NOAA says Earth is warming. Denialist says no it's not

File: global_warming.jpg (29KB, 660x369px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 660x369px

>>8614295

I just know that I am enjoying my winter summers! Woo hoo! Global warming is awesome!

>>8614325
>Local trends represent global trends

>>8614295
I like how this map used grey to mark the most dangerous and fucked up part of Africa.

>>8614295
Humans have a very short term memory when it comes to weather. Every generation has it's old generation saying the same shit over and over again, "I remember when winters were really cold. Times are changing."

That said, ya, obviously the planet is warming. Doesn't take a genius to see that less ice in the arctic and receding glaciers in mountains is a sure sign that it isn't getting colder/staying the same. But is it such a bad thing? And how much of the blame is on humans? Was it inevitable regardless of our actions? Can we do anything to stop/reverse the changes?

>>8614295
>doesn't take measurements for the coldest 1/3 of the world
>surprised when some areas are warmer than last year

This data is literally worthless

>>8614371
I like how they don't mention that the margins for error and cite the numbers.
>According to NOAA 2016 was 0.07°F warmer than 2015, which is 0.04°C. Considering the error in the annual temperature is +/- 0.1°C this makes 2016 statistically indistinguishable from 2015, making any claim of a record using NOAA data specious.
wtf is their problem?

>>8614482

Not too bright are you?

>>8614491
Most of this data has been badly recorded and therefore worthless in the past. What assurances do we have this is any better? Absolutely none, just more academic fraudulency. These people should be locked up, or at the very least stripped of their positions.

>>8614499
Nut job.

these charts are fiction
they even have sensors in africa/south america
they just make it up

>>8614533
they don't even**

>>8614482
Brainlet detected

Welp, looks like man made climate change is turning into the largest scientific fraud in human history.

>>8614546
And Trump got elected so all these bullshiters will be out of a job
Expect all the liberals to just deny they ever believed in it

>>8614546
>>8614547
Please read a book on climate change you nigger. Stop getting your information from blogs and /pol/

>>8614490
>margins for error
babby's new buzzphrase

>>8614546
>>8614547
>no it's not, la-la-laaa-laaa, I can't heeear you!
found the denialist

>>8614295
Note that GOP and Far-Right agrees, just that they rather protect Big Business as opposed to protecting the people.

>>8615271
Why are they for some big businesses and against others? Fisheries, clean water, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and many other big businesses are being damaged in the interest of fossil fuels. Why do you think this is?

>>8615305
Because the Fossil Fuel industries are the ones that were most threatened by both energy trends and environmental regulations; So they're the one spending the most cash on the GOP, out of the fear of the Government abolishing Fossil Fuels altogether.

>>8614533
Eh, you could just use globally covering LST data and reach the same conclusions. It's been done.

The reason why satellite-derived LST doesn't show up in the news is that it's not been formally promoted to an ECV. SST will be soon, and you can see the same trend - based on millions and millions of observations.

>>8614295
Who gives a shit
The planet will be fine who cares if humans die out we are a shitty species anyway

>>8615320
So then it isn't about big business, caring about big business is fine. The problem is the party enforces protectionism of those that are in their interests. Involving heavy government regulation is supposed to be what the party is against and they keep promising deregulation. They're breaking their own promises all the time by creating laws that limit the profit margins of big business which is highly unethical.

File: Missing Thermometers.gif (41KB, 620x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 620x480px

>>8614295
Look at all those missing thermometers.

File: Pause Has Returned.png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>8614295

Oh NOES! The pause has returned. Statistically insignificant warming for 18 years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017/every/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017/trend/plot/

>>8615579
>Look at all those missing thermometers.
>Land-Only
>Missing thermometers in hard to reach places or otherwise barren places
herp derp.

File: RSS LST Data.png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>8615333
>Eh, you could just use globally covering LST data and reach the same conclusions. It's been done.
>The reason why satellite-derived LST doesn't show up in the news is that it's not been formally promoted to an ECV.
The reason why satellite-derived LST doesn't show up in the news its shows almost NO WARMING IN 18 YEARS.
ftfy

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2017/every/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2017/trend

>>8615342
i fucking hate faggots like you that think because you want the collapse of humanity you are displaying the highest degree of morality.

Kill yourself. Humans deserve a right on Earth. We will figure out how to make things work. You and all the genocidal freaks can fuck right off.

>>8615610
Yet the temperature anomalies for those non-instrumented areas are still graphed
>>8614295

>>8615600
>>8615579
The denying has begun.

>>8615600
>>8615614
Mind explaining why the researchers used 1998 as a starting point for this graph?

>>8615620
>>8615600
>>8615579
>The denying has begun.

So you deny the NOAA instrumentation graphic with huge areas that don't have instrumentation as shown here? >>8615579
So you deny that the RSS data shows statistically insignificant warming for 18 years? >>8615600
So you deny that the RSS land data shows almost no warming for 18 years? >>8615614

You certainly are a denier.

>>8615636
Why 18 years? What happened in 1998? I think you know this.

File: No warming from 1958 to 1995.gif (63KB, 768x294px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 768x294px

>>8615640
>>8615627

Mind explaining why the UN IPCC 1995 report showed no warming from 1958 to 1995?
http://web.archive.org/web/20100724163537/http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

>>8614646
Is there a mandate to pronounce every year the hottest year regardless of the temperature?

There are plenty of publicly available temperature records in those gray areas, are they just lazy or avoiding them on purpose?

I remember taking one year of college level statistics and other courses that dealt with tolerances. It's more than specious, it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

Mods need to start nuking these threads. It's always a flame war full of shitposts.

>>8615693
>Takes year of college stats and is expert

El Nino caused the temperature spike this year and I have a strong hunch that next year will be cooler but still reflecting an overall warming trend.

>>8614652
>>8615271
>>8614343

kill yourselves cucks

File: NASA-Hansen-81-cover.jpg (138KB, 650x513px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 650x513px

>>8615682
>>8615640
>>8615627
Mind explaining why James Hansen (former head of NASA GISS) said there had been no CO2 induced warming in the Northern Hemisphere?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

I don't have anything to contribute here. I just wanted to stop by and point out that I'm massively autistic.

>>8615682
Figure 3.7a shows time-series of tropospheric temperature anomalies calculated from MS U data and radiosondes, and the global surface temperature for comparison. The global M S U tropospheric trend from 1979 to May 1995 was -0.06°C/decade, and that for the seasonal radiosonde data for the same period was -0.07°C/decade. However, if the transient effects of volcanoes and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (which can bias trends calculated from short
periods of data) are removed from the various time-series, positive trends become evident (e.g., 0.09°C/decade for MSU), in closer accord with surface data (Christy and McNider, 1994). Jones (1994b) calculated residual global
trends (after removal of volcanic and ENSO transients) for the 1979-93 period of .09°C/decade from MS U data, 0.10°C from 850-300 hPa radiosonde temperature updated from Angelí (1988), and 0.17°C from combined land-
surface air temperature and SST data. The differences between these trends were about half the differences between trends in the raw data (i.e., without the removal of the transient El Nino-Southern Oscillation and volcanic effects). So, apparent differences between surface and
tropospheric trends for 1979-1993 appear to be partly a result of the greater influence of volcanic eruptions and ENSO on tropospheric temperatures. Hansen et al. (1995) also demonstrate that natural variability can account for some of the apparent differences between surface and lower tropospheric data. For the longer period 1958 to 1993, Jones (1994b) found that the unadjusted and adjusted global trends from radiosonde and surface data were all between 0.08°C and 0.11°C/decade , reflecting the fact that longer-term trends are less likely to be biased by
transient volcanic and ENSO influences. The unadjusted radiosonde trend to May 1995 was 0.09°C/decade. The similarity of the trends since the late 1950s in the tropospheric and surface temperatures is evident in Figure 3.7a.

>>8615682
>>8615730
Funny thing is if you actually learn to read rather than spout beliefs you just might actually learn something other than intellectual dishonesty.

>>8615714
Because there wasn't any in the Northern hemisphere for that period of time would be my guess. Good thing this isn't called Northern warming eh?

>>8615714
Did you even bother to read the paper you linked? No, you just found something, cherrypicked a quote out of context (Oh how you "skeptics" absolutely love to cherrypick) and assumed that the paper was supporting your delusions.

Same shitposter in every thread, your arguments are consistently debunked and you never reply with evidence, or an actual argument. it's quite sad really, you have spent so much of your free time shilling in these threads and have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Perhaps you should simply read the actual abstract, you know, a summary of the ideas presented in the paper?

>Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.2C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be the primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature.

>Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be the primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature.

>It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the labeled Northwest Passage.

>>8615714
republican scum

File: Capture.jpg (297KB, 724x1011px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 724x1011px

>>8615714
You simply take one quote out of context with the rest of the paper, without reading the actual paper mind you, and believe you have an argument. It's really just sad. You also do know that further research into the greenhouse effect and CO2 warming, which has been done in the decades since this paper was published, shows that there is a lag between CO2 emissions and warming, right?

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

Seriously man, how many times have you been blown the fuck out in these threads, yet you still come back to get yourself rekt every single time. Actually, I kind of admire that. You clearly are so delusional that you never give up, I guess that's "admirable" in a way that you are so stupid, that no amount of evidence or new information will change your retarded worldview.

File: 1475800061467.gif (2MB, 332x332px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 332x332px

>live in winter wonderland biome
>1980s as a kid, 12 feet of snow, -40F temps
>build snow castles and snow bunkers EVERYWHERE

Time passes.

>2010-2016
>no snow at all that lasts more than 1 day on the ground
>highest temp in January 2017, SEVENTY FIVE DEGREES
>historical high was 25F
>spring peeper frogs are chirping away right now
>trees are budding out
>roses are starting to bloom

The past 3 weeks has been nothing but shitty rain and mud. I've had to open my windows to cool my house down.

WTF WHAT THE FUCK MAN

>>8615773
Haven't you heard? The cool thing nowadays is to migrate North. All the other species and upper class are doing it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/why-canada-is-the-best-haven-from-climate-change-860001.html

>>8615783
>Africa, Middle-East completely blue

RIP Yurope

>>8615706
Well I think that sort of error by NOAA or obfuscation, outright misleading publication, whatever you want to call it is preposterous to make by so called "scientists". These sorts of things are learned in highschool or maybe even advanced grade school. No conclusion can be drawn from that data other than there was no measurable or meaningful difference between those 2 years. There "difference" is one decimal place more irrelevant than the margin for error.

This is the sort of thing that really taints the warmist cult and their leaders. I even suspect earth is warming and still returning back to normals since the last glacial maximum but this garbage science has to be called out. Then again I haven't looked into the actual press release, perhaps it was more media spin than NOAA but that shouldn't happen either making the entire man made media warming industrial carbon complex suspect once again. If there is so much science to back it all up they wouldn't need to resort to these fear mongering tactics.

>>8615795
nigger what the fuck are you rambling about??Where the fuck do you take "advanced grade school"?? You mean like 8th fucking grade??

There were no fear mongering tactics. They came out and said "2016 is the warmest year on record." There was El Nino in the early part of the year, which they also touched on, that released heat into the atmosphere, amplifying the warming. God damn I'm going retarded trying to read your post.

>>8615795
>I even suspect earth is warming and still returning back to normals since the last glacial maximum
Thank god you have a mountain of scientific evidence to back up this claim, for a second I thought it was just your rambling conjecture! Thank you so much for completely debunking the evidence with your incredible feelings-based approach to science.

>but this garbage science has to be called out.
aka, stop disagreeing with my feelings! Stop presenting evidence that contradicts my biases! Stop it evil climate scientists!

>Then again I haven't looked into the actual press release
And once again the clueless shill proves he has no idea what he's talking about, just his "gut feeling" that everything is a conspiracy and that it "doesn't feel right." Thankfully we have something called the scientific process, and observational-based evidence to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming, not just feelings and emotions. But oh my, seems like you're the type of person who would rather have a scientific process based on emotions, rather than deductive reasoning. Ironic, considering how you make such baseless accusations of conspiracy.

>If there is so much science to back it all up they wouldn't need to resort to these fear mongering tactics.
Cite your sources, when and where do climate scientists result to "fear mongering." Please reference peer-reviewed literature that paints a picture of fear mongering, and explain in detail what you mean by this, because the media, or Al Gore for example, are not scientific experts.

Once again, another post consisting of nothing but conjecture and logical fallacy.
>The evidence presents something I disagree with! The evidence must be wrong! The scientists are all fraudulent because it disagrees with my opinions! I know! It's not even a real science because I say so! Checkmate atmospheric scientists! I'm so super smart I took statistics in college, what about you climate scientists? Fucking liberal cultists!

>>8615795
Politics and media are not science. Stop blaming scientists because you're too lazy to study and find out what's actually in the scientific literature. There's plenty of bullshit on both sides in the media and politics so blaming Democrats just means you're drinking the Republican kool-aid. Science is non-partisan.

>>8615815
To play devil's advocate, ideal science is non-partisan, but there are still biases in every scientific field. Not that I deny the evidence for climate change, but to say that all science is perfect and non-partisan is simply not true, even if the vast majority of it is. There's always been older scientists who are afraid of their ideas being challenged, and hold on to them as long as they can, until the evidence is over-whelming in causing a paradigm shift.

That said, climate science in general is very unfairly treated, by both sides of the political spectrum. Alarmists can exaggerate claims, while deniers can cherrypick and downplay the effects of climate change. The fact that climate science is so relevant to impacts on global economics and civilization on a whole really complicates the whole issue, and leads to it being widely politicized, even though most climate scientists are simply your typical scientists who wants to study a phenomenon in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms of it. This is why it's so hard to find a working solution to the issue, not only because climate change is in itself an incredibly complex and multi-variable science, but the potential impacts on our civilization worldwide, and the subsequent spending that will be required to offset the losses leads to so much political conflict, especially since this is something that occurs over decades, if not centuries to feel the full impact.

Climate change isn't the end of the world, but it could have such harmful effects on our civilization, but there are engineering solutions to any problem, I just hope that we can find them and alleviate the damages.

>>8615813
I am in the thread responding to the OP.
This is right from the link.
>This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.07°F (0.04°C)
This is not true, it is statistically no different than last year.
>According to NOAA 2016 was 0.07°F warmer than 2015, which is 0.04°C. Considering the error in the annual temperature is +/- 0.1°C this makes 2016 statistically indistinguishable from 2015, making any claim of a record using NOAA data specious.
I am asking why would they do this? Why the drama? Why the embellishment?
Are you actually saying they are impartial "keepers of the data"? This is a problem that perhaps only retards to not understand.

>>8615814
Thank god you have a mountain of scientific evidence to back up this claim
Are you denying we had an ice age only 20k years ago, a shot geological time frame? Sauce it yourself.

As for the rest of your shitpost see the reply above.

>>8615815
>Science is non-partisan.
It doesn't look like it. There is no more a political 'science' than man made climate change for the simple reason taxes have been justified all over the globe and at all levels of government on the half baked theory already. Taxes are rarely repealed once installed on a population so because of this there is basically an entire media arm dedicated now to shoring up this theory with what looks to be a lot of fear mongering, questionable science and sheer political will to carry forward with the agenda regardless of the weather.

>>8615834
>I didn't bother to read anything you typed, just going to ignore all of it and claim it's a shitpost because I'm scared of criticism

>>8615305
It's all about who's willing to shell out more money to protect their own interests, and if people get in the way the corporations don't even give a damn.

>>8615834
>Thank god you have a mountain of scientific evidence to back up this claim
What claim are you referring to, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that climate sensitivity is a known phenomenon in climate science? The fact that we are in one of the most rapid warming events in recorded history, including paleoclimate data?
Do you deny that the current warming trend is faster than any other trend that we know of from paleoclimate data?
I never made any specific claims in my post, I was asking you to present evidence for your extremely vague claims of the science being misleading, or your "warming industrial carbon complex" (whatever this autistic bullshit means).

>Are you denying we had an ice age only 20k years ago, a shot geological time frame?
What does this have to do with anything? Your train of thought is very strange, what does an ice age 20,000 years ago have to do with the current correlation between fossil fuel emissions and CO2 buildup in the atmosphere? What does that have to do with evidence of radiative forcings in our climate system from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Last time I checked, there was no human civilization digging up coal, petroleum and natural gas, refining and combusting the fuels, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in massive quantities 20,000 years ago. Do you deny that the rise in ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, despite isotopic data which proves that it is from human activity?
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/?wpmp_tp=1

Educate yourself before you talk about things which you lack understanding.

For the last time, the current trend is completely unnatural. This is not pseudo-science, it is observational-based and testable evidence, you know, aka science.

File: 2016-global-significant-events-map.jpg (286KB, 1200x817px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1200x817px

>>8615839
I read it and responded appropriately.
I responded to the article by NOAA which is obviously biased fear mongering and inaccurately reporting 2016 was warmer than 2015, it was not. the article cites itself. I have no idea what that poster is going on about in the last paragraph but I am sticking to the article in question.

And just look at this map, paints out a picture of climate abnormalities and includes 'events' for plausible deniability because there is nothing abnormal about these events, they are normal weather events. As for the temperatures again they are embellishing the extent to which they are deviating from normal, which is basically not all when margins for error in the data are taken into account, and extremely suspect considering such a biased source is providing them.

Global warming is a good thing.

>>8615877
A good thing if you don't happen to be a person living in an area negatively effected by climate changes, such as you know, 70%+ of humanity.

>>8614295
Also, /POL/tards and far-right denies climate change because of jews.

I have to be honest. I used to just ignore this. Yeah, I would pay climate change lip service, but in the back of my mind I didn't _really_ care. But now it is slowly sinking in that this shit is starting to get serious.

>>8615865
What does an ice age only 20k years ago have to do with todays climate? I would suspect a lot, that is a very short geological time frame.

As for your obsession with CO2, obviously directly linked to fossil fuel and what this AGW meme is all about, controlling those fossil fuels, we know CO2 levels have been much higher without runaway warming and in fact if they get much lower we risk terminating much life on this planet.

What I believe is that CO2 is not the "poison" the AGW crowd makes it out to be. What I fear is if your crowd gets its way, the draconian and ignorant policies that will flow forth while not doing anything to restrict the use of the remaining fossil fuels, just decide who and more importantly, who doesn't get access to those. AGW looks like a religion to me not science, probably the most frightening ever yet invented, almost with a self imposed dark age built in!

>>8615885
Even then, that 70%+ will not just sit quietly in their houses and starve to death while the rest continue living peacefully. People always raid before they starve.

>>8615899
Do you know why there was an ice age 20k years ago? Climate scientists do.

>what I believe
>calling something else religion
You didn't just drink the kool-aid, you built a pool full of it and divEd right in.

>>8615899
>obsession with CO2
Every time you post, I am again astounded by your ignorance.
CO2 is one of the primary drivers of climate, especially the current trend.

>we know CO2 levels have been much higher without runaway warming and in fact if they get much lower we risk terminating much life on this planet.
Parroting things you don't understand once again.
Paleoclimate CO2 changes are far slower in the rate of increase compared to the nearly doubling of CO2 ppm in the past century. There are a variety of reasons the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past, CO2 being one of those reasons, but the thing people like you always fail to understand is that climate is incredibly complex, solar intensity has varied throughout Earth history, as have effects like continental positioning, ocean and circulation currents in the past Earth which have drastically altered the Earth's overall climate. You have to take into account milankovitch cycles, volcanism and other geological timescale variables in understanding paleoclimate. You ignore surface albedo, you ignore Ozone, you ignore water vapor, methane, etc. all when you are claiming that Earth was hotter in the past, as well as colder. The reasons for these warming and cooling periods in Earth's past are not just linked to CO2.

No one ever said that climate cannot change naturally, or that the current trend has zero natural influences, however the vast majority of the changes we are observing are due to human activity, >90%.

For example, Solar intensity (TSI) and solar irradiance is not correlated with the current climate trend, solar intensity has not changed enough to cause the observed atmospheric and oceanic warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
>Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700
from the surface magnetic flux
https://www2.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/aa6725-06.pdf

Somebody post a chart on Climate Debate and Doubt Factory PRONTO!

>>8615899
At times when CO2 was higher in the past, solar activity has been reduced. With reduced solar activity, comes a smaller greenhouse impact of increased atmospheric CO2. You have to actually study the radiative forcings of the atmospheric CO2 in context of the other variables, not just looking at the numbers and saying "higher CO2 means there must have been runaway greenhouse then!"

What about during the Pliocene, when CO2 levels were similar to what they are today, and the Earth was over 10 degrees Celsius warmer than today?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11001099

Have you ever heard of the CO2-ice threshold for example?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261


>What I believe is that CO2 is not the "poison" the AGW crowd makes it out to be
Thankfully, science doesn't care for your beliefs, or your feelings, it only requires that the evidence presented is from naturally observed phenomena and is testable. It's so ironic how your entire basis for being a "skeptic" relies on your "gut feelings," rather than an empirical, evidence-based approach that climate science actually uses. Thank fuck we don't have retards like you in charge of deciding the validity of science, as the evidence speaks for itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&index=28&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>AGW looks like a religion to me not science, probably the most frightening ever yet invented, almost with a self imposed dark age built in!
Only looks this way because you are such an ignoramus that you shy away from actually understanding the evidence. I don't think you will actually view a single link I've posted in this thread thus far, as it won't confirm your biases, and you're scared of being criticized for your "beliefs." How ironic that your entire premises for denying climate change relies solely on your belief system, like dare I say it, a religion, rather than an empirical, evidence based approach?

>>8615717
duly noted

File: 1483564716312.png (168KB, 792x633px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 792x633px

>>8615941
>>8615923
Also, the entire concept that CO2 levels were higher in the past is laughable as an argument against AGW, for the reason that these periods of increased CO2 atmospheric levels are correlated with mass extinction level events, such as the Permo-triassic extinction event, which was the worst of the mass extinction events in Earth history:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3316.abstract
>The extinction occurred between 251.941 ± 0.037 and 251.880 ± 0.031 Mya, an interval of 60 ± 48 ka. Onset of a major reorganization of the carbon cycle immediately precedes the initiation of extinction and is punctuated by a sharp (3‰), short-lived negative spike in the isotopic composition of carbonate carbon.
The CO2 linked to the increased atmospheric levels in the Permian is likely from massive volcanic eruptions from Siberia, commonly known as the Siberian traps. It took millions of years for life to recover from this natural extinction event.
90% of all species died during this extinction event, keep that in mind. We are currently living in an anthropogenic extinction event caused by human activity, and it's only going to get worse due to climate change.


Other extinction events correlated with increased atmospheric CO2 include the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6135/941

Are you really going to continue to push your feelings-based "CO2 was higher in the past!" narrative again, despite all the evidence I have presented?

>>8615600
>>8615614
>>8615682

The overall trend still shows warming.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1958/to:2017/every/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017/trend

>>8615600
>woodfortrees.org
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8615614
>woodfortrees.org
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8616050
>woodfortrees.org
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8616170
>>8616172
>>8616174
L0Lno fgt pls

File: 201607.jpg (360KB, 990x766px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 990x766px

>>8614295
global warming denialists BTFO

>>8615887
No. I don't care because we literally can't do anything about it either way. If it's manmade, then we're not going to shut down industry and possibly go carbon-negative to fix it, so we're inevitably fucked if that's true. If it's not, well then we can't do anything about that can we?

>>8616558
>shut down industry is the only option
Nice strawman

>>8616581
We literally have to go carbon-negative at this point if we actually want to do something about global warming (assuming it's manmade). How is that a strawman?

>>8615271
why does /sci/ feel the need to shoehorn politics into everything? You just want people to congratulate you on having the Right Opinions (tm). If you want a circlejerk over unrelated shit go to another website.

>>8616585
Because there are ways to do that without shutting down all industry and you damn well know that, you disingenuous fuck.

>>8615815
not ONCE did he mention politics and yet you felt the need to shoehorn it in because you want approval. What the fuck is with this board?

>>8616585
ur a fucking nut if you actually believe that

>>8616585
Not true. Implementing an optimal carbon tax would save billions of dollars in future damages through moderate disincentive. Simply slowing the growth of emissions helps enormously.

>>8615834
>This is not true, it is statistically no different than last year.

You are right, it is statistically no different than 2015, the previous warmest year on record. That proves nothing and still doesn't change the fact that empirically, 2016 was the warmest year on record.

You can cherrypick all you want to try and debunk legitimate climate science. Even if 2016 was .11 degrees cooler than 2015, it still doesn't change the overall warming trend.

This is where deniers like to manipulate. What you're saying is that the current warming trend isn't unique, that it is primarily caused by natural factors, that it has happened before, and humans have nothing to do with it.

The truth, and scientifically proven fact of the matter is we have never seen a RATE of warming this high in the last 650,000 years. IT HAS BEEN WARMER ON EARTH. THERE HAS BEEN HIGHER CO2 CONCENTRATIONS BEFORE. No climate scientist will ever deny that. So what is the cause for concern you're asking? We have never seen an increase in CO2 or temperatures over such a short time scale in the last 650,000 years. When this occurred before, it happened over many thousands of years. Life on Earth was able to adapt. Mass extinction events have occurred int he past with similar rates of change in CO2 and temperatures, but still not as a drastic of a rate we are seeing now.

We know every theory you try to bring up. We explain it over and over again, and we studied all the possible natural factors that don't explain the rate of change of warming we are seeing now.

>>8615773
I live next to large river that used to regularly freeze in the winter.

Doesn't anymore. Winter starts in January, spring is shorter. Summer is 40+ deegrees C.

>>8616618
You didn't get his point. Yes, every little bit helps, but it's delaying the inevitable unless some serious and fundamental change is made. That change is getting humanity's collective ass on sustainable power that leaves little to no carbon footprint, thus truly stopping global warming in its tracks.

I personally believe we had that chance when atomic power-plants were the hot new thing, but that won't happen now that the shadow of Chernobyl looms over every serious discussion on the subject. It may very well be that historians in the far future will classify the disaster as one of the critical events that defined the development, and by extension destiny, of our entire species. Whether it will be for the better or worse depends on whether we can produce a practical alternative.

>>8616593
Like what?
>>8616610
>Ad hominem
Not an argument

>fraud is a problem in every scientific discipline, especially in more fuzzy, soft ones that aren't easily replicable
>academic pressure to publish meaningful positive papers over uncertainties and "we just didn't find anything, this is a waste of time" papers is well acknowledged

>none of this could ever happen in the most politicised and polarising scientific discipline and everything published is ~*science*~ you pleb

Explain this.

According to NOAA's bluebook of their nearly 6 billion dollar budget over 500 million, 8%, was spent just on ship fuel costs. (source: http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy17_bluebook/FY17_BB_Final_508.pdf)

Assuming a cost of $250/mt for fuel NOAA will burn just over 1,666,667 mt (12,216,667 barrels of oil) of fuel this year alone.

According to the EPA 5.80 mmbtu/barrel × 20.31 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO2/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel. (source: https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references)

So NOAA is producing at least 5,253,166 tons CO2/yr to study the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Typical American hypocrisy.

>>8616633
It's not delaying, its mitigating. What's inevitable is inevitable. We should be focused on how to fix what we can. He was presenting a false dichotomy between doing nothing and eliminating AGW.

>>8616666
>this is what creationists actually believe

>>8616674
>memeing
Glad to hear that meaningful answer right there friendo

>>8616668
This has nothing to do with whether NOAA is correct. Its just a feeble distraction from the issue. NOAA would only be a hypocrite if they were demanding that no emissions be made. Can you show me where they demand that?

>>8616680
It's just really funny that everything you write is exactly the save as what every other science denying ideology claims. You have no evidence so instead you go straight to conspiracy logic.

>>8616682
What conspiracy logic? Are you denying the claims of experts in soft sciences like economy, psychology, sociology and even harder ones like biology that academic fraud exists and that lack of funding and open positions incentivises people to make their papers much better than they actually are? Do you want me to post a couple of links? I really find it funny that I've never received a non-meme answer to this observation, while people complain about p-hacking, creative statistics and outright falsifications in their respective fields, nobody in climate science even wants to acknowledge the possibility exists, let alone address it meaningfully.

>>8616668
That is a not even a drop in the bucket, it's insignificant overall. The fact that you think because NOAA emits CO2 that they shouldn't be able to conduct an ounce of research is some of the most retarded logic I've ever seen. You know that NOAA does far more than study climate change too, right? It's the National OCEANOGRAPHIC and ATMOSPHERIC administration.

NOAA employs over 11,000 people, and has a fleet of 17 ships that conduct research, as well as their own aircraft fleet for studying the atmosphere and weather.

Would you rather no research at all be done to study the atmosphere / oceans? Even if you deny climate change, that doesn't mean that the atmosphere / oceans aren't worth studying and collecting data from.

>>8616681
Incorrect as the parent poster was not arguing the validity of NOAA's claims. What he actually argued was that NOAA is being hypocritical in their use of fossil fuels to argue against the continued use of fossil fuels. He is correct in that point.

>>8616695
if the science is settled why keep generating co2 studying it? also if noaa's co2 emissions aren't even 'a drop in the bucket' and 'insignificant over all' i guess i don't need to care about my own emissions which are a fraction of noaa's. cool logic bro. all co2 emissions matters.

>>8616688
The thing about real fraud and real conspiracies is that they are proven to be real through evidence and debunking of the fraud. The difference between conspiracy logic and rational argument is that the former simply posits a conspiracy exists while the latter proves it. The difference between science denial and skepticism is that the former never accepts valid evidence for the theory while the latter does. If you can't understand the difference then you are already too delusional to engage in rational discussion.

>>8614471
Educate yourself

>But is it such a bad thing?
Yes. More intense storms, higher sea level, acidification of oceans, and just rapid change in general. Our infrastructure is designed based on local stable climates that are now all changing unpredictably.
>And how much of the blame is on humans?
A good amount. We know the natural historical CO2 patterns and also know exactly how much it increased due to fossil fuels.
>Was it inevitable regardless of our actions?
The natural cycle would have continued, and climates would be stable for several thousands of years.
>Can we do anything to stop/reverse the changes?
Perhaps the most debatable question you bring up, but scientists generally agree that we cannot bring the CO2 cycle back to natural conditions, but we can mitigate the degree of severity that the inevitable climate change will cause.

>>8616696
>Incorrect as the parent poster was not arguing the validity of NOAA's claims.
Which is what I just said. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>What he actually argued was that NOAA is being hypocritical in their use of fossil fuels to argue against the continued use of fossil fuels. He is correct in that point.
No he's incorrect because NOAA has never argued against the use of fossil fuels in general. In order to be hypocritical, NOAA's position would have to imply that the use of a relatively small amount of fossil fuels to study the climate is wrong. Again, where has NOAA made an argument that implies this?

>>8616700
>if the science is settled why keep generating co2 studying it?
Honestly, conversing with you people is like talking to a bunch of middle school children. Actually, they probably have a better grasp of what science is than an underage /pol/ shitposter like yourself.

Is plate tectonics not worth studying despite the theory being confirmed? Should all geologists stop collecting data to study plate boundaries, fault systems, volcanic rifts, etc?

Should we cease all scientific endeavor to study evolution? What about studying the Universe and the Big Bang? What about all the other scientific ideas and theorems in which the "science is settled?"

Should we just give up all scientific study and progress because we know some effects of climate change? Should we just cease collecting all scientific data to continue analyzing and studying the atmosphere in a process that is constantly changing, and ongoing?

Child, you are such an ignorant fuck I don't even know why I'm wasting time typing this out, you're clearly so stupid that you can't even understand the simple process of how science advances / changes over time.

People like you would have us stay in the Dark Ages, because the "science was settled" and God did everything, so no need to study any natural phenomenon because godidit.

>>8616700
>Gee if evolution is settled why keep finding biology? What a waste of money!

Hmmm maybe because the measurement of global temps is not solely used for proving CO2 causes warming? Maybe because the field of climatology involves more than the simple fact that CO2 causes warming? I don't know the answers to these question you tell me what you think.

>>8616700
>if the science is settled why keep generating co2 studying it?
science btfo

Will someone who actually works with this say a few facts?

I don't know, some sort of a geologist, a climate scientist whatever. I know there's a few.

>>8616724
This was my post: >>8616709
I'm an environmental engineer and I don't mean some undergrad

>>8616751
but 1st year math students used "logic" to disprove global warming

Global warming is a conspiracy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/africa/algeria/articles/a-metre-of-snow-falls-in-sahara-desert/

>>8616622
>scientifically proven fact of the matter is we have never seen a RATE of warming this high in the last 650,000 years
That is quite a claim! In fact I don't think these things can be proven scientific fact in the classic sense, they are best case theories and worse case guesses and wishful thinking on behalf of the bodies most interested in promoting extreme climate change today caused by man with an aim to control,regulate, ration or otherwise manipulate the markets of the remaining fossil fuels.

This is the most repulsive aspect of the current AGW theory promotion and how it comes off with this synthetic air of authority. On the face of it we have the science of meteorology which can predict weather accurately about a week out in most places, then we have spawned many climate departments, like new age Farmers Almanacs attempting to predict one or two seasons ahead with accuracy rates no better than if one guessed and yet we are supposed to believe predictions spanning years or centuries out based on "science"? Assholes. There are simply too many unknowns, too many variables, earths climate does not revolve entirely around CO2. The AGW cult to regain some respect really needs to scale back their rhetoric and admit climatology is an infantile science cobbled together from dozens of scientific fields is still in theory refining stage, not settled scientific fact.

But like I said this will not happen, it's already tainted by the fact CO2 taxation is implemented, set to accelerate and span the entire globe and now anything and everything must be done to justify that very questionable science from here on out, eventually at all costs. Once that enormous propaganda machine gets really rolling, powered by all of the fossil fuels it confiscates, will be very difficult to stop like any regime built on a simple and single ideology.

>>8616709
As in it's reasonably likely to be a horrifying and deadly ride; even if we immediately accepted only our needs and gave up all the mindless greed, want, gotta have, with total disregard for life, environment or future.

Warming such a dynamic system as the atmosphere--when it is so BIG--is insanity [of the new masses who do the same degree of stupid their parents did].

So many people are soon to be so scr... Even earthquakes can be attributed, in part, to the loss of ice weight on tectonic plates. It's reasonable to think that most catastrophic events (recent italy quakes) are caused not merely because we abuse the environment, but that we fail to intentionally control and change it into a utopia for ourselves (and sanely, humanly, humanely and considerately we not care less about beasts when children starve and freeze to death). Kill a whale, feed a child.

>>8616881
What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it.

>>8616881
>In fact I don't think these things can be proven scientific fact in the classic sense,
Why not? Have you looked at the methodology or do you just believe that regardless of any avid all evidence?

>On the face of it we have the science of meteorology which can predict weather accurately about a week out in most places, then we have spawned many climate department
Weather is not the same as climate. If the sun starts emitting more radiation onto the Earth I can predict very accurately that this will cause the average temperature over the entire Earth to increase. That doesn't mean I can tell you which town is going to have a hot day on July 27.

>There are simply too many unknowns, too many variables, earths climate does not revolve entirely around CO2.
No climatologist says that it revolves entirely around CO2. Considering you don't understand the difference between weather and climate and can't even get basic facts about climatology correct, how did you determine that there are too many variables? It seems much more likely that you are mistaken about the science when you have not countered the scientific evidence with any evidence or argument of your own. You just malign it in vague and outright false terms.

I think you should read this >>8616705 since you don't seem to understand how rational argument works.

Denialists are interesting. Only group I've ever seen backpedal, engage in mental gymnastics and run on blind faith of their position being correct more is creation theory.

>>8616881
Are you the same guy that earlier in the thread got BTFO here?

>>8615953
>>8615941
>>8615923
>>8615899
and chickened out and didn't respond? You sure type the exact same way. Why are you still in this thread? You clearly have no intention of changing your dogmatic views on climate change, and science in general, so it begs the question, why are you still here? You clearly don't want to have a rational discussion, you want to discuss your feelings and emotions towards science. That sort of discussion belongs on >>>/pol/ with the rest of the retarded rejects.

>very questionable science
Only to yourself, and the rest of your rejects who lack rational to actually understand it. Climate science isn't even complex or difficult to study / understand, it takes some time of course, but it's not advanced physics or chemistry, a layman can understand the basic premises of the science with some simple Internet research, however you fail to even do this.

>>8616881
>That is quite a claim! In fact I don't think these things can be proven scientific fact in the classic sense, they are best case theories
This sentence alone disincludes you from any serious discussion

Who would even benefit from faking climate change? Like, if there's a conspiracy here, what's the motivation?

I can obviously see who benefits from denying climate change, but the reverse isn't as obvious. Do they think scientists are trying to prank everyone?

>>8616968
Muh globalist, muh kikes, muh green industry, muh renewables, muh (((scientists)))

This is basically the jist of it. They believe that renewable energy is a massive scam, and that scientists worldwide publishing independently are all colluding together in a grand scheme to fake scientific data to fit an agenda to destroy the fossil fuel industry, or some variation of this garbage. Despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry has been financing global warming denial propaganda for nearly 50 years now. But no, it's muh evil renewable energy and muh evil gubmint grants to study climate, and everyone is faking the data in the field, they're all apparently corrupt and spreading "alarmism."

How does /sci/ fall for this shit Every. Fucking. Time? It's like two trolls can come on this board and have their way with you and you just take it like the bitches you are.

>>8616941
That is not an argument.

>>8616942
>>8616953
Think of what that statement implies, that we can measure accurately the rate of change of the climate over more than half a million years when we only have somewhat accurate temperature readings from the last 100 years or so. What you are mistaking for "science" is really nothing more than faith in your climate priests and their powers to conjure that sort of data. To even ponder the margins for error going that far back would make most of that data almost meaningless let alone basing some sort of current governmental policy on it.

>>8616942
The weighting on CO2 is heavily biased for one obvious reason - it can extrapolate to fossil fuel taxation, redistribution, rationing and basically control which is all AGW science is, a means to that end. Stop being obtuse.

>>8616951
>dogmatic views
Wew, a pot calling a kettle black. I am merely claiming climatology is an infantile science and the slate should really be wide open at this point, the only dogma I see here is coming from your camp.
>Climate science isn't even complex or difficult to study / understand
Mmmm. OK. The combination of multiple sciences and fields working with enormous data sets (and very questionable due to the bias now), unlimited variables that span outside of earth itself to include the sun and its cycles, to inside earth and its volcanic and tectonic activity, the surface continental drift, uncountable dynamic feedback systems, ridiculous projection through limited computer models ...you could really go on all day and as you do the more preposterous your statement becomes. But of course this is how it was sold to you, a very simple calculation or two, a few more to determine how much your carbon tax should be and presto! We can save earth! Naive is a word that comes to mind.

>>8616983
>Trolls
Heh, I wish.

>>8616983
>two trolls
Linguistic patterns point to a single one and his sockpuppet, largely talking to themselves.

>>8617012
There are several proxies for temperature that climatologists compare to determine the historical climate. Once again instead of referring to the facts you are just assuming that the methodology is invalid. You are just proving my point further.

>The weighting on CO2 is heavily biased for one obvious reason - it can extrapolate to fossil fuel taxation, redistribution, rationing and basically control which is all AGW science is, a means to that end. Stop being obtuse.
No its because we determined that our emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is causing the earth to warm at an unprecedented rate. We know this from directly measuring the radiative spectra of these gases avid through studying the various feedback effects that determine the climate's response to these forcings. It's all based on empirical findings, you tinfoil nut.

>>8614295
To conclude that a temperature is "record warmest" you have to compare temperatures taken by current methods, to temperatures taken by other methods in the past. They don't compare raw data, or even the same kinds of measurements taken in the same places, rather they process the old records, fudging them based on guesswork, to get something they can present as equivalent to current measurements.

This processing is done by politically-interested parties. Even if their career prospects and prestige didn't rely on keeping the alarmism alive, there's a strong ideological filter for entering climate science: for decades, almost no one has gone into the field unless they started from a position of religious faith that humanity's influence on the environment is bad and the only decent thing to do is minimize it.

It all looks very neat and objective, but you're looking at a map of guesses made by people who strongly want to produce a conclusion that global warming is a looming catastrophe.

Anyway, we know that the temperatures were warmer in the the more distant past.

File: littleiceage.png (33KB, 330x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 330x360px

>>8617012
>a very simple calculation

Radiative forcing by CO2:

∆F=5.35(W/m^2)*ln(C1/C0)
[IPCC TAR-06, page 358, Table 6.2]

∆T0=G0*∆F, G0=0.3K/(W/m^2)
[Kiehl, 1992; Shine et al., 1995]

C1=400ppm (2015)
[www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/]

C0=280ppm (1750)
[IPCC pre-industrial reference]

∆T0=0.57K warming attributed to CO2

Past natural fluctuations, not CO2:
LIA: ~-0.6K, MWP: ~+0.6K
[Loehle 2008, Ljungqvist 2010]

Warming started before the age of CO2

>>8617081
>Warming started before the age of CO2
And is continuing now because of CO2.

>>8616968
>Who would even benefit from faking climate change?
To create trillion dollar artificial "green" industries....
The politicians & elites involved in pushing this shit are making tons of money off climate change propaganda

>>8617094
assuming greater CO2 even results in warming at all

>>8617120
>assuming
The mechanism is proven. We're not talking about a correlation.

>>8617116
Ah yes, I suspected the all powerful wind industry was behind this

>>8617116
Didn't take long for

>>8616980
to become reality in this thread.

>>8614295
>implying "scientific" organizations like NOAA don't just exist to parrot liberal agendas

...is what I'd say if I were an alt-right shitlord.

Seriously, don't waste your breath trying to argue with them using logic. They do not care about facts and will always belligerently tell you you are wrong and they are right. Don't waste your breath on trying to convince them.

Go above them when you can and do everything in your power to leave them out of any important decision making. If that fails then coerce them with violence as that is the only argument they seem to understand.

The time for sane and rational debate is over. Put down the pen and pick up the sword lest you get cut down by it.

>>8614295
NOAA is a Sino-Jewish conspiracy against Aryans and limited government.

>>8617184
Don't coerce. That will just prove them right. Just keep demolishing their claims and humiliating them every time they bring up their conspiracies. The more it happens, the more people will realize that deniers are crackpots and ignore them and maybe the weight of evidence will eventually become enough to crack through their thick skulls.

>>8615887
>>8617277
See what I mean.

This is a god damn moneymaker like holocaust. Truth doesn't fear investigation.

File: brainlet.jpg (305KB, 1500x1100px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1500x1100px

>>8616881
>but we can't predict the weather lol!
I can't predict the result of rolling two dice. But I can tell you what results you'll get if you roll a pair of dice ten thousand times, with a stunning degree of accuracy. Similarly, I can't tell you if it will rain tomorrow. But I can tell you how much rain a given city will get over the course of a year. I can't tell you when an individual uranium atom will undergo radioactive decay. But I can tell you how long it will take for a hand sample of pitchblende to lose half its radioactivity.
Sometimes large scale events are actually easier to predict than small scale ones, due to the law of large numbers. Little fluctuations tend to cancel each other out.

Please get this through your imbecilic little head. We've been over this many times before.

>>8617041
That does not explain how you can have accurate data on the historical rate of change before records were kept. We can make a somewhat educated guess at past climates and ballpark the dates into an epoch, to claim we know that the last 100 years or so is the fastest rate of climate change through the last 650,000 years is just wishful thinking on behalf of the AGW cult and really the source of the problem here. It may all start with science and good intentions by many but its ending in religious dogma not based in reality to be exploited by the few over the many.

>>8617130
>The mechanism is proven
A single mechanism may be proven in a closed system when removing all other variables and feedbacks which is pointless. It's like predicting Chinas population in 10 years without even factoring in mortality rates. You cultists are getting more ignorant with tunnel vision by the minute. There is more to earths climate that CO2, CO2 is simply one molecule in a sea of chemical elements operating in the atmosphere. There are many factors outside the atmosphere as well.

>>8617707
Check your reading comprehension. We can predict weather out to roughly one week with some degree of accuracy, more than say 50%.
You can take your dice analogy and stick them up your rectum.

>>8617751
It's hilarious how not once in these threads are you able to present a shred of evidence to support your armchair knowledge about climate science, nor have you even replied to any posts where anyone counters your arguments with peer-reviewed literature. Of course you won't read it regardless, it's much easier to stay isolated in your echo chamber rather than challenge yourself, you know be a good, skeptical scientist.

All you have is once again, the way you feel about something, which for the last time, means nothing. No one cares if you feel that a scientific body is a "cult," you have no evidence. No one cares if you view a scientific body as a conspiracy, you have no evidence. No one cares if you, some anonymous armchair shitposter believes

>There are many factors outside the atmosphere as well.
Um, no fucking shit you retard? Do you think that climate scientists don't take these factors into their models? Do you think they don't study radiative forcings, or climate sensitivity? Do you think that they only look at CO2 and completely ignore solar cycles, volcanism, ocean circulation, upper / lower atmosphere temp differences, or paleoclimatological evidence? Paleoclimatologists, which unlike all their peers in the same field, you trust 100%, despite them also being implicated in your little grand conspiracies. You do realize that they are also involved in the same field as atmospheric scientists that collect and interpret present data, and often collaborate with them, right?

I can't even believe we have to go over this basic shit again and again with you. You're like a little pissant student that just doesn't understand the simplest of concepts, and think's he's smarter than his professor with his armchair conjecture.

File: Hansen 81 Global Cooling.jpg (49KB, 456x124px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 456x124px

>>8615730
>he global M S U tropospheric trend from 1979 to May 1995 was -0.06°C/decade, and that for the seasonal radiosonde data for the same period was -0.07°C/decade. However, if the transient effects of volcanoes and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (which can bias trends calculated from short
>periods of data) are removed from the various time-series, positive trends become evident (e.g., 0.09°C/decade for MSU), in closer accord with surface data (Christy and McNider, 1994). Jones (1994b) calculated residual global

Sweet unfalsifiability.

Hansen 1981 said that there had been significant global cooling from 1940 to 1970.

Temps are going up => Climate Change is TRUE!
Temps are going down => hurr, durr, our hidcast says volcanoes, Climate Change is TRUE!

File: NASA-NH-Temperatures-Hansen-81.jpg (99KB, 769x531px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 769x531px

>>8617831
>>8615730

Hansen also diagramed that cooling.Pic related. Hansen 1981.

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

140KB, 1161x1024px

>>8617832
>>8615730
>>8615730

And yet the second part of the Industrial Revolution got going in about 1945, leading to a gigantic increase in anthropogenic CO2!

And yet no warming.

So if it cools, climate change is true. And if it warms, climate change is true. How convenient. And how unfalsifiable.

>>8615730
>However, if the transient effects of volcanoes and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (which can bias trends calculated from short
>periods of data) are removed from the various time-series, positive trends become evident (e.g., 0.09°C/decade for MSU), in closer accord with surface data (Christy and McNider, 1994). Jones (1994b) calculated residual global

Nice copy-pasta buddy. For a moment I thought you might be thinking independently.

https://books.google.com/books?id=k9n8v_7foQkC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=However,+if+the+transient+effects+of+volcanoes+and+the+El+Nino-Southern+Oscillation+(which+can+bias+trends+calculated+from+short+periods+of+data)+are+removed+from+the+various+time-series,+positive+trends+become+evident+(e.g.,+0.09%C2%B0C/decade+for+MSU),+in+closer+accord+with+surface+data+(Christy+and+McNider,+1994).+Jones+(1994b)+calculated+residual+global&source=bl&ots=Oz_IYDpSp_&sig=Gf6WWcwOjZWxnkqaNRMcBffxS8Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7uryAm9LRAhUozIMKHQCcAd8Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=However%2C%20if%20the%20transient%20effects%20of%20volcanoes%20and%20the%20El%20Nino-Southern%20Oscillation%20(which%20can%20bias%20trends%20calculated%20from%20short%20periods%20of%20data)%20are%20removed%20from%20the%20various%20time-series%2C%20positive%20trends%20become%20evident%20(e.g.%2C%200.09%C2%B0C%2Fdecade%20for%20MSU)%2C%20in%20closer%20accord%20with%20surface%20data%20(Christy%20and%20McNider%2C%201994).%20Jones%20(1994b)%20calculated%20residual%20global&f=false

United States carbon emissions have been in freefall since the Bush administration

What the fuck do you faggots want? Go yell at China, they're the world's largest emitter already

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

415KB, 907x587px

>>8617789
You are the one living in the echo chamber just like all religious people and AGW is obviously your new religion. You are being triggered and getting all emotional over the "science". I am merely claiming this infantile, immature "science" is nothing more than a curiosity on par with an new age Farmers Almanac and the idea of basing taxation or cap and trade schemes on it akin to snake oil salesmanship.

It's great you think your climate scientists are factoring in all variables into climate prediction and analysis but they are obviously not, they are strictly focused on CO2 because this is what their handlers and financiers have requested and subtly implied at every corner in order to apply global taxation on this harmless innocent molecule. This is for the obvious reason it is the by-product of a very sought after resource without which modern life suddenly becomes impossible.

I have no doubt there are good people in all of those fields you mention and they are powerless to stop politicians and policy makers from interpreting the research from all of those fields anyway they see fit, picking and choosing what they like and what they don't. This doesn't even come across as conspiracy to me, more simple human nature.

You also seem to have a problem with the very word conspiracy and in this day and age I find that a bit strange. Conspiracies abound today just as much as they have all through history and burying your head in the sand won't change that. I believe there is a ploy to acquire control of these critical resources on a global scale - fossil fuels - through fear mongering and lies by going after the by product of those spent fuels. It looks like straight forward fraud on a grand scale to me yes. One reason for this thinking is that if the people at the top really believed in man made global warming the solutions and policies would be far different from the new reality.

File: Butthurt Level.jpg (356KB, 1211x1239px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1211x1239px

>>8615758
>>Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.2C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be the primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature.

>Did you even bother to read the paper you linked?
How wonderfully authoritarian of you. Hansen speculates at the end of the paper that the lack of observed CO2 driven warming is due to aerosols.

That buddy, is speculation. Not to mention awfully convenient. Unlike you, I don't deal in speculation. Hansen admitted that there was no evidence of CO2 driven warming. That is the fact that you so desperately want to ignore.

Sorry that I don't equate speculation with reality. And sorry that there was a huge uptick in anthropogenic CO2 in 1940, which led to 30 years of global cooling. Quite the contradiction, isn't it?
>>8617836


So your "rational" interpretation is:
warming temps => Climate Change is TRUE!
cooilng temps => aerosols or whatever, Climate Change is TRUE!

And what was that you said?
>I'm a shitposter in every thread, my arguments are consistently debunked
ftfy

You must be really butthurt.

File: haha.jpg (41KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x437px

>>8617757
So you don't understand how analogies work either!

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

60KB, 402x204px

>>8615768
>You simply take one quote out of context with the rest of the paper, without reading the actual paper mind you, and believe you have an argument. It's really just sad. You also do know that further research into the greenhouse effect and CO2 warming, which has been done in the decades since this paper was published, shows that there is a lag between CO2 emissions and warming, right?

>out of context
You didn't even post the same paper! I guess "context" for you means whatever other paper you can dig up. That's not context.

And a lag between CO2 going up and temps going up? A 30 YEAR LAG? >>8617836
That's not a lag. That's just non-causality.

Tell me, if CO2 is the big driver of global temperatures, how come the increase the rate of warming temperatures always happens BEFORE an increase in the change of CO2 concentration. Pic related.

>nb4 hurr durr lagged noise.
A contiguous relationship, which follows that tightly isn't noise.

>nb4 We've already deal with that argument.
NO. You never answered it, you just mumble "noise" and hopes it goes away. These observations are unanswerable, which is why they make you so upset.

>>8617831
>>8617832
>>8617836
You are a fucking moron. You argue as if the theory is that CO2 is the only thing that affects the climate, when it obviously isn't. You cherrypick regions and arbitrary lengths of time. You are a lying scumbag.

here in NZ this month has probably been the coldest summer in a very long time

>>8617898
globalist cuck

>>8617879
>It's great you think your climate scientists are factoring in all variables into climate prediction and analysis but they are obviously not
PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE, because you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf

You know, maybe CO2 is so widely focused on as well because it has the LARGEST IMPACT on not only paleoclimate evidence that scientists study, but the current trend as well? Dispute this with your armchair knowledge, it doesn't change the evidence.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7603/abs/nature17423.html
This is from 2016, not the 1980s like your little cherrypicked paper you decided to post.

It's hilarious how when you are accused of something, you simply project it back onto others, it's almost as if you're the one that's truly butthurt here man, and can't handle that maybe, just maybe you're wrong.

>they are strictly focused on CO2 because this is what their handlers and financiers have requested and subtly implied at every corner in order to apply global taxation on this harmless innocent molecule
Yes, so harmless. So harmless in fact that if you look at a planet Venus, which has an atmosphere of 96.5% CO2 the surface temperature is 740K.

So harmless that as I pointed out above, paleoclimate records show that times when Earth has had massive spikes in atmospheric CO2, mass extinctions have resulted.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3316.abstract

Why are you so dishonest, why do you lie constantly and refuse to actually study the evidence, and verify the conjecture that you spout off? All you can do is spout off "Muh religion" in your rambling, incoherent """arguments,""" it's so tired and sad.

You are nothing more than a liar, plain and simple. You spread misinformation with every post you make.

>>8617939
>>8617898
>>8617881
>>8617184
FOUR MORE YEARS
KEEP CRYING FAGGOTS

FREE HELICOPTER RIDES FOR ALL OF YOU

File: climate-forcing-download1-2016.png (70KB, 928x821px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 928x821px

>>8617881
>Unlike you, I don't deal in speculation
All you do is speculate and present conjecture. You truly are a massive, dishonest hypocrite.

CO2 most certainly is responsible for the current warming. It is not linked to volcanism, it is not linked to solar activity, so I ask you, what else is it linked to? We can perform experiments to understand the forcings of CO2 in atmospheric warming, we KNOW that it is responsible for the current trend, this is not pseudoscience. We monitor solar activity, we put the data into the context of the 11-year solar cycle, as well as the overall TSI over geological time.


Hansen never once admitted that there was no evidence of CO2 warming you fucking liar. He is saying that AT THE TIME in the fucking 1980s when that research was undertaken, he could not find evidence of CO2 being linked to temperature changes in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, just one part of the Earth, not the system as a whole which even then they were measuring WARMING.

God you are so fucking dense, I cannot believe I even have to point these simple concepts out to you.

>Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that surface warming at high latitudes will be two to five times the global mean warming (52-55). Climate models predict the larger sensitivity at high latitudes and trace it to snow/ice albedo feedback and greater atmospheric stability, which magnifies the warming of near-surface layers (6-8). Since these mechanisms will operate even with the expected rapidity of CO2 warming, it can be anticipated that average high-latitude warming will be a few times greater than the global mean effect.

Nothing in this paper is disputing the science of global warming AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD IN THE 1980S. Do you think that our knowledge of atmospheric sciences hasn't advanced at all in nearly 50 years? Do you think that there have been zero changes in our understandings of the underlying mechanisms of climate change?

>>8617949
>FOUR MORE YEARS
Eight. (before it's Pence's turn)

File: Capture.jpg (34KB, 456x338px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 456x338px

>>8617881
You also completely misunderstand the purpose of the 1980 Hansen paper. You pick one quote OUT OF CONTEXT within the paper itself:

>The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970 (9), a time of rapid CO2 buildup. In addition, recent claims that climate models overestimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude (10, 11) have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood.
>We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.

Look what we have here, this is again, a paper from the 1980s on global warming, and what are they talking about? RADIATIVE PERTURBATIONS (forcings) of different aspects of the atmosphere, NOT JUST CO2.
>It's great you think your climate scientists are factoring in all variables into climate prediction and analysis
>think your climate scientists are factoring in all variables
>climate scientists are factoring in all variables

Blown out by your own source YET AGAIN. I guess Hansen totally wasn't taking into account other aerosols in the atmosphere, or clouds, or methane, or Ozone when studying global warming in the 1980s.
>Identification of the CO2 warming in observed climate depends on the magnitude of climate variability due to other factors. Most suspected causes of global climate change are radiative perturbations, which can be compared to identify those capable of counteracting or reinforcing the CO2 warming.

>>8617966
How is CO2 responsible for the warming trend, even though the temperature increase caused by atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic?

Protip: It doesn't affect global temperature in any significant margin whatsoever, if the world suddenly octupled CO2 in the atmosphere global temperatures would rise ~3 degrees Celsius.

File: 1374179381937.jpg (40KB, 432x476px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 432x476px

>>8617993
>A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940. The common misconception that the world is cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970. Another conclusion is that global surface air temperature rose - 0.4C in the past century, roughly consistent with calculated CO2 warming. The time history of the warming obviously does not follow the course of the CO2 increase (Fig. 1), indicating that other factors must affect global mean temperature.

>The common misconception that the world is cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970
>MISCONCEPTION THAT THE WORLD IS COOLING IS BASED ON NORTHERN HEMISPHERE EXPERIENCE TOP 1970

>Another conclusion is that global surface air temperature rose - 0.4C in the past century, roughly consistent with calculated CO2 warming.
>ROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH CALCULATED CO2 WARMING


DID YOU EVEN READ THE PAPER, I ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN.

I'm able to find this shit by just SKIMMING IT, yet you just lie and lie and lie about the quote, taking the entire paper out of context as well.

File: Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png (104KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x768px

>>8617998
>Protip: It doesn't affect global temperature in any significant margin whatsoever
Nice conjecture you got there, care to support that with EVIDENCE? Fucking retard, even the most popular of the climate skeptics / deniers do not say this horse-shit. Well, at least the scientifically trained ones don't.

Do I have to do research for you, are you a child? You have the entire Internet at your fingertips. You could easily answer these questions yourself:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html
Read up on climate sensitivity and gain some understanding about HOW atmospheric gasses like CO2 cause warming by the greenhouse effect.

We have correlated CO2 with temperature changes in the atmosphere using ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

When looking at warnings from paleoclimate:
>In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

> if the world suddenly octupled CO2 in the atmosphere global temperatures would rise ~3 degrees Celsius.
Once again, conjecture, no evidence presented aside from your shitposts, and what you say is simply not true, it's lies.
Current CO2 in the atmosphere is 400ppm, if you are seriously suggesting that if you octupled that to 3200ppm (over half that is was in the Cambrian), that warming would only be 3 degrees? Nigger, do you not understand that the current trend of increasing to ~600ppm by the end of the century will result in a warming anywhere between 2 to 4+ degrees, with some estimates up to 8C?

Do you not understand radiative forcings? Do you not understand the greenhouse effect?

>>8617998
>How is CO2 responsible for the warming trend, even though the temperature increase caused by atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic?
CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution, so we get essentially a linear warming trend.

>Protip: It doesn't affect global temperature in any significant margin whatsoever
Utter horseshit. We've directly measured its radiative spectra and this shows that it is one of the most significant source of forcing, even if you ignore the feedback effects that make it even more powerful.

File: CornGrainYields-history.png (401KB, 1484x757px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1484x757px

>>8615305
>Fisheries

By getting rid of fossil fuels, fish population will skyrocket since fishing boats will have to go back to using sails.

>clean water

Just don't drink the water when the sun don't shine & the wind don't blow. No power means no municipal water purification.

>agriculture

Fossil fuels power farm equipment, ship produce all over the planet, and makes fertilizer. Without it, we would go back to an agrarian culture and subsistence farming.

>forestry

Forestry is fucked.

From https://www.reference.com/business-finance/average-wheat-yield-per-acre-1800s-2236c69dbfd107fa#

"The average yield per acre of wheat during the 1800s was 13.3 bushels per acre, according to the USDA. By contrast, the average U.S. wheat yield per acre in 2013 was 47.2 bushels per acre."

Pic source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/16/a-brief-history-of-u-s-corn-in-one-chart/?utm_term=.e7eaab4f1f70

The pic is a graph of average corn yields per acre over a course of about 150 years and how modern farmings cause yields per acre to skyrocket.

Without modern farming methods, more forests will be turned into farm land because we're not letting billions of people starve to death for the trees.

>tourism

Fossil fuels has been a boom for tourism. Fossil fuels opened the world to us commoners. In the past, people would never venture more than twenty miles from the place of birth because they would have walk or ride in a horse-drawn carriage and that the latter is assuming they could afford one.

>and many other big businesses are being damaged in the interest of fossil fuels.

Cheap, reliable, and abundant energy made modern Western civilization possible. Without it, we would still live like our pre-Industrial Age ancestors.

File: LFTRChart.png (2MB, 938x4167px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 938x4167px

>>8615305
Now we had a chance to replace fossil fuels with a carbon neutral power source that was reliable and available irregardless of the weather and that was nuclear but the same people railing at those so called "climate change deniers" railed against nuclear power. And just like Germany, they helped the coal industry more than the environment.

>>8618275
No one denies that fossil fuels have been important, what are you trying to say here?

Just because Fossil fuels did good things for humanity, does not offset the negatives that they have had on our environment, as well as the climate, and will continue to impact long after humans stop combusting them.

There are newer technologies that are already beginning to replace fossil fuels. It's not going to happen overnight, but it must happen, and it's inevitable that it will, as fossil fuels are not renewable.

Nuclear is the real answer, it can be used as a stopgap between R&D and investment in true renewables matures. It's hampered by regulatory agencies and safety concerns, as well as opposition from environmentalists who don't fully understand the principles of nuclear engineering, but it's the way forward, as it can not only match, but surpass the energy generation of fossil fuels easily. If we wanted to, and if we invested trillions into Nuclear, a country like the US could meet all of its energy needs for centuries off Nuclear alone.

In the meantime, solar is becoming more and more efficient each year, as new tecnhologies are advanced, the real issue is energy storage, not generation with solar. Wind is viable and highly capable of providing the energy needs in regions which it is applicable. Hydroelectric is already abundant and is a greater energy resource than fossil fuels in regions which it is used.

>>8618277
I agree that Nuclear should be pursued, but most anti-nuclear people are just as ignorant about nuclear power as they are about climate change, and that's not me saying that climate change isn't a reality, it's the fact that they are scientifically illiterate.

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

246KB, 870x722px

>>8617751
>There is more to earths climate that CO2, CO2 is simply one molecule in a sea of chemical elements operating in the atmosphere. There are many factors outside the atmosphere as well.
...and we can quantify the contributions of CO2, other trace gases in the atmosphere, Milankovitch forcings, solar variability, and a whole host of other factors.
your claim seems to be "we just don't have enough information to know", and you've arrived at it by steadfastly ignoring all the lines of evidence that we DO have to assess the confounding factors you mention. to continue your analogy, we ARE factoring in changes in mortality; you're just stubbornly insisting that we can't know until we do (what we're already doing). it's argument from incredulity, nothing more.

>>8617757
triple heck, you're a literal retard apparently.

>>8617831
>>8617832
>local cooling
>global cooling
pick one, you dumb cockholster

File: oops.png (966KB, 1161x1024px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 1161x1024px

>>8617836
>lol I drew some lines on a graph to try and cherry pick intervals that confound the overall trend
you say that graph shows that CO2 doesn't drive temperature change? I say you're full of beans, and of ruder substances.

I've taken the liberty of rescaling the CO2 emissions trend along the y-axis. note how nicely the big sustained warming trend coincides with the sudden increase in CO2 (with a slight lag, naturally).
you can draw on graphs? so can I, fucko. :^)

File: panda unrelated.jpg (762KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 1024x768px

>>8617879
>It's great you think your climate scientists are factoring in all variables into climate prediction and analysis but they are obviously not
if you go to the GISS website, they'll show you a nice little assessment of a whole shit ton of different climate forcings used in CMIP models. it's literally that easy.
>https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
they also cite where they're getting those from, in case you want to take a closer look.

>harmless innocent molecule
if it's so harmless and innocent, how come you need to constantly pump it out of your body or you'll DIE?
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

>>8617881
>Hansen speculates at the end of the paper that the lack of observed CO2 driven warming is due to aerosols.
literally a lie.
>Volcanic aerosol radiative forcing can be obtained from Lamb's (27) dust veil index (DVI), which is based mainly on atmospheric transmission measurements after 1880. We convert DVI to optical depth by taking Mount Agung (DVI = 800) to have the maximum AT = 0.12. The aerosol optical depth histories of
Mitchell (47) and Pollack et al. (29), the latter based solely on transmission measurements, are similar to Lamb's. We use aerosol microphysical properties from (45).
>The general agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends strongly suggests that CO2 and volcanic aerosols are responsible for much of the global temperature variation in the past century.
basically, they ACTUALLY MEASURED aerosol effects via atmospheric opacity (yes, we have records for that sort of thing) and plugged variation in aerosol density into the model, and whaddaya know, it helped predict part of the temperature variation observed. (for example, after major volcanic eruptions, aerosol thickness increases and temperature drops a tad for a few years. this was later observed after Pinatubo.)

>I don't deal in speculation
>I don't equate speculation with reality
>assumes there's a massive conspiracy throughout all of climatology, based entirely on conjecture
k

File: 1479781210517.jpg (460KB, 1280x1365px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1280x1365px

>>8614295

>Scaling method include everything from record coolest to record warmest
>Doesn't actually include ''average/no change'' in it, use a oxymoron instead
>Do not give any clear data as to figure what is the scale even supposed to represent, so no way to know what is the actual temperature differential between each step
>No data on past readings, so can't even tell if the situation is as grave as the OP pic make you believe as to know if it actually follow some kind of continual growth or its simply following a average that just happens to have gotten a momentary increase due to happening in conjunction with others geological events outside human control

T-thanks Obama

We should plug volcanoes so they don't pollute the atmosphere xd

>>8618431
Did you even bother to read the thread?

>Scaling method include everything from record coolest to record warmest
Scaling method, what the fuck are you referring to? The data presented on OP's image is from temperature monitoring stations across the world, and temperature buoys in the oceans.

>No data on past readings, so can't even tell if the situation is as grave as the OP pic make you believe
How about you click on the source, and read you dimwit?
>With eight consecutive record warm months from January to August, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA scientists. During the final month, the December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature departure from average was the third highest on record for any month in the 137-year record

NOAA is simply presenting their findings, not making any claims of alarmism.

You can read the full report here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

>Do not give any clear data as to figure what is the scale even supposed to represent
What are you talking about, the map represents data collected from ocean buoys, and land temperature stations throughout the world.

> geological events outside human control
Are you a geologist? I actually am. What "geological events outside human control" have affected the global climate within the past year, fuck, within the past decade? Keep in mind that climate scientists have already deduced that the main forcing on the current trend is indeed CO2, not volcanism, or solar activity, both of which have been very stable in the past few centuries. Natural effects are not causing the current trend, without human activity, the global temperature would likely be much more stable than the current data suggests.

File: b57.jpg (20KB, 292x326px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 292x326px

>>8618090
>correlation equals causation

>>8618106
Source that CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is raising exponentially? Oh wait, it isnt...

>>8618461
>Correlation never means causation

Correlation does indeed mean causation when you have multiple sources of evidence that confirm the correlation. Take your reddit-tier science meme's back where they belong please.

>>8618090

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels

If we were to double to CO2 in the atmosphere the global temperature will rise between 1 and 4 degrees celcius, and it would need to double again to reach another 1-4 degrees C, and double a third time to reach another 1-4 degrees C. So best case scenario if atmospheric concentration of CO2 octuples is only a 3C rise in temp. Worst case scenario it could be 12C, average it out and were probably looking at 6C rise in temp. Keep in mind this would take thousands of years at the current rate of yearly CO2 ppm increase of 2.25ppm +0.5ppm per decade.
Sorry your brainlet mind was so easily spun by big-government psuedo-communists.

File: images.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>8618471
>still thinks correlation equals causation

If niggers die at the same rate I jerk off, does that provide any evidence that pulling my pud executes a nigger and I should be tried in court for being a serial killer?
Do retards like you dress yourselves or does your caretaker do that?

>>8618479
Oh, so you're only taking the absolute minimum low estimate to confirm your biases, I see.

Oh it's between 1 and 4, let me pick the lowest number, 1. Oh it's between 1 and 4 again, let me pick the lowest number again, 1 that will confirm my biases! Oh let me pick the lowest number a third time so I can get the absolute lowest, and least likely to occur number I can come up with! Great job with the mental gymnastics buddy.

>Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
So already you're caught in a lie, you didn't read your own source, it's 1.5 and 4.5, not 1 and 4 you cunt.

If you think that this is not significant, you have your head so far up your own ass that there is no hope for you. Do you not understand that even a 2C rise in global temperatures will cause drastic climatic shifts across the globe, whether it be desertification increasing in Africa, or accelerated melting of greenland's ice sheets? Do you not understand the impact that a 2C rise in temperature (the minimum estimate keep that in mind) will have on coastal regions, in which the vast majority of our civilization is centered?
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/2degrees/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-2-degrees-celsius-is-climate-changes-magic-number/

People like you are simply put delusional.

Keep in mind that we are already seeing the impacts of SLR in cities like Miami for example, and it's very early in the current century. Just because you will be dead and buried long before the worst impacts begin to be seen, doesn't mean the issue is not serious or a threat to our civilization.


I see you've advanced into the "It's happening, but the effects won't be so bad, because a small number must mean A-OK, right?" Do you not understand that

>>8618482
Nice reaction-image meme responses bro, you sure convinced me with your astounding jacking off analogy.

You do understand that there is plenty of confirmed cases of correlation meaning causation in science, and that this is not a logical fallacy when, you know, it is BACKED UP BY EVIDENCE. You know, evidence, the very basis of all modern scientific study, gained from collecting scientific data through the scientific process, presenting it to your peers who review and confirm that the science is good, and that the evidence stands?
inb4
>muh skepticalscience
The source is good and it's easy to read for a retard like you that doesn't understand the basics:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

File: nclimate2876-f1.jpg (273KB, 946x654px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 946x654px

>>8618482
I'll leave you with this. Maybe, just maybe I'll hold out hope that you will actually read some sources, and understand the evidence for yourself, but I have to sleep.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292188056_An_imperative_to_monitor_Earth's_energy_imbalance


Debating with you people is like debating with creationists, you simply won't change your mind based on scientific evidence, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

File: cc8.png (485KB, 600x520px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 600x520px

>>8618491
Oh oops I was a little off, I skimmed. Its all there in the article though. Thanks for reading it.
>Hottest town in the world (34C average temperature year round) becomes 36C over the course of 50 years
>drastic climate shifts
>desertification
>muh ice sheets

Its literally 2 degrees. Greenlands temp goes from 10C to 12C slowly over 50 years, and the next degree of warmth will take over a hundred years, and the next degree over a hundred years later.

Were currently relatively very near the peak of our Milankovitch cycle, so these negligible little 1.5-4.5 degree shifts will be largely negated by the oribital eccentricity.

Why do you jump to such absurd conclusions without putting any thought into the matter? Did daddy not pay you enough attention? Did he not praise you when you trued to make him proud? Perhaps you should focus on your own issues, and not those of politicians and "scientists" who stand to lose all funding, their jobs, and their entire field of research if the fact that climate is changing naturally and uncontrollably becomes majority consensus.

File: penis-size-chart-by-ethnicity-29090-1240152169-4.jpg (103KB, 600x340px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x340px

>>8618512
Oh cool graph bro, you like mine? You got any more cool graph pics to share?

File: 9496348.png (277KB, 382x479px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 382x479px

>>8618512
>Debating with you people is like debating with creationists, you simply won't change your mind based on scientific evidence, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

>projecting this hard
>having no self awareness

So if you insist that there is no warming, or it isn't human caused, or however you want to phrase it, what do you propose is happening to all the CO2 in the atmosphere? Is it just accumulating and doing nothing, despite it being a greenhouse gas? Do you also deny ocean acidification is happening and could have global impacts?

File: Ainsley.png (765KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1001x1001px

>>8618520
>negligible little 1.5-4.5 degree shifts
it's this sort of shit that's why people don't take you seriously. because you can't imagine a difference of 3 or 4 K having a major impact, you insist (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) that it's no big deal.
news flash, reality is not constrained by your ability to imagine.

>will be largely negated by the oribital eccentricity
changes in eccentricity happen on a ~100,000 year cycle. what makes you think we can rely on those forcings to counteract changes happening on the order of 100 years? (spoiler alert, the answer is magical thinking.)

Why do YOU jump to such absurd conclusions without putting any thought into the matter?

>>8618569
Please give one example where it was 3 degrees warmer in a place for a decade and everything turned into a desert. Give one example of a 3 degree temerature shift that ever resulted in anything more than a totally negligable effect on the enviornment.

>>8618539
You would have to be retarded or a troll to say the earth isnt warming. It certainly is, but the amount humans contribute to it is negligable compared to natural variation.
What do you mean what do I propose is happening to CO2 in the atmosphere? Its there. Roughly 410 ppm I believe. The warming effect of concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is well understood, the current ammount of CO2 produced by mankind in all of civilized history only accounts for 2 degrees celcius of warming, and the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere would need to be doubled again for another 2 degrees, and doubled again for yet another 2 degrees. If for the next 2000 years humanity produces CO2 at a continuously increasing rate, the earth might be fairly uncomfortably warm and there likely wouldnt be too much polar ice around for very long after that.

Ocean acidification is a significant issue, and we shouls focus on iron fertilization and extraction of CO2 from seawater to naturalize the pH

>>8618507
>either a contrarian or a retard
most likely both

>>8617831
>unfalsifiability
babby's new buzzword

>>8618576
>If it's not complete and utter devastation it doesn't count!
He said "major impact." Not that everything turns into a desert. A region simply getting wetter or drier, or getting more extreme weather events, has a big economic and social impact.

>tfw shithole country currently getting destroyed by multiple fires due to average temperature rise

>>8618804
What is with you retarded cultists who want to blame fucking everything on global warming, which may or may not have even had any effect on where you live?

Forest fires are both totally natural, and a consequence of governments preventing natural forest fires.

>>8618745
>or getting more extreme weather events
Why do AGW cultists keep repeating this baseless claim?

Hell, we're supposedly told that CO2 causes a feedback effect via extra H2O in the atmosphere, wouldn't that naturally result in greater rainfall world wide?

>>8618507
All we have is guesswork and fantasies
The models cannot be relied on to provide anything
And no, the temperature hasn't risen 2 degrees in 100 years, thats nonsense.

You people want to literally destroy all industrial economies and turn us back to an agrarian society as if this will magically prevent the climate from ever changing again

Even in your own article they admit that they know nothing, and can predict nothing

>>8618867
>baseless
It seems YOU are the one who does not seek out information on this stuff. Otherwise you would be aware of the findings and models that are out there.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

>>8618884
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly
greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

File: gisstemp.png (45KB, 904x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 904x480px

>>8618867
>What is with you retarded cultists who want to blame fucking everything on global warming
Why shouldn't we talk about attribution? It's one of the few things that makes the public sit up and actually listen, and that's valuable in of itself.

>Forest fires are both totally natural, and a consequence of governments preventing natural forest fires.
They're also made both more frequent and more intense by warmer, drier conditions. AGW is creating those conditions in many places.

>CO2 causes a feedback effect via extra H2O in the atmosphere, wouldn't that naturally result in greater rainfall world wide?
On average, yes.

>>8618875
>All we have is guesswork and fantasies
The creationists claim something similar. They get laughed for it.

>Even in your own article they admit that they know nothing, and can predict nothing
No they don't. They admit that what they are doing is hard, and there's a limit to how precise they can be.

>You people want to literally destroy all industrial economies and turn us back to an agrarian society
Also we eat children and are secretly reptiles from space.

>>8618909
Everyone who looked at the article sees through your paraphrasing.

>>8618591
>You would have to be retarded or a troll to say the earth isnt warming. It certainly is, but the amount humans contribute to it is negligable compared to natural variation.
No, it accounts for all of the warming since the industrial revolution. There would be even more warming if natural sources weren't cooling the Earth via carbon sinks and other mechanisms. Not only does natural variation not explain the long term warming, since this warming is faster than any natural warming observed, but it would be in the opposite direction.

>The warming effect of concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is well understood, the current ammount of CO2 produced by mankind in all of civilized history only accounts for 2 degrees celcius of warming
This is hilarious. You claimed it's negligible, then you described it's warming effect as equivalent to the entire observed warming since man started emitting CO2 in significant amounts. So you just implied that CO2 is responsible for the entire warming trend over the time frame of AGW. Thank you for agreeing with the scientists that AGW is real and significant. What you don't seem to realize is that 2 degrees over a few hundred years is a massive increase compared to what the historical record shows.

>>8616705
You haven't really convinced me with those hot opinions and ad homs. Again, I'm yet to see any popsci fag reply to this without resorting to name calling. I'm asking you to explain to me in simple terms why, given that such things are a problem in multiple other fields, climate change advocates are certain that it's impossible for such things to happen in their own field. What do I get? "Hurr durr conspiracy, where is your proof huh, HUH?!". I'm just fascinated how come any other scientific field admits its either a problem or a possibility and yet mentioning the very thought to you people is barely possible. Is it because you feel like you are losing to deniers if you say "yes, it happens in other fields and its certainly a possibility in our field as well"?

>>8618963
>>You people want to literally destroy all industrial economies and turn us back to an agrarian society
>Also we eat children and are secretly reptiles from space.

Jokes aside, the loud and annoying faction among you that has the main message of "tech and industry are bad, we should stop breeding, average Joe is killing the environment" etc is what puts a shitton of people off. I'm personally disgusted by those who want to lower living standards and make us all roll over and die.

>>8619055
> I'm asking you to explain to me in simple terms why, given that such things are a problem in multiple other fields, climate change advocates are certain that it's impossible for such things to happen in their own field.
Nice strawman, asshat. Who said it's impossible? You clearly didn't understand the post you're replying to. Anything is possible, if you want to engage in discussion rather than baseless conjecture you should back up your conjecture with evidence and reasoning. The fact that you can't, and instead stack up more non-sequitur and strawmen, is pathetic.

>>8618520
Not true. Greenland, and polar regions in general, will warm more than global average and much faster than the rest of the world:

Do you not understand that the 2C MINIMUM (and could potentially warm to 4C+) is for global average temperatures? Aka, the entire fucking planet. It is already warming much faster than the average at the poles, which means more ice melting, which means SLR is faster due to melting ice sheets, which means cold water seeping into the Atlantic disrupting thermohaline circulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

File: angery.jpg (20KB, 413x320px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 413x320px

>>8618576
>Please give one example where it was 3 degrees warmer in a place for a decade and everything turned into a desert. Give one example of a 3 degree temerature shift that ever resulted in anything more than a totally negligable effect on the enviornment.
An increase of JUST 0.68 C has caused huge swathes of the Great Barrier Reef, a massive hub of marine biodiversity, to fucking DIE.
>http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/how-climate-change-can-affect-the-reef/rising-sea-temperatures
terrestrial ecosystems don't have the heat sink of water to stabilize their temperatures, so they tend to tolerate small changes fairly well. (even they are vulnerable, though.) but the oceans? prevailing weather patterns and ocean currents determine the temperature, pH, salinity, and nutrient density of an area, and those hardly change over the years (even with seasonal variation). so the organisms that live there are adapted to those specific conditions, and the balance is delicate. this is the sort of thing you'd have learned if you'd studied oceanography or invertebrate paleoecology or any related science.
how little you know.

File: Background noise.png (58KB, 580x430px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 580x430px

>>8618875
>All we have is guesswork and fantasies
it's easy to say this if you actively ignore all the evidence we have.
>The models cannot be relied on to provide anything
they've been fairly accurate. if you want to reject them anyway, that's a symptom of your own closed-minded predetermined opinions.
>And no, the temperature hasn't risen 2 degrees in 100 years, thats nonsense.
the weather stations beg to differ. see, in the scientific community, we trust measurements over what some dude on the internet thinks.

>You people want to literally destroy all industrial economies and turn us back to an agrarian society
no, we want to power our current level of technological advancement in more responsible ways that don't create massive negative externalities.
>as if this will magically prevent the climate from ever changing again
we're not trying to stop climate from ever changing. we're trying to stop the current changes that human activity has set in motion.

>Even in your own article they admit that they know nothing, and can predict nothing
literally a lie. recognizing the limitations of a method or model doesn't mean throwing out what information it does provide.

your tired insistence that YOU CANT KNOW NUFFIN is sounding a little ragged at this point.

File: Alakazam Newspaper.jpg (55KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x400px

>>8618909
>That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
>Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

>>8619247
>>8618981
>Starts with a disclaimer that "We haven't actually seen any evidence of our claims yet"

And I'm supposed to take the page seriously?

File: Hurr_major_USland_count_w_Stats[1].png (103KB, 1584x1224px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1584x1224px

>>8619273
we've already observed higher ocean temperatures as a result of climate change. we know that warmer oceans mean stronger storms. and there's already been an observed increase in hurricane frequency, it's just not strong enough to be statistically robust proof of an actual increase. the evidence is there, just not conclusive. YET.
maybe try reading the page instead of just skimming it for bits that you think back you up.

File: morefraud.jpg (122KB, 523x500px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 523x500px

>>8619228
>huge swathes of the Great Barrier Reef, a massive hub of marine biodiversity, to fucking DIE
There is massive fraud being detected from the "ocean acidification" sector of the AGW meme. The author of this fraudulent graph won $100,000 for creating it!
>“Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”
When the graph was reconstructed with all of the data it showed a rising pH, you can see that here.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/evidence_discovered_that_ocean_acidification_scare_may_be_as_fraudulent_as_global_warming.html
Not only that but another Australian "climate researcher" was recently indicted for fraud for possibly pilfering half a mil from government funding.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/climate-scientist-arrested-for-fraud
>Alongi’s indictment raises serious questions concerning the credibility of his research. During the period of Alongi’s alleged fraud, his research focusing on the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef, coastal mangroves, and coastal ecosystems was published in numerous national and international journals.
There is huge money floating around the meme. I am pretty sure Australia has already implemented carbon taxation and being basically an island desert is easy prey for climate alarmism.

The greatest threat to our oceans would be depleting fisheries but of course the climate meme detracts from this and focuses on non problems like imaginary acidification.

>>8619314
>ClimateGate

That was created by Oil Industry to sew doubt in Climate Change Research.

>>8619335
>muh conspiracy theories
>muh non arguments

File: 67575144[1].jpg (62KB, 400x294px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x294px

>>8619314
so are you saying that big chunks of the GBR aren't actually dying as the result of coral bleaching? This is nothing to do with ocean acidification; it's literally JUST TEMPERATURE RISE OF UNDER A DEGREE. that alone is sufficient to kill certain kinds of corals.
so basically, you asked for an example of "minor" temperature rise causing serious ecological damage. and when an example was provided, you tried to deflect to ocean acidification because even in the face of all that evidence YOU SIMPLY COULD NOT BELIEVE that a small rise in temperature could do all that.
how little indeed you know, how little you are capable of learning.

unfortunately for you, the conspiracy theorizing about ocean acidification also has some serious problems.
>When the graph was reconstructed with all of the data it showed a rising pH, you can see that here.
Feely's graph uses atmospheric measurements from ONE SITE and oceanic measurements from ONE NEARBY SITE, keeping everything constant.
What "all of the data" did Wallace add in? He added in ocean pH measurements from all over the globe, which varied year-to-year in geographic composition (measurements were taken from all sorts of different locations in different years) and time of year (some years were dominated by measurements taken in summer, some were more even). there was no attempt to control or adjust for those confounding effects, rendering Wallace's take practically meaningless.
A time series for something like temperature or pH is only informative if you use the SAME LOCATIONS and measure at the SAME TIME every single time YEAR AFTER YEAR. If you're changing where and when you're measuring every year, you get gobbledygook.
>https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/not-phraud-but-phoolishness/

File: Heartland-billboard.jpg (29KB, 392x164px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 392x164px

>>8619314
>The greatest threat to our oceans would be depleting fisheries
Which is directly related to ocean acidification and coral bleaching. Do you not understand that Coral reefs are the basis of most ocean fisheries? You kill the reef systems, you negatively effect fisheries globally. The issues are both related. Ocean acidification is most certainly not understated, it's basic ocean chemistry you dumb fuck. More CO2 means more carbonic acid in ocean water.

>Americanthinker
>Heartland as a source
Oh boy, and here it is, you show your true colors finally.
Do we seriously need to go over this bullshit again?
https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

The same organization that lobbied for Philip Morris in the 1980s to fight claims that cigarette smoking leads to heart disease, lung cancer, etc.

The same organization that is using the exact same tactics that they used in the 1980s to spread propaganda about climate science.

The same organization that has accepted millions of dollars in donations (before they stopped disclosing) from entities like the Southern Company, Exxonmobil, the Koch Brothers, etc.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute


>>8619347
There were eight seperate committees that investigated your so called "climategate" and found no wrongdoing. Stop beileiving whatever propaganda you read on your shill websites like WUWT, Heartland or Americanthinker.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20100802130220/http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-10899538
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/u-s-scientists-cleared-in-climategate-1.1031242
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Data+without+the+doubts%3A+the+climategate+furore+has+galvanised+the...-a0257556897

Educate yourself dense fuck.

File: Implore.jpg (303KB, 631x758px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 631x758px

>>8619314
>another Australian "climate researcher" was recently indicted for fraud
oh for fuck sake, he's not a climatologist; he's a biogeochemist. and his fraud had nothing to do with his actual research; he was cooking his expense report and pocketing the excess.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/11/scientist-on-great-barrier-reef-research-body-alleged-to-have-fabricated-expenses

your best argument against climatology is that a researcher in a different field overbilled his employer. let that sink in a moment. that is literally the best you're bringing?

File: justsaynotoacid.jpg (20KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x462px

>>8619335
Regardless of fraud charges pending in the courts, pH is actually rising when all the available data is used. There was also some possible purging of data after a FOI request.

In any case, as far as coral bleaching goes who really knows? Because there is no funding to find out, it all goes into the meme now and focuses entirely on the innocent patsy molecule we call CO2. If I had to guess it would be some other factor, perhaps poo in the water from India, some toxic ooze from China? Agricultural runoff? Depletion of fisheries in the region? All we can do is guess as to the real causes but it can't be ocean acidification, perhaps ocean alkalinity? Maybe the meme will have to change it's language like it did with cooling - warming - change and go for ocean pH change?

More importantly, how does one go about getting their fingers into the climate change pie and some of that sweet government funding?

>>8619375
What do you expect from a retarded /pol/-cuck using Heartland as a source?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

>>8619383
>Because there is no funding to find out
How fucking stupid and ignorant are you? Do you think that ocean acidification is not being studied? It's directly linked to CO2 emissions from man by isotopic data of carbon in ocean water, you stupid dumb fuck. NOAA collects plenty of data on ocean acidification, for one example of an entity that most certainly is funding that type of research. Fuck, my undergrad school that studies coastal Louisiana studies acidification of the gulf coast. You are just so willfully ignorant I don't even know why we keep replying to your stupidity. You clearly lack the basic comprehension to educate yourself on these issues.

>on the innocent patsy molecule we call CO2
So innocent, please go lock yourself in a sealed room, get a couple of CO2 tanks, and gas yourself you retarded fuck. It's so innocent, that high ppm CO2 is linked to the two largest mass extinction events in Earth history. Go look earlier in the thread where I presented the evidence of this
>>8615941
>>8615953

The fact that you're still harping on about "MUH INNOCENT CO2! IT DINDU NUFFIN!" with your armchair conjecture, despite all of the evidence and sources presented in this thread that you refuse to read / understand, shows how you're not here for a rational discussion, you're just here to argue, and not change your opinion with new data or evidence, like a scientist does. You're just here to confirm your own biases by ignoring anything that contradicts your cult or dare I say, religion of denial. See how we can turn around your own propaganda on you?

File: Flip the bird.jpg (147KB, 484x453px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 484x453px

>>8619383
>pH is actually rising when all the available data is used
debunked >>8619367, dimwit.

>as far as coral bleaching goes who really knows? Because there is no funding to find out
AMAZINGLY, THERE IS PLENTY OF RESEARCH BEING DONE INTO THE CAUSES OF BLEACHING
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Brown4/publication/216027211_Brown_BECoral_bleaching_causes_and_consequences_Coral_Reefs_16_Suppl_S129-S138/links/56543a9708ae1ef929767c00.pdf
>ftp://www0p.isis.unc.edu/pub/marine/brunoj/Bleaching%20papers%20for%20NCEAS%202/Glynn%201993_coral%20bleaching.pdf
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/C_Mark_Eakin/publication/226700581_Climate_Variability_and_Change_Monitoring_Data_and_Evidence_for_Increased_Coral_Bleaching_Stress/links/0046351a4bda2f2aab000000.pdf
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Lesser/publication/225572918_Oxidative_stress_causes_coral_bleaching_during_exposure_to_elevated_temperatures/links/55eafe0308ae65b6389de08b.pdf
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Fitt/publication/225773557_Coral_bleaching_Interpretation_of_thermal_tolerance_limits_and_thermal_thresholds_in_tropical_corals/links/09e415093db6b86262000000.pdf
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth_Gates2/publication/243765253_Temperature_Stress_Causes_Host_Cell_Detachment_in_Symbiotic_Cnidarians_Implications_for_Coral_Bleaching/links/02e7e5329c6fd22316000000.pdf
>http://www.windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/miliefsky-m/BIOL%20171L/Lab%200%20Intro/review03.pdf

think that's too general? want research on bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef specifically? HERE YA GO
>http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stuart_Kininmonth/publication/227190658_A_comparison_of_the_1998_and_2002_coral_bleaching_events_on_the_Great_Barrier_Reef_Spatial_correlation_patterns_and_predictions/links/0fcfd4fcdba7c39e6e000000.pdf
Your argument is basically "there's no evidence" and then after someone shows you evidence, it's still "there's no evidence".

File: 1484345426215.jpg (124KB, 882x731px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 882x731px

Given the current growth in space tech, how far are we from dumping all of our radioactive wastes on the Moon efficiently?

>>8619405
>NOAA collects plenty of data on ocean acidification
Their data is Tainted with a capital T. Into the trash it goes as their predefined agenda biases anything they touch.

>It's so innocent, that high ppm CO2 is linked to the two largest mass extinction events in Earth history
Your confirmation bias is skewing your world view so completely you are now sure CO2 is linked to every evil in this world.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6135/941
Implies a series of massive volcanic eruptions you twat. Also this argument works more in favor of the "deniers". Volcano tax?
And the other one
>Onset of Antarctic glaciation reflects a critical tipping point for Earth’s climate and provides a framework for investigating the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) during major climatic change
The very premise if framed before even investigating and implies CO2 will be the cause not a correlation. Junk science again because this is where all the funding is going now.

You are obviously far too heavily invested emotionally in the topic to be taken seriously and are incapable of looking at anything related to it with an impartial scientific view.

CO2 dindu nuffin and in fact is critical to life on the planet. We should be raising our CO2 levels if possible.

File: absolutely barbaric.jpg (104KB, 540x638px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 540x638px

okay at this point it's just so retarded it HAS to be a troll.

>>8619464
>Into the trash it goes
>If I don't like the data, I throws it away!
here you see the mind of the denier at work.

>volcanoes caused massive increase in CO2, which led to extinction
>therefore CO2 is only bad if it's released from volcanoes
the source of the CO2 doesn't change whether or not it's bad for the environment. and amazingly enough, human activity emits ~100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

>You are obviously far too heavily invested emotionally in the topic to be taken seriously
nice meme.

>CO2 dindu nuffin and in fact is critical to life on the planet
so is water. I encourage you to inhale a glass of it to demonstrate how harmless these important substances are.

Bottom line of this whole Global Warming Fiasco is wether or not Fossil Fuels should be completely abolish and we should settle with low energy lifestyle for the sake of future generations. GOP may believe in Climate Change, but didn't want to turn down lobbyists (that were funded by fossil fuels industries) that put them into office in the first place.

>>8619464
>Their data is Tainted with a capital T. Into the trash it goes as their predefined agenda biases anything they touch.
Oh boy, here we go again. If the evidence disagrees with what's that, YOUR CONFIRMATION BIAS AGAINST NOAA! then you can discredit it, despite you having ZERO EVIDENCE to base your "tainted data" assumption on. Congratulations at once again proving that you are indeed a massive hypocrite. For you to sit there and whine on about confirmation bias, when you are guilty of the exact same shit (for example, linking to Heartland as a legitimate source, while discrediting NOAA, which actually collects oceanographic / atmospheric data), it's just incredible.


What do volcanoes emit in addition to aerosols that could increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration up to those levels seen at the Permian/Triassic boundary? CO2! Wow what a surprise! It's almost as if volcanism in the past has led to massive spikes of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere which have caused GLOBAL WARMING! So there, you even admit it that global warming is real, and that CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is correlated with the greenhouse effect and a warming average Earth temperature.

>CO2 dindu nuffin and in fact is critical to life on the planet. We should be raising our CO2 levels if possible.
No one ever said that CO2 was non-essential. Not one climate scientist ever has made that claim. How many times do we have to go through this? CO2 is not inherintly bad. CO2 is bad when it is increased by human activity at such a rapid rate, higher than volcanism even, to the point where climate changes are happening so fast, that life, especially our civilization that is based in coastal regions.

>>8619472
I'm honestly astounded at this guy's stupidity, every single time he gets called out he finds a new way to increase his mental gymnastic ability to hop around and obfuscate the point.

>>8619482
In fact, some of the Politicians framed Climate Change Action and Research as "War on Fossil Fuels".

>>8619482
It's entirely possible to simply transition away from fossil fuel use over time, which is what most economist recommend. You cannot just shut down all emissions overnight, no one believes in that fantasy, what we can do is have international governments collaborate, find solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change, invest money into alternative energies like solar, wind and nuclear and transition into those forms of energy for electrical and industrial applications over the next few decades. Investing in public transportation that is carbon-neutral, or investing in new technologies for global shipping will offset the emissions of CO2 over time. It's a very gradual process, as we cannot stop global warming, it's going to occur even if we stop all emissions in the next day. All we can do is just reduce emissions by developing technologies, many of which already exist and are viable like solar and wind, to replace and reduce fossil fuel usage.

The major issue is that the developing world wants the same standard of living that the West has, and fossil fuels are the cheapest and easiest way to attain those standards, which is why countries like China just build thousands upon thousands of coal-fired power plants. Even China is beginning to transition away from this practice however, they are investing heavily into solar, and they have the REEs to support that industry.

>>8619514
The problem with said transition is that the Fossil Fuel Industry pretty much wanted to last forever, and they'll do anything they can to make it so; hell, Trump's entire cabinet on energy and environment could be seen as a ditch effort to negate said transition.

Coal-Burning Plant in India is Turning Carbon Dioxide Into Baking Soda

The Tuticorin zero-emission factory is a coal-fueled power plant that has invented a revolutionary system to trap the CO2 emissions from the coal boiler and turn them into soda ash - which can be used to make baking soda and a variety of other compounds with many uses, including detergents and sweeteners.

The factory states that the process has reduced its carbon emissions to virtually zero and on top of that, the production of baking soda prevents an estimated 60,000 tons of CO2 emissions from entering the world's atmosphere each year. Not only is this technique an incredible scientific discovery, it is a revolutionary economic tactic as well.

The Tuticorin factory will be the first factory to make CO2 emission reductions profitable. Ramachadran Gopalan, the factory's owner, told the BBC, "I am a businessman. I never thought about saving the planet. I needed a reliable stream of CO2, and this was the best way of getting it."

Carbon Credits - there is huge money riding on this

Create greenhouse gases and then capture or destroy them, for no reason other than to generate carbon credits. For example, a French chemical company manufacturing adipic acid used in the making of nylon, found a way several years ago to make hundreds of millions of dollars from carbon credits. It did this not by lowering its emissions, but by destroying a byproduct of the manufacturing process -- nitrous oxide (laughing gas) -- a potent greenhouse gas.

In fact, destroying nitrous oxide at two outdated plants in South Korea and Brazil became the company's most profitable international business, generating revenues far beyond what it earned for producing adipic acid for nylon. While the carbon credits thus generated represented no actual reduction in emissions, this scheme, incredibly, was legal under international carbon trading rules.

>>8619638
What about Gasoline, which powers planes, ships, construction machines, automobiles, military vehicles, and space crafts?

File: smug Gabe.jpg (8KB, 244x244px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 244x244px

>>8619638
you know you're near rock bottom when you're plagiarizing fucking Lorrie Goldstein

>>8619623
what the fuck are we going to do with all that baking soda? A typical coal plant generates 3.5 MEGATONS of co2 per year.

Clean coal is more expensive than nuclear power.

>>8619758
And unregulated dirty cheap coal is the cheapest energy source there is.

File: TIM10.jpg (19KB, 464x464px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 464x464px

>>8618479
That's not how it works. Learn from the Common Core Climate Practice Model:
You can fit the data from ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt to the quadratic function

cco2/ppm = 0.0134*t^2 + 0.5202*t + 310.44 (t years since 1950)

t = 65 --> 400.86 ppm (2015)
t = 150 --> 690 ppm (2100)
dcco2/dt = 0.0268*t + 0.5202
t = 65 --> 2.26 ppm/a (2015)
t = 150 --> 4.54 ppm/a (2100)

∆T/K = k*ln(cco2_1/cco2_0)

Assuming all warming is attributable to CO2:
k = 0.8/ln(400/280) = 2.24 K (∆T 0.8 K from 1850 to 2015)
∆T = 2.24*ln(690/400) = 1.22 K (2015 to 2100)

2°C goal achieved.

>>8619826
Doesnt change the fact that it would be welll over 1000 years before any sort of significant climate change occurred as the result of CO2 production at the current rate.

>>8619840
We are witnessing significant changes right now you dolt. Look at the rate of sea ice decline. Look at the rates of melting of ice in Greenland. Look at the increasingly warm arctic temperatures every single year. Look at coral bleaching, ocean acidification, SLR in vulnerable coastal areas. Research record high droughts due to climate shifts, glacier retreat globally, how seasonal event timings have already started to change in many flowering plants, global increases in extreme weather conditions due to warmer air and water. Research the increasing heat content of the Earth's oceans. Do I need to go on? These are just a few of the present events we are witnessing that have been attributed to climate change. As the changes accelerate over the next century, all of these issues will be exacerbated, especially SLR in vulnerable coastal regions. Small increases in SLR mean stronger tides, which erode away coastal wetlands and beaches in vulnerable regions.

Also, 1000 years? Think 100, the next century. SLR could be up to 8ft by the end of the 21st century in the worst case scenario, with the bare minimum estimate of 1ft which still has many ramifications on already vulnerable regions like Boston, Miami, NYC, etc.
http://news.rutgers.edu/news/regional-sea-level-scenarios-will-help-northeast-plan-faster-global-rise/20170118#.WIDFIlMrK70
>The report provides a range of possible scenarios, from at least 1 foot of global sea-level rise by 2100 to a worst-case rise that’s 1.6 feet higher than a scenario in a key 2012 study that the report updates. The report also provides four additional global average sea-level rise scenarios through 2100: intermediate-low (1.6 feet); intermediate (3.3 feet); intermediate-high (4.9 feet); and high (6.6 feet).

Just a few feet of SLR will have wide-ranging economic implications and could cost trillions in mitigation.

Miami is a case study of the effects of SLR on vulnerable regions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JbzypWJk64

File: 33d.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>8614482
Maybe climate change ending our pathetic species is a good thing.

File: 1484904272760.png (371KB, 710x478px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 710x478px

Honestly I can't understand the "denier" stance here.
I was totally ignorant of the issue a couple of months ago and couldn't tell what I should believe between the various datas shouted at me from the two sides, so I just ignored it altogether ot knowing what to think of it.
Until one day I said "Fuck it" and decided to educate myself a bit on the subject. It took like a week to see the glaring flaws in the climate change deniers methods and datas. How hard can it be to understand that because you disagree with the politics put in place doesn't mean the science it's based on is flawed. If you disagree with taxes on principle, as I do, then try to find a way to adress the issue better instead of bitching and moaning about a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people that deleted all traces of actual fabrication of data. You are an anonymous poster on an imageboard, now is the time to admit that perhaps you don't know everything.

hi sockpuppet

>>8620037
found the n00b

>>8620037
hi person that just came here to shitpost and didn't actually bother to read the thread.

File: 01 Massive Tampering.jpg (101KB, 723x520px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 723x520px

>>8617966
>>8617881
>>Unlike you, I don't deal in speculation
>All you do is speculate and present conjecture. You truly are a massive, dishonest hypocrite.
Projection much?

>CO2 most certainly is responsible for the current warming. It is not linked to volcanism, it is not linked to solar activity, so I ask you, what else is it linked to?
Now you're just making shit up. The fact that temperatures always go up BEFORE CO2 goes up, shows how full of crap you are. As does their rate changes: >>8617897

>We can perform experiments to understand the forcings of CO2 in atmospheric warming, we KNOW that it is responsible for the current trend, this is not pseudoscience.
Really? Do you have a copy of the Earth inside a laboratory? Of course not. Once again, you're just making shit up.

>We monitor solar activity, we put the data into the context of the 11-year solar cycle, as well as the overall TSI over geological time.
> We tampered the data so it no longer correlates to solar activityftfy
Pic related. Massive tampering.
ftfy.

File: 02 Total-Solar-Irradiance-1700-2013-Yndestad-and-Solheim-17.jpg (90KB, 708x573px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 708x573px

>>8620471
>>8617966
>>8617881
Now look at solar activity as documented in Yndestad, Harald, and Jan-Erik Solheim. "The influence of solar system oscillation on the variability of the total solar irradiance." New Astronomy 51 (2017): 135-152.
Pic related. It fits quite nicely with untampered data.
So what's your argument?
"Tampered data doesn't fit TSI, so Climate Change is TRUE!!"
Man that's pathetic.

File: 03 - Hansen 1981.png (120KB, 689x628px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 689x628px

>>8620476
>>8617966
>>8617881
And what's this?
>Hansen never once admitted that there was no evidence of CO2 warming you fucking liar. He is saying that AT THE TIME in the fucking 1980s when that research was undertaken, he could not find evidence of CO2 being linked to temperature changes in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, just one part of the Earth, not the system as a whole which even then they were measuring WARMING.

'Cause there was so much warming in the Earth as a whole between 1940 and 1970, huh? Pic related. The entire graphic from Hansen 1981. Look at the bottom graph, the graph of GLOBAL temperatures. Untampered data showing the temperature history of the entire earth during that period. Yup, global cooling.

>>8620480

>>8617993
>>>8617881
>You also completely misunderstand the purpose of the 1980 Hansen paper. You pick one quote OUT OF CONTEXT within the paper itself:
>>The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970 (9), a time of rapid CO2 buildup. In addition, recent claims that climate models overestimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude (10, 11) have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood.
>>We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.
>Look what we have here, this is again, a paper from the 1980s on global warming, and what are they talking about? RADIATIVE PERTURBATIONS (forcings) of different aspects of the atmosphere, NOT JUST CO2.

Christ you're ignorant. First of all, 6/7 of heat transfer in the atmosphere is NOT radiative. Its convective.
Second of all. They're dabbling in unfalsifiability. They want us to believe that a very weak greenhouse gas with a logarithmic temperature response, is going to doom the planet. But there was no warming from 1940 to 1970 despite a massive increase in CO2. So they speculate that aerosols prevented it, instead, of , gosh, just maybe it's a crappy theory. After all CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.

>>8620480
>>8618047
>>>8617993
>>A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940. The common misconception that the world is cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970.

His own graph shows that the earth is cooling! See previous. But you're deliberately misinterpreting here. He's saying that in the long run (since the end of the ice age) the earth is warming. Something almost no one disputes.

>>The common misconception that the world is cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970
>>MISCONCEPTION THAT THE WORLD IS COOLING IS BASED ON NORTHERN HEMISPHERE EXPERIENCE TOP 1970

Idiot. His own graph shows global cooling for about 25 years from 1940. Again, look at the previous post. >>8620480

File: 04 Hubert Lamb Global Cooling.png (501KB, 703x588px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 703x588px

>>8617879
>>8617881
>Hansen speculates at the end of the paper that the lack of observed CO2 driven warming is due to aerosols.
>literally a lie.
>Volcanic aerosol radiative forcing can be obtained from Lamb's (27) dust veil index (DVI), which is based mainly on atmospheric transmission measurements after 1880. We convert DVI to optical depth by taking Mount Agung (DVI = 800) to have the maximum AT = 0.12. The aerosol optical depth histories of Mitchell (47) and Pollack et al. (29), the latter based solely on transmission measurements, are similar to Lamb's. We use aerosol microphysical properties from (45).

More stupidity. No one said that Lamb (or Hansen) couldn't calculate the influence of aersols; GIVEN KNOWLEDGE OF THE TIME DEPENDENCE, ATMOSPHERIC LOCATION, AND CONCENTRATION OF THE AERSOLS. (the latter knowledge is mostly speculative.) It is the latter that Hansen assumes in a rather ad hoc fashion.
(BTW, Lamb, who is generally believed to be the best climatologist of the 20th century, was a believer in global cooling. See, e.g., Lamb, H.H. 1966, The Geographical Journal, 132(2), 183-212. Pic related.)

>The general agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends strongly suggests that CO2 and volcanic aerosols are responsible for much of the global temperature variation in the past century.
>The general agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends
Wow! A climate "scientist" does an appeal to popularity. Nice ad populum argument.

Gosh, with so many "forcing" variables to play with, it would be a shock if Hansen couldn't get the answer he wanted.

File: trophy.jpg (21KB, 300x381px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x381px

>>8620471
>>8620476
I'm going to leave aside the massive and unsupported allegations of tampering and cut to the meat of your claim.
according to you, fluctuations in solar activity are the primary driver of warming and cooling. as evidence for this, you claim that old temperature reconstructions (without adjustments for known measurement biases, or as you prefer, """untampered""") fit nicely with solar activity trends.
>>8620471 shows a temperature peak at 1939, followed by a steady decline until 1970
>>8620476 shows a solar irradiance peak at 1948, followed by a steady decline until 1965
IF TSI controls global temperature, how is it that the earth started cooling a whole decade before TSI dropped? And how did the Earth continue to cool for five whole years even while TSI climbed and climbed? Can you explain that?
See, this is why simply looking at graphs isn't enough. One must actually READ graphs.

>>8620480
>100-year warming trend
>broken up by two decades of cooling with a 5-year spike of warming in the middle
>zOMG GLOBAL COOLING
again, it's important to know how to read graphs

>>8620486
>He's saying that in the long run (since the end of the ice age) the earth is warming. Something almost no one disputes.
No, he's saying that in the medium term (scale of decades to centuries) the earth is warming. You're thinking of scales from tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

>>8620490
>CONCENTRATION OF THE AERSOLS. (the latter knowledge is mostly speculative.)
...are you aware that they directly measured aerosol effects on atmospheric opacity? I mean, it says so right in there.

File: δ13C.png (69KB, 1119x653px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1119x653px

>>8620471
>Now you're just making shit up.
No.

That the current warming is driven by greenhouse gasses can be shown from studying outgoing radiation:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

And that the increase in CO2 is from organic sources (ie: not volcanoes) can be shown from measurements of the C13/C12 ratio
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co2c13/flask/surface/co2c13_mlo_surface-flask_1_sil_month.txt

>>8620471
>>8620476
>>8620480
tamperfag pls

Why is this guy so obsessed with some Hansen article from 1981? Does he think that no new information on climate change has been collected since that time or something?

Funstralia's had it's hottest year every for like the 5th year in a row.
I hope those soulless Chinese keep on expanding their solar panel production, they're our only hope now.

>>8621241
this is just as the Australia's Emu Overlords want.

File: DOOT.png (616KB, 632x738px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 632x738px

>>8620897
he unironically thinks that all data since then has been faked. he knows this to be true because he's too ignorant to know how correcting for measurement bias works, and too dogmatic to consider finding out.

>>8621471
>he's too ignorant to know how correcting for measurement bias works
Once you start "correcting for measurement bias", you're reasoning from your presumptions, not from your data. That's an unlimited license to fudge. An honest scientist who knows the old readings are inaccurate discards them.

It's like how they track temperatures back into the past using proxies, but then stop using proxies and patch direct measurement onto the end as if they're the same thing, because continuing to use the proxies doesn't show warming. Why trust the proxies in the past, but not the present? Ultimately, you're just assuming there's warming and cherrypicking to manufacture confirmation.

>>8621491
>Ultimately, you're just assuming there's warming and cherrypicking to manufacture confirmation.
Do you have no sense of irony? At this point you have become a parody.

File: clouds_solar_irradiance_cosmic_rays.jpg (21KB, 460x319px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 460x319px

>>8620476
Got the article, thanks.

"The deterministic models of SN and TSI variability computes a new Dalton-type sunspot minimum from 2025 to 2050 and a new Dalton-period-type TSI minimum from approximately 2040 to 2065."

This is one of many such studies that come to similar conclusions from a different approach and are largely ignored by the climate establishment because the sun is not man-made. I wouldn't expect an immediate correlation to observed temperatures though. The image shows the why and the how in a nutshell.

>>8621491
>Once you start "correcting for measurement bias", you're reasoning from your presumptions, not from your data.
No, corrections are based on known cases of various measurement biases which are widespread. There was this project called Berkeley Earth that tested whether these corrections are accurate via independent data and analysis. "Skeptics" heralded this project as unbiased and rigorous, yet many turned against it once it came to the conclusion that they did not like, which is that you get the same warming trend regardless of corrections.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

>An honest scientist who knows the old readings are inaccurate discards them.
Why discard them when you can correct them and we know the corrections are legitimate? Why would you wallow in ignorance?

>It's like how they track temperatures back into the past using proxies, but then stop using proxies and patch direct measurement onto the end as if they're the same thing, because continuing to use the proxies doesn't show warming.
Please stop making shit up, you've been caught several times in this thread already. The reason many proxy reconstructions end before modern times is because most proxies don't span through that time. If the reconstruction doesn't have enough data, then you can't reconstruct over that time period with the same accuracy as the rest of the reconstruction. And there is nothing wrong with adding the instrumental record as another "proxy."

It's warming significantly, humans are responsible, get over it already.

>>8621501
Largely ignored? Are you in the field, or do you have anything to back up what you're saying? Another intellectually dishonest shitposter on /sci/, what a surprise.

Get ready retard, you're about to get blown the fuck out with actual evidence:


http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367
>The solar input waveform over the past 100 years is defined using observed and inferred galactic cosmic ray fluxes, valid for either a direct effect of cosmic rays on climate or an effect via their known correlation with total solar irradiance (TSI), or for a combination of the two. The implications, and the relative merits, of the various TSI composite data series are discussed and independent tests reveal that the PMOD composite used in our previous paper is the most realistic.
>Use of the ACRIM composite, which shows a rise in TSI over recent decades, is shown to be inconsistent with most published evidence for solar influences on pre-industrial climate. The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.

But wait, I thought that atmospheric scientists didn't take into account solar forcings? Oh but wait, it's "tampered" or "faked" because it doesn't confirm your biases. You're really a true "skeptic," right? Refusing to change your views when new evidence is presented, as we all know that's how science truly advances, we just never change our minds when new findings are discovered.

File: F1.large.jpg (194KB, 1280x1106px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1280x1106px

>>8621501
There is no trend correlated between GCR flux and the warming trend:
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html

But this is just a scientific article, what does the literature say about GCR and climate change?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253

>we present an analysis based on convergent cross mapping, which uses observational time series data to directly examine the causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature. Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend.
>we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/4905/2006/acp-6-4905-2006.pdf

> Our analysis indicates that the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response in aerosol production and cloud cover via the second indirect aerosol effect that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover

>We estimate that the variation in radiative forcing resulting from a response of clouds to the change in galactic cosmic ray ionization and subsequent aerosol production over the decadal solar cycle is smaller than the concurrent variation of total solar irradiance.

If you want to learn about the role of the Sun on Earth's climate, aerosols in the atmosphere, etc. Don't trust some uninformed shitposter on /sci/, go to the source, examine the evidence in the literature, you know, like a good scientist would, not someone looking for confirmation bias.

File: Cookie head.jpg (50KB, 580x724px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 580x724px

>>8621491
>Once you start "correcting for measurement bias", you're reasoning from your presumptions, not from your data.
I hope you're sitting down: IT'S POSSIBLE TO QUANTIFY BIAS THROUGH DIRECT MEASUREMENT
>An honest scientist who knows the old readings are inaccurate discards them.
and yet in >>8619314 you accused Richard Feely of fraud...ENTIRELY BASED on him not including old readings that are known to be inaccurate.
can you explain why you've taken two diametrically opposite positions on this issue?

>>8621501
>I've never heard of this highly technical work
>therefore the lamestream scientific establishment is ignoring it
...you do know that solar activity has been declining since ~1950, right? and we've continued to see dramatic warming despite that?

File: ngeo1327-f3.jpg (95KB, 946x671px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 946x671px

>>8621501
I mean honestly, at this point this is just sad. It is so easy to read and study scientific papers on climate change. Climate scientists have actually moved more and more towards being incredibly open with their data and evidence, as climate change has become such a large issue worldwide.

>Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

>Despite abundant observational evidence for changes in the energy balance over the past decades1, 2, 3, the formal detection of climate warming and its attribution to human influence has so far relied mostly on the difference between spatio-temporal warming patterns of natural and anthropogenic origin4, 5, 6. Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming.
>we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming.

>The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it.

Essentially, they concluded in this paper that, once again, TSI and GCR are not responsible for the warming trend, with a very high degree of certainty (95%).

Once again, I say educate yourself so that you don't look so goddamn ignorant.

File: 1483926593589.jpg (213KB, 1101x980px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1101x980px

>>8614295
...which the superior Europeans have been pointing out to the backward usa, the primary cause of the global problem, for over 30yrs.

File: 1479845585364 - best.jpg (60KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x450px

>>8620490
>If that's true, why are these c. 1970 climate models so inaccurate? Checkmate globalists!

>>8615615
I never understood this mentality. Does your life suck that badly that you feel your whole species needs to die out?

>>8615828
underrated

File: OB-RJ047_0112al_H_20120112144216[1].jpg (305KB, 659x439px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 659x439px

>>8614295
meanwhile on earth...

File: 20170107_puglia_southern_italy.jpg (61KB, 520x511px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 520x511px

..meanwhile in Italy

>>8621790
>>8621869
Oh look, the age old "It's cold in winter and it snows, therefore no global warming" nonsense once again. Yet when we have record hot summers, or record high sea ice loss, or record high arctic temperatures, do you guys say anything at all?

Do you think that global warming is instantaneous? Do you believe that even with severe "worst-case" global warming scenarios, that Earth would never have winters, or it would never snow again?

>>8621878
>please just ignore all the evidence that proves me wrong
Go away schizo freak. I'm tired of plowing snow off of my yard every fucking year.

>>8621790
>>8621869
>>8621901

>set yourself on fire
>put feet in ice bucket
>you are not on burning because your feet are cold

>>8621901
>please just ignore all the evidence that proves me wrong
Nice projecting you have there, this is by the rulebook of climate deniers, ignore the evidence that disagrees with your biases, ignore all scientific literature due to a conspiracy, and retreat back to your denial blogs like WUWT where no one dares question your feelings.

You didn't even understand the point I made. Climate scientists never have once said that yearly snowfall, which occurs due to the position of the Earth in its elliptical orbit (Northern hemisphere receives less solar radiation, southern more due to its orbit around the sun, ever heard of seasonality you moron?) would cease to occur under global warming conditions. It's fucking winter, it's going to snow in some places. You clearly have a severe lack of understanding of the general concepts of global warming and climate change. Educate yourself, actually bother to read through the thread before shitposting.

Global warming refers to the global rise in average temperature worldwide. Climate change refers to the climatic changes that will occur throughout the world due to this rise in average temperature, but the effects do not mean every single climate on Earth will warm. The arctic, specifically the northern hemisphere, is warming at a rate far higher than the rest of the world. Some areas, like Europe for example, may have harsher winters due to glacial meltwater moving into the North atlantic, disrupting thermohaline circulation.

It is a complex problem, there is no simple, grade-school explanation to climate change, you need to actually educate yourself on the topic to understand it.

>>8621926
It's probably not worth putting more than double the amount of effort in than the poster you're replying to did.

>>8621926
How do I calculate the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from x gigatons of anthropogenic carbon emissions?

>>8621926
>>8621916
>I have no evidence but here's some evasive non-sensical shitpost
This is the extent of intellect you can expect from a schizo defending their global warming meme

>>8622073
Try harder

File: Embarrassing.jpg (109KB, 556x494px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 556x494px

>>8622073
>I don't have a counterargument I'm gonna pretend like I don't understand what he just told me
>and then I'll call him some names

>>8622073
Do yourself a favor, and scroll up, read through the thread you dumb fuck. I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

>>8622092
>>8622099
>>8622103

Thanks for proving my point schizo team. Don't forget to take your pills before you go plowing the snow.

>>8622123
>anyone I disagree with is a schizo
if we're gonna do this, consider the following:
how do you know YOU'RE not schizophrenic and we're simply figments of your imagination?

oh also the teal deer of >>8621916 >>8621926 is that it being cold in one area doesn't mean that the planet as a whole isn't getting warmer.
but you already knew that, you're just pretending not to understand because unhinged yammering sounds cooler than admitting you're wrong. :^)

>>8622123
As you guys would parrot on your echo chamber, NOT. AN. ARGUMENT!

Does little baby need to be spoonfed?

Here's some early scientific papers of importance on climate change:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

IPCC AR5:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

Radiative forcings / climate sensitivity:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/fig_tab/nclimate2876_F1.html
https://skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html

More to your point about snowfall:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

Learn about how climate change effects the jet stream, and how that allows cold, arctic air to move south, creating increased snowfall and colder temperatures.

Or, you could have you know, scrolled up and READ THE THREAD child. Now go back to your room, the adults are having a discussion here.

>>8622146
>them tears
ssshhh...only dreams now

>>8622147
>too much snowfall is global warming
>too little snowfall is global warming

You should have told us earlier that you were just being satirical.

>>8622163
>I didn't read anything you linked, I have no rebuttal so I need to go back to ad hom because I literally have no argument.
>I'm just going to continue parroting things I overheard on /pol/ rather than form my own argument, or actually examine the evidence myself, that would be too hard for a brainlet like myself

Leave the thread if you're not capable of having an intelligent discussion.

>>8622163
The point is that climate change is another excuse for the government to impose more regulations to further control business; It's the same liberal nonsense that brought un the EPA, the FCC, and other socialist shit. It's a socialist plot to use the pleasants to bring them to power and destroy our heritage. ClimateGate is as real as Gamergate and PizzaGate!

>>8622170
>I'll just repost my cherrypicked non-approved garbage and call people /pol/
This level of cancerous shitposting is why nobody on /sci/ takes you seriously.

>>8614295
Carbon taxation shilling thread on a science board again ?

>>8622182
Scientific literature is cherrypicked? Evidence, the entire basis for the scientific process is now considered "cherrypicked" if it doesn't confirm your bias? Why are you on /sci/ if you don't even understand the basics of science or the scientific process?

What other scientific ideas based on data and evidence do you deny?

>>8622193
>Can't figure out the concept of cherrypicking
This is just embarrassing...and it's a shame you're trying to infect science with your politics ridden scam.
When will you learn that people just don't buy your bullshit?

>>8622182
>Actually makes informed post with sources to scientific literature, in response to a clear shitposter who is just here to argue, despite there being no hope that this "cancerous" shitposter replies in a rational and reasonable manner.
>Cancerous /pol/ shitposter does exactly as expected, can't think outside of his echo chamber rationality

I don't know what I expected. Should just stop feeding you since you clearly have no intention of actually being a skeptic about your own biases.

>>8622202
Not an argument. Not once in this thread have you come close to presenting a single coherent thought besides conjecture and a massive amount of butthurt. Why are you so upset?

>>8622206
I'm glad you're not trying to hide the fact that you're just here to shitpost anymore. Can you please take your awfully obvious politics ridden scam back to >>>/pol/ please. This is a science board, not your shilling blog.

>>8622212
Man you are projecting so much, it honestly hurts. If you are seriously this delusional, you might actually be a schizophrenic as you accused others.

I've actually made dozens of actually informed posts in this thread, such as
>>8621555
>>8621540
>>8621525
For example.

It's so ironic how you claim I'm shitposting despite me being one of maybe 2 people in this thread actually linking to and discussing the scientific evidence / literature behind climate change. You have contributed nothing to this thread but literal shitposts. How can you not see the irony?

>>8622193
Because your entire research team is funde by jews. So fuck your hippie propaganda.

In fact, fuck your climate change bullshit along with your rape culture, wage gap, racial bias, and other socialist views. Now that Trump in charge, the purge will finally begin! All of you goddamned degenerates will be wiped out of the face of the earth!

>>8622221
Sorry your meme of a research full of confirmation bias didn't stick. Too bad it's not enough to make anybody pay anything :(

Better luck next time scamming people.