ma.svg.png (35KB, 300x1800px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 300x1800px

>>8576275
>it is a natural process dealing with the slowdown of the earths core.
To say something like this shows that you truly know nothing about Earth Science, or the structure of the Earth in general.

The temperature of the Earth's core has nothing to do with climate, also, the temperature of the core is relatively stable.

I think you're trying to argue something about magnetic field reversals, which again aren't really correlated with climate changes on Earth. Geomagnetic reversals have happened plenty of times in the past and as far as we know they are unrelated to the vast climate changes that have occurred in paleoclimatology. Volcanism (such as millenia-spanning flood basalts, or ultra-plinian caldera eruptions), solar intensity, and continental positioning have been much larger driving forces than anything else in natural climate changes. The Earth never completely loses its magnetic field, even during reversals anyways, and even if it does it has little impact if at all on climate.

>>8576294
Also, the Earth's core is actually speeding up slightly as it slowly gains more mass, not slowing down. So his premise is wrong as well.

>>8574635
A true believer then?
If you have a problem with conspiracy then you have a problem with a large chunk of every criminal code on the planet. Either that or you believe people in power are immune to conspiring or intrigue because they are...powerful?

The very political and borderline religious AGW movement is literally a blatant power grab and has nothing to do with 'adjusting' earths climate. It sure will be interesting to see how far the true believers will go when they see the ramifications of what they are buying into and where on that journey the dissonance kicks in.

>>8576294
>The temperature of the Earth's core has nothing to do with climate
Now tectonic and volcanic activity have nothing to do with earths climate? Where did our climate come from again?

File: image.jpg (3MB, 4794x3377px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4794x3377px

>>8576335
The geosphere is the origin of Earth's original atmosphere. However, our record of past magnetic regimes is not complete enough to support your claims. Precambrian ultramafics indicate that the geosphere was hotter in the past, but core-cooling is too gradual to account for the last 70+ years of climate observations.

>>8576335
>Now tectonic and volcanic activity have nothing to do with earths climate?
Then why not say tectonic and volcanic activity are causing the warming? Because that has already been disproved. There is no model that successfully explains or even correlates tectonic and volcanic activity to the long term warming trend. Their affects are well studied and understood, and they don't explain it.

>>8576335
>If you have a problem with conspiracy then you have a problem with a large chunk of every criminal code on the planet.
It appears that he has a problem with conspiracy *theories*, i.e. ad hoc claims of conspiracy with no evidence that only serve your political ideology. The thing about real conspiracies is that they've actually been proven with witnesses and investigation. Whereas every conspiracy theory you find on the internet hasn't. Now if you believe that scientists lied about the climate to serve the government, why not vaccines, evolution, GMOs, etc.? A conspiracy theory argument can be used to argue virtually ANYTHING, and is thus useless.

>>8570688
All environments are truly Darwinian you 14 year old.

Yes, but every government that accepts it seems to propose retarded solutions

>TFW Norwegian
>TFW politicians in Oslo, the only city with functional public transport, want everyone else to not drive too
>TFW airports are being shut down
>TFW we account for 0.14% of human emissions

>Also, [[nearest/most famous coastal city]] will be under water within the decade
>Not even discussing building a fucking dam

I'm done arguing. I'm not going to argue with you people any longer.

Instead I'm going to DEMAND that you explain the following things. If humans aren't causing climate change then you must explain what is causing:

Nights to warm faster than days
Winter to warm faster than summer
The arctic to warm faster than temperate zones and the tropics
The troposphere to warm while the stratosphere cools
The ocean to absorb CO2 and not releasing CO2 despite the increased warming
Percentage of C-13 in the atmosphere to go down while CO2 is going up
O2 in the atmosphere to go down

I'll await your answer.

File: COMMUNIST TOTALITARIANISM.jpg (210KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x768px

>>8576874
>Nights to warm faster
The jews
>Winter to warm faster
Commies
>The arctic to warm faster
The joos
>The troposphere to warm while the stratosphere cools
HAARP
>The ocean to absorb CO2
Jews again
>Percentage of C-13 in the atmosphere to go down while CO2 is going up
Chemtrails
>O2 in the atmosphere to go down
The gaseous jew.

AGW BTFO.

File: images.jpg (5KB, 98x160px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 98x160px

Weaponized language: Historically, when and why did the term 'conspiracy theory' enter the American lexicon of political discourse?

File: 7ba.png (126KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x320px

>>8565326
> Brought to by those that want to tax you more
Governments hardly need a giant conspiracy to increase taxes.

> who said that there would be a lot of countries underwater by now
Sauce?

>>8576824
All I am saying is the primordial soup and out gassing created the original atmosphere and by extension climate which has steadily been mutating in composition, earths core temperature and ensuing reactions certainly plays a part to this day. This is why climate modeling is highly speculative and biased by seemingly focusing entirely on mans fossil fuel emissions. It's suspicious and not coming off like a complete science but an agenda.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/supervolcano-campi-flegrei-stirs-under-naples-italy/

>>8576837
I am saying it plays a role in our climate, just another major variable that is not factored into the inaccurate computer models and since we can't even predict eruptions or major tectonic activity we can't predict climate.

>>8576844
>>8576950
Well that is probably the first conspiracy that every critical thinker should investigate, the degradation of the very phrase "conspiracy theory" by the CIA through Operation Mockingbird after JFK's assassination. The tactic used was simple enough, associate all manner of conspiracy from the most ridiculous to the plausible regarding the topic in question thus tainting the entire pool. From a physiological perspective this causes what they called a slide response in people looking into that particular matter, in essence their brains turned off and they quickly became disinterested in pursuing it further. Ironically in that case one further step was taken in outing a 'lone gunman' ruling out a conspiracy altogether. Of course many people would argue these things are relics of the past and we live in a more enlightened and honest society? Wew!

Anyway, at this point all that is required to continue the global (hydro)carbon taxation - life taxation scheme is to shore up the AGW propaganda constantly. It looks like a means to an end and that end is anything but 'fixing' the climate. Questioning this? Denier! Spooky!