>he still believes in climate change https://youtu.be/WCU6bzRypZ4

>>8626203
Oh shit, everyone stand back he's got a YouTube video.

File: 1476821399126.jpg (135KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x720px

>>8626208
That's not an argument.

>>8626213
>Everything must be constructive

It wasn't meant to be an argument, just a dismissive comment.

how desperate is he for attention ? His shit arguments have been debunked again and again
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf

>>8626218
Still not an argument.
>>8626219
Fake news.

Doesn't matter, no one would ever do what's necessary to actually stop it the same way there's still world hunger and we still work a lot when technology advanced. Might as well go bareback-no-lube balls deep instead.

>>8626224
yup, I'm sure an article written by a guy with a PHD in climatology is less trustworthy than a bald fuck interviewing a guy that studies an unrelated field.

File: American-psycho-bateman-1-.jpg (216KB, 590x322px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 590x322px

>>8626213
> Molyneux
> Leaf who tells his own family to fuck off
Opinion discarded

>>8626230
>(((a guy with a PhD in climatology)))
>>8626234
Not an argument.

>>8626240
>a bald fuck that built his "fame" on attention-whoring contrarian vlogs
>a random physicist

File: haha.jpg (27KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x375px

>>8626203

I've never one of these climate sceptics take the IPCC reports and debunk them with actual arguments

>>8626203
>retarded from /pol/
>also baneposts
Why am I not surprised about this

>>8626272
>actual arguments
This man is Mr. Actual Arguments, libcuck.
>>8626281
There is literally nothing wrong with Baneposting.

>>8626282
>There is literally nothing wrong with Baneposting.
Not an argument

>>8626203
>he still believes memeneux

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M

>>8626213
Pretty sure anon was trying to meme, not argue.

Pretty sure OP is trying to meme too.

Overall, nothing out of the ordinary for 4chan, carry on

Climate change is absolutely fake you retards!, I've read TONS of shitposts and watched countless youtube videos made by the most edgy people who can tell me that it is fake without even needing to get a PhD(a meme) in climatology, Can't you see it? It's an ABSOLUTE FUCKING MEME made by the jews to steal the money you spend on funding it, I don't even need to waste my time looking at graphs and reading a thousands of papers and proofs about it because i know they are all fake!, I know this because i visited the most TRUSTWORTHY magicians sites on the dark web and they told me it's fake, it's a more than enough proof to debunk a shitty meme like this!, and even if i did not, I would still know that it is fake because i pray to god and jesus every night and know in my heart that god would never do such a thing to humanity, our emperor trump will save us from those satanists scientist with their "climate change" memes, ALL HEIL OUR LORD AND SAVOIR EMPEROR TRUMP!.

>>8626325
You know I was on the fence and this convinced me it's a meme. You made everyone here look like a stupid science bitch.

>>8626203
>states his disapproval of climate change
>posts a video about disproving global warming
this is why pop. science is a bad thing

>>8626203
>director of CO2 Coalition

Welp that was easy to call bullshit on.

>>8626325

No pussy ? Grasping on straws, I see.

>>8626213
It is. There are serious arguments for gloabl warming, go against them with a serious argument as well - not a youtube video.

>>8626240
Your whole system of truth is based on the axiom that (((((((((they)))))))) are try to trick us. You haven't proved this axiom.

What's a keeling curve?

I mean assuming it's the Jews/the Chinese/the Banks who are pushing it, it's not internally consistent.

The "elite" owns a lot of actions in the farming, oil, and other very polluting industries. These industries are extremely valuable, cost very few, and have little to no research costs (one of the biggest factors in technology.)

On the contrary, organic farming, renewable energies, and other stuff like that, cost a ton in research, infrastructure, and raw manpower (it takes a lot more people to run an organic farm than an automated one. Likewise, renewable energy plants are usually pretty small and thus require more people than just a big coal plant, which is easier to move to Mexico or China).

So the "elites", who are supposedly hiding the truth, are hurting themselves in the foot by supporting a system that doesn't benefit them at all.

So either :
1) The Elites are stupid, which is not possible since they have such an elaborate conspiracy
2) The Elites are acting against their interests, while trying to trick us, which is contradictory
3) Adopting renewable energies will cause a much bigger benefice for the elites - which is not really an argument by itself, since it can be seen that it also benefit us
4) The Elites are actually on the side of big coal and you are being memed into believing climate change isn't real.

>>8626902

Here's answer 5) Stefan Molyneux is a retard with no scientific integrity trying to sponge money out of /pol/tards.

>>8626240
>>8626224
>>8626282

>if anyone presents an argument i will attack the source
>if i don't understand the point being made or disagree with it, i will simply claim it is not actually a point

cool man, great discussion tactics, going to lead to a great thread

File: images (2).jpg (41KB, 480x275px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x275px

Pathetic. I can't believe people fall for the science denial meme

File: unnamed.png (49KB, 449x327px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 449x327px

>>8626282
>libcuck
Yep. Your science denial comes from political ideology brainwashing, pretty lame.

>>8626902
>organic farming, renewable energies, and other stuff like that, cost a ton in research, infrastructure, and raw manpower

Literally bullshit. It's "back to trees" and "before was better", appealing to la-la-land.

>>8626286
>Not an argument
Yes it is

File: images.png (21KB, 463x318px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 463x318px

>somehow climate change cases rise exponentially with industrial revolution
>no relation at all, just a coincidence
>carbon dioxide is thrown daily into the atmosphere
>the rise in carbon dioxide is not caused by humans
>rises in temperature coincide with widely known atmospherical reactions caused by increase in CO2 levels wich can be tested and observed in volcanic areas
>its not caused by the CO2 because cucks SJW blah blah blah

Sometimes it's cold sometimes it's hot. It's called the weather. Scientists are just searching for cause and effect correlations that are not even there.

>>8627283
Climate ''science'' is more or less pseudoscience that researchers research because it's easy as fuck to get sponsored by the EU for doing it. Then you just make some conclusions on a bunch of data you gathered and tone it to however the one reading your research wants it.

>>8626240

> hahaha what a loser, bringing facts and data to a science argument!
> everyone knows memes are the only way to win!

File: images (1).png (12KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 290x174px

How can alt-righters be so dumb and deceptive? Doesn't givong up on science and logic because of ideology offend your inteligence?

File: images (2).png (9KB, 267x189px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 267x189px

>>8627306
>Climate ''science'' is more or less pseudoscience
Is science denialism the real science? Who told you that? Someone strongly motivated by ideology? Literally sold your mind to the alt right.

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

173KB, 657x594px

>>8627287
>Your data tampering denial comes from political ideology brainwashing
ftfy

File: images (3).png (15KB, 261x193px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 261x193px

>>8627333
What do you want to convey with the graphs you post? Small variations on a graph do not imply there is not a crescent pattern, are you litteraly retarded? Graphs like these deal with discrete mathemathics, it will never be a smooth curve.
>>8627306
There is the scientific hypothesis and theory already. Observable chemical and physical reactions that can be reproduced in laboratory and pbserved in volcanic regions. Fenomena studied by geologists for centuries.

File: images (3).jpg (25KB, 346x425px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 346x425px

Literally a simple chemical reaction. How can someone be so retarded I wonder

>>8627345
>Large variations on a graph imply disingenuous scientists
ftfy

>>8627317
>>8627329
>>8627333
>>8627345

Shit-o-grapher went full diarrhea, paper-roll finished. H.E.L.P.

File: 180 Years of Atomosphere CO2 Analysis2.png (89KB, 960x535px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x535px

>>8627345
> Large spikes at the end of smooth graphs reveal statistical incompetence from mixing different data types
Graph: CO2 from 1812 on. Same sampling type.
Source: Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

File: zPCEL9Q.png (56KB, 868x658px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 868x658px

>>8627363
Yeah boi who even argues with evidence nowadays hahaha you got'em boi dank memes lol

>>8626919
/pol/ rejected molyjew back in early 2016, the guy is a cultist cuck who fucked up his brothers business through sheer laziness. He now spends his time bitching about the NAP and mommy issues in front of a blog camera with psuedo intellectuals

File: boredpooh.png (104KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 320x287px

Why does /pol/ come here?

File: images (4).jpg (32KB, 287x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 287x512px

Not even trying.

>>8627352
Bad experiment
http://emerald.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf

>>8627377
/pol/ comes everywhere.
Look >>>/vg/166514992

>>8626203
Liberals are not capable of thinking for themselves and take all fake news at face value. They're very well propagandized.

>>8627377
Because trump pays them to.

File: IMG_20170120_204851.jpg (29KB, 472x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 472x400px

>>8627379
>Our results apply only to the interpretation of classroom-
scale demonstrations; they do not call into question the ef-
fects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the Earth’s cli-
mate or existing models of those phenomena.

>>8626224
>Fake news.
That's not an argument.

/pol/ won!
Sage and abandon this thread now. It's not possible to argue with a /pol/cuck. They're like cockroaches.

sage and reported go back where you belong this board is recommended for 18+

>>8627345
>let's just ignore the CO2 concentrations that have NEVER BEEN SEEN ON THIS PLANET FOR THE LAST 400 THOUSAND YEARS. EVERYING IS FINE

>>8627395
Say it again, but squealin'like'a pig

File: 1450704174863.png (264KB, 509x508px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 509x508px

Kek at the the triggered libcucks in this thread. Climate change isn't real, faggots. I can't wait for the god emporer to cut off funding for your jew science shit. Maybe then you'll have to get a real job.

>>8626325
has good pasta potential

>>8627415
>if someone thinks /pol/yps are retarded they are a liberal
Brilliant logic there.

>>8627415
You've gone full retard
>jew
>our lord
>libtard
Have more respect for yourself. Please go to where you belong, this board is recpmmended for 18+

>>8627426
>>8627420
>>8627418
>not saging
>replying to stormfags

>>8627372
>Energy & Environment
lel
but yeah, all that graph proves is that people in 1812 couldn't measure CO2 concentrations for shit.
that's literally how he got his data for the 19th century, by the way. he went into the literature, found that some guy had measured ambient CO2 concentrations in such and such year, and wrote the published result down as if it were the actual global mean CO2 concentration.

File: sage_sage_sage.jpg (55KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 636x358px

>>8626203

You are good, decent people /pol/s! One day you will grow up big and strong!

>>8627427

Probably not everyone is aware.

>>8627415
>get a real job
b.but holding my terra-cotta mug from etsy with both my hands,
taking small si-sips while liking not-my-preziden fb's IS my real job !

>>8627432
>but yeah, all that graph proves is that people in 1812 couldn't measure CO2 concentrations for shit.

Measurement apparatus has 3% error. More importantly, a temporal resolution of 1 day or less.That ain't much error. Meanwhile you post Ice Core data which has about a 50 year resolution. Deceptive ice core values come from massive temporal smoothing.

Everyone who believes in climate enjoys watching their wife get plowed by Tyrone. Just throwing that out there.

>>8627458
safespace libcuck trump pepe feminism sjw alt right trigger blah blah blah come back when youre 18+

>>8627377
>Why does /pol/ come here?

Naturally curious about a non-meme discipline which achieves real results, meritocracy, and social advancement

Naturally threatened by the same

>>8627458
Not an argument

>>8627458
There is stuff that doesn't need to be discussed and proved over and over for ideological confirmation or reprehension. Ideology is discussed on /pol/.

>>8627475
Cuck.
>>8627477
Stop appropriate our memes you libcuck biggot.
>>8627485
>proved
Your kike proffessors can publish as many papers as they want but it doesn't make it true.

>>8627488
>Your kike proffessors can publish as many papers as they want but it doesn't make it true.
You lost your shit. When confronted with evidence you resort to name calling and racism. Your ideology is more important to you than rationality. /pol/ is a cult and you have been brainwashed. I hope you can escape this before you become an adult

>>8627488
>alt-right retard
>calls someone else a "biggot"
>in the same post he calls somebody a kike
lmao

>>8627495
>muh racism
You're probably a spic, mudslime, or a kike. You have to go back Paco/Achmed/Shlomo.
>>8627496
Libcucks like you don't understand satire.

>>8627477
Yes it is

File: mission complete.jpg (60KB, 400x516px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 400x516px

>>8627463
>Measurement apparatus has 3% error.
such amazing apparatus that they had back in 1812.
oh no wait, they didn't. the Pettenkofer process didn't come into use until 1857 (this is stated in the ABSTRACT), which coincidentally is when measured carbon dioxide levels went back to what we've generally considered the baseline (~290ppm).
so either CO2 levels dropped drastically and nearly instantaneously just as a better and more accurate measurement process came into use...or the old measurements before then aren't actually reliable, like I said.

your own cited paper implicitly rejects your claim in the actual abstract, you dumb /pol/esmoker.

File: A good book.jpg (171KB, 432x585px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 432x585px

>>8627509
>I was just pretending to be retarded

>>8627333
>More data is data tampering
mkay.

>>8627509
>You're probably a spic, mudslime, or a kike
You do that every time. If you don't know how to respond to something you immediatly throw the race card. Try harder, try to think about better responses, get out of the comfort zone. You are exactly like the guy who says your point is invalid because you're a "FUCKING WHITE MALE", can't you see the hypocrisy yourself? This is so lame, it's like you are schyzophrenic or something, you just can't see reality anymore.

File: CNf2kZ3UYAIQx6T.jpg (102KB, 600x785px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x785px

>>8627522
You have to go back.

File: pol crossboarders.png (39KB, 1056x869px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1056x869px

>>8627530
No. YOU have to go back. You are the rapefugees, coming to our board and shitting it up.

>>8627530
I've never even been to the USA try harder

File: enhanced-17159-1423068265-32.jpg (69KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 501x585px

>>8627531
>posting shitty comics
Not an argument.
>>8627532
So you're admitting you're a kike shill, Shlomo?

>>8627538
>kike shill
Not an argument.

File: pol.jpg (41KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x338px

>>8627531

I think /pol/ tards might have tourettes

>>8627530

You are a sad human being, and that cartoon has absolutely nothing to do with science.

He's gone full autistic. If you keep feeding he will keep being more and more autistic ,don't give him approval. Just ignore, sage, report and move on

File: images (5).jpg (21KB, 469x313px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 469x313px

zzzzz...

>>8626240
are you fucking kidding me. when are we going to start sending people like you to the gas chambers? We need to get on with some serious societal purging of the true enemies of state

>>8626219
>any news I don't like is fake
ok bud

File: rex-tillerson.jpg (519KB, 1725x2400px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1725x2400px

>>8626902
happy to see there are people like you in the world, thank you for your intellectual service

File: meow.jpg (47KB, 639x479px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 639x479px

Zzzz...

>>8627554
You're doing a really good job of convincing everyone here.there

>>8626902
Video doesn't exactly propagate "elites' though.
It's refers more to the corrupt methods in which people get money for research.

>>8626203
You're supposed to shitpost on popular boards.

>>8626203
this is very interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahhxk3uZE2g

>>8627426
It's not just recommended, it's the rule. 18+ is site-wide

>>8627283
>>8627305
>>8627317
>climate (((scientists))) in charge of doing statistical analysis

>>8627488
>"not an argument" is a /pol/ meme
now THIS certainly triggers me

Hey budso, you are shitting on the wrong board. >>>/pol/ is that way.

>>8627811
Blow it out your ass!

File: 88707423ec71a999aef77a6fd1c1f1ff.jpg (35KB, 1000x674px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1000x674px

>>8627306
If you need to google this animal, you're out of your depth.

Tell me, how do you think past climate data is collected?

File: 432452.jpg (105KB, 768x512px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 768x512px

>>8627889
the /pol/ locust are everywhere. fuck!!!

>>8627889
could you show me a chart where people have accurately made a prediction on the temperature change?

>>8628875

I would have thought that this thread would have been saged/reported into oblivion, but yet it still gets way more activity than legit threads.

>>8628878
There are financial derivatives that hedge weather. Just think about it, if big banks are betting money into it, there is probably some truth in it.

>>8628883
>doesnt show me a chart
>tells me just believe it lmao
please show me where people have accurately made a prediction on the temperature change and have released it?

>>8628881
If there is too much /pol/ bashing in a thread. /pol/ fags will probably falsely report it. it's been happening on other boards.

>>8626203
Not a day passes that something that the majority of the scientific community has reached a consensus about gets debunked on youtube by some people who don't have academic knowledge of the subject using obscure and misinterpreted data

>>8629225
maybe those 'acadamics' shouldnt put every thing behind a paywall

>>8629227
Maybe you should stop being delusional

>>8629233
this kind of condescension/demeaning is why you lost the election

best of luck finding a new job now that your fake studies have been defunded, maybe you can start making a real contribution to society

>>8629227

It is not the academics. It is business people capitalizing on academics that put the papers behind paywalls.

That is why Aaron Swartz tried to download some papers and then reshare them. But then the government made some trumped up charges and were trying to use him as an example by throwing the book at him. And then he committed suicide instead of spending his youth in prison.

Now there is a site that a lot of duplicate papers are uploaded to. Aaron raised a lot of awareness.

That is capitalism for you though. Being driven by money incentivizes business people to create paywalls.

>>8629248
>>8629248
>It is not the academics.
yet they're not doing anything about it?

>>8629233

You might try to be more polite when commenting on non-spammy posts. Also, this whole thread is kind of garbage, so we should just let this thread die.

>>8629236
>this kind of condescension/demeaning is why you lost the election
>translation: I can be as retarded as I want but you will still be the one to blame

>best of luck finding a new job now that your fake studies have been defunded, maybe you can start making a real contribution to society
>translation: I will continue to be retarded just to spite rational people even though it will damage me far more than them because I am an emotional retard who isn't capable of rational thought

Yes the paywall is retarded and outdated, but there are a shitton of ways to evade that if you just want to read and gather knowledge

>>8629263
>>translation: I will continue to be retarded just to spite rational people even though it will damage me far more than them because I am an emotional retard who isn't capable of rational thought
hypothetically if climate change was real why would it hurt me more than you?

and you call yourself rational? thanks for the laughs

>>8629272
Again completely nitpicking and purposefully misunderstanding to spite others

You people are hopeless retards

>>8629253
They are, actually. Who do you think makes papers available on the many illicit websites you can find them on?

File: pepe4.jpg (50KB, 1106x553px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1106x553px

>>8629279
i repled to your whole post, where exactly was the 'nitpicking' oh great rational being?

>>8629285
russian hackers

>>8629248
>instead of spending his youth in prison
He faced 6 months desu

>>8629290
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
>Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[13] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release.[14]

>>8629253
They will write a paper and then try to submit them to a journal that uses pay walls.

The ones that use paywalls are famous journals that all scientists read. The ones that do not have low visibility.

Most of their careers end if they cannot get published in a famous journal.

Despite the risk/loss, many scientists choose to make their publications open to the public anyway for ethical reasons.

This process is very similar to how music labels work. Brand is a powerful commodity.

>>8629290

I kek'd a bit. Why would he commit suicide if he was facing 6 months? That is silly.

You should watch the documentary. It is really interesting.

File: pepe17.jpg (76KB, 653x590px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 653x590px

>>8629294
>. Brand is a powerful commodity.
so selfishness of the scientists takes precedence over educating the world about the alleged 'world ending' climate change

and you wonder why no one's convinced...

>>8629292
>Swartz declined a plea bargain under which he would have served six months in federal prison.

>>8629305
The papers don't need to be publicly available to educate the world about climate change anon

File: pepe96.png (135KB, 604x493px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 604x493px

>>8629312
>The papers don't need to be publicly available to educate the world about climate change anon
well then what needs to happen? because a large number of people do not believe in it

>>8629289
>i repled to your whole post
kek
Ok sorry I guess I fell for your bait
But there actually are /pol/tards like that

File: pepi4.png (194KB, 1067x930px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1067x930px

>>8629316
>But there actually are /pol/tards like that
not an argument

File: FT_16.02.12_darwinDay_640px.png (32KB, 420x834px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 420x834px

>>8629313
A large number of people are idiots

File: peepee.jpg (58KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x600px

>>8629313
What percentage of the people do you think would understand what the paper was saying
Hell, what percentage would even try to read it

You are only trying to find excuses to make the scientific community look like evil people, where in reality people are just too dumb and almost nothing would change even if all papers were public

>>8629322
>not an argument
not an argument

>>8629305

Sure. I will concede that, but I find it strange that anyone would focus on scientists' "selfishness" rather than the companies who build the paywalls.

Scientists motivations are usually science with the hope of possibly getting recognition for science. Consequently, most of them are not paid a ton of money.

On the other hand, companies monetizing on scientific work are incentivized by pure greed. There is nothing other than money to incentivize them.

I see the companies as being the most corrupt link, but, really, the system is just broken. I see the broken system as a symptom of unchecked capitalism.

But those are all just my opinions from my point of view.

>>8627352
>earth is the same as a plastic bottle
I'm not a global warming denier but your image is retarded.

File: pepe201.jpg (125KB, 475x600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 475x600px

>>8629328
>What percentage of the people do you think would understand what the paper was saying
>Hell, what percentage would even try to read it
>You are only trying to find excuses to make the scientific community look like evil people, where in reality people are just too dumb and almost nothing would change even if all papers were public
not convincing, you sound whackier than the religious fundamentalists

"You are only trying to find excuses to make the religious community look like evil people, where in reality people are just too dumb and almost nothing would change even if God appeared before their eyes"

>>8629332
False equivalency

Also you are drifting from what the other anon said
It is certain that for ordinary people to understand what the recent research say they need it to be digested by other people, so they don't need to read the source, they can't without proper education

If all papers were easily reachable it would provide a transparency and would make stuff less prone to conspiracies, but judging by the nature of conspiracy theorists I would say that they would find some other thing to make the scientific community look bad

>>8628887
serious research on climate change hasn't been around long enough for someone to have made a study that could have predicted temperature increase today over a long enough period

wait maybe another 10-15 years the temperature's increased a few degrees then realise it's real and you'll be flooded by refugees

or ignore the entire scientific community when it suits your ideology that works too if you like

>>8629342
I love this woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q8nA-7GyYo

>>8629349
Are you retarded?

>>8629248
Communist scum like you should be flung from helicopters.

>>8627378
/thread

>>8626203
Explain why comifers in florida are about two months ahead on pollination?
Explain why my spring blooming azaleas ar blooming in January?

File: lämpötilaglobalmean.png (34KB, 1352x622px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1352x622px

>>8627287
Same graph, different scale

>>8626203
FUCK OFF YOU LITTLE RETARD GO BACK TO /POL/ YOU RETARDED CHRISTIAN RIGHT WING EXTREMIST.

>>8627405
400000 years is nothing

>>8629658
Upset? Can't find any scientifial argument? I'm glad that Trump ended this fiasco called climate"science".

File: co2_solubility_h2o.jpg (66KB, 742x555px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 742x555px

REPLY 01252017

>>8627513
>>8627463
>>Measurement apparatus has 3% error.
>such amazing apparatus that they had back in 1812.
>oh no wait, they didn't. the Pettenkofer process didn't come into use until 1857 (this is stated in the ABSTRACT), which coincidentally is when measured carbon dioxide levels went back to what we've generally considered the baseline (~290ppm).

>Hurr, durr, I'll pretend that the 3% error which covers about 135 years can be ignored. That way I can ignore the high CO2 levels of 1940.
Nice bait and switch buddy.

And why didn't you mention this? The errors of earlier measures were 7-10% TOO LOW:
"Regnault, Müntz, Tissander and earlier authors were open systems which lacked efficient control of reaction temperature (see Schuftan 933, [43,]). So their data were less reliable. Most French authors such as Müntz, Tissander and Reiset (Pettenkofer process) used Sulphuric acid for drying air (or releasing CO ) Müntz [28, 29, 30]) before determination of CO2 content. Because of the absorption of a considerable fraction of CO2 in the sulphuric acid, their values are too low (Bunsen absorption coefficient H 2 SO 4 at 25°C = 0,96; H 2 O at 25°C = 0,759; [72]). These systematic errors were known since 1848, Hlasiwetz [73] 1856 and Spring [57] 1885 determined these absorption losses to 7–10% or about 20 ppm." (p. 7, paragraph 2)

>so either CO2 levels dropped drastically and nearly instantaneously just as a better and more accurate measurement process came into use..
The rate of drop off is no larger than at 1820 or 1945. No wonder warmists erased the period of global cooling from 1945 to 1975. After all cooling water is more absorbent to CO2, pic related. (Not to mention that warming water is less absorbent.)

>your own cited paper implicitly rejects your claim in the actual abstract, you dumb /pol/esmoker.
>Did you like my strawman argument?
Not at all stupid /SorosCockIngestor/

>>8629622
Conifers***

>>8629345
>its real
>i just cant show you it despite it having been over 10 years being taken seriously
>over 100 years having been discovered.
your right asking for a accurate chart was just to much for the scientific community.
>science is based on facts and studying and proofs
>oh well just listen to them they dont need to show you accurate stuff!

>>8629760
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

also 10 years is absolutely nothing, the change would be only of about 1C and you'd just disregard it because you don't understand how it works

please, explain where in the reasoning of man made climate change there is a logical error

>>8629760
oh whoops it hasnt been over 10 but instead has been 29 years

Literally everyone here knows climate change is real. Why do you guys keep letting yourselves get trolled

>>8629658
>>8629664

Samefag t b h. Give it a little more than 3 minutes in between posting next time.

t. professional shitposter

>>8629787
No shitting you man, but a decent percentage of /pol/ does not understand our impact on the environment. They attribute the scientists studying it to a Jewish conspiracy. It's gone beyond a meme. Poe's Law.

>>8629794

(((>>8629658
>>8629664 (You))))

You got it all wrong, newfag

>>8629808
Temperature rises few degrees, big deal. I live in safe location, where rising sea level or dryness doesn't reach, so fuck you :)

>>8629889
Refugees will sure love it there too then lmao

>>8629889
At least you admit its real, this post pretty much reveals the actual pettiness behind denying it though

>>8629889
Smh (shaking my head) tbqh (to be quite honest) famalam (senpai means family)

>>8629253
I hear if you email an author expressing interest and asking for the paper most will freely respond with it. The researchers tend to be passionate in their topics and are doing research in the first place to improve global knowledge of a topic.

I've never tried it myself cuz uni gets me any papers I need but it sounds like a reasonable statement to me.

stop feeding into the denialists. they are a small insignificant minority and it's best to just ignore them. the world is moving on towards solving this great problem slowly but surely.

File: Coffee.jpg (23KB, 294x273px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 294x273px

>>8628878
>>8628887
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
enjoy

>>8629327
>Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists smartest
>Christians and Muslims BTFO
>evangelicals and JW on suicide watch

File: NO.jpg (71KB, 474x358px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 474x358px

>>8629672
>Nice bait and switch buddy.
Nice attempt to distract from how you lied about the accuracy of measurement techniques in the early 1800s.
As for the 1940 peak, Beck relies heavily on the work of Kreutz (data from 1939-1941). And unfortunately, Kreutz's data reveal a source of methodological bias. Not only did his readings conflict strongly with contemporary measurements, but there was a robust correlation between CO2 levels and strong western winds, indicating that the observed CO2 anomaly was the result of upwind contamination from some CO2 source.
>http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/kreutz/Kreutz_english.pdf


>The errors of earlier measures were 7-10% TOO LOW:
>uh, so what if the data are unreliable, measured with inaccurate methods?
>I'm gonna use them anyway and just try to correct them using an estimation of how much they're off by
You deniers scream "TAMPERING" whenever climatologists do this (only when we do it, we accurately assess the instrumental error). But apparently this "tampering" is okay when you guys do it.
Also, that 7-10% figure only accounts for instrumental bias, not locational bias. Those old methods used OPEN SYSTEMS, which meant that air samples inevitably mixed with air from the ambient surroundings. So either those guys lugged heavy lab equipment filled with dangerous chemicals out into the boonies...or they just measured air inside their laboratories, which would be heavily enriched in CO2. Which do you think they did?

>The rate of drop off is no larger than at 1820 or 1945.
It looks that way because the figure you posted uses 11-year averaged smoothing, you imbecile. Even an instantaneous drop-off will look like it tapers off for 5-6 years.
confirmed for brainlet: you

>I can't rebut his point
>better accuse him of strawmanning
dude, you put forth a paper claiming to show significantly elevated CO2 in the early 1800s, and I demonstrated that the data you presented were unreliable. what strawman exactly did I beat?

File: Space Jam 2.jpg (32KB, 404x414px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 404x414px

>>8629672
not to mention, CO2 fluctuations of the sort you're claiming actually happened would leave an isotopic signature measurable from tree ring stable-isotope chronological studies. amazingly enough, nothing corresponding to that has been observed.
And of course, there's the issue of where to get all that CO2. It would take a massive influx (I'm talking flood basalts kind of CO2 release) to bump atmospheric concentrations up that quickly, and there's no record of any events that could possibly contribute even a minor fraction of that. Similarly, where did all the CO2 go? The oceans wouldn't have been able to take it all without significant changes in oceanic chemistry. The CO2 pulse you want to believe existed seems to have appeared and vanished without leaving any traces of its coming and going. Perhaps it was never more than an error in measurement?

A few good run-downs of Beck 2007 and its glaring problems:
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/?wpmp_tp=1
>http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

I mean, this sort of dumb shit is why people don't take E&E too seriously.

so what is /sci/'s general consensus on climate change? is it happening? what is the cause?

>find list of top science podcasts
>every single one of them just talks about climate change every fucking day

Are there any non-cucked science podcasts that just talk about math and physics and shit? Even if climate change is real, its boring as fuck.

>>8630828
It's happening and it's probably humans causing it, but every single presented solution involves fucking over the middle class nonstop with a 3 foot duck dildo while the poor and rich get to continue their normal leech lifestyles.

>>8630871
See I don't get this.
If the right-wing was more focused on presenting real arguments for nuclear energy instead of playing the "I wont say I don't believe it because it's bad for PR but I'll do my best to ignore it and let the left have it", we wouldn't have half their voterbase believing it's a conspiracy while a good portion of the left spouts bullshit about GMO and nuclear energy unchallenged

File: 1483349442680.jpg (32KB, 455x455px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 455x455px

>>8630879
Because both sides are bought out to argue the same things with a different slant. Either ignore or argue against the things you're paid to disinfo the fuck out of.
Right wing internet boards are almost universally in agreement about switching to nuclear instead of non-solutions like renewable, you're just never going to see politicians talking about it in a positive light because they don't want to give it any ground to stand on until their overlords give it their okay.

Not to mention, real solutions and real problems aren't worth talking about in the public eye apparently. Everyone just wants to argue about identity politic garbage or post the same bullshit solutions for climate page. And it's always the same thing. "Let's fuck over the middle class, put all the burden on them while the poor and rich keep being leeches". This is why I get bothered every time anyone goes off about climate change, because they have no real solutions. It's always muh carbon credits, muh live like a medieval dirt farmer.
I'm tired as fuck so I don't know if my tirade made any sense/

>>8630897
Carbon taxes make sense becaue that's one thing that's easily feasible (as proved by the fact it has been done nearly everywhere) to try to fund the alternative energies.
I'm against taxes myself, but there realistically not a lot of options that can reach a consensus at the time being considering how much disinfo is up in the air, partly because people everywhere, middle class included, have no idea what they're talking about.
It's not fair, but hey, life's not fair. You're right that nobody really has a solution, that's why we have to go for what's attainable. I disagree that renewable are a dead end, I think it's fairly normal and smart to look into alternative solutions to complement what we'll have to cut into our fossile fuel consumption. I just wish we would also focus more money on nuclear because that's where the break matters, but one step at a time I guess.

>>8630922
>Carbon taxes make sense becaue that's one thing that's easily feasible (as proved by the fact it has been done nearly everywhere) to try to fund the alternative energies.
I'm against taxes myself, but there realistically not a lot of options that can reach a consensus at the time being considering how much disinfo is up in the air, partly because people everywhere, middle class included, have no idea what they're talking about.
Carbon credits are very easily abused by the rich and corporations and we've already seen that at work. It's something that's almost always easy to ignore or abuse as long as you have the capital to do so.

>It's not fair, but hey, life's not fair. You're right that nobody really has a solution, that's why we have to go for what's attainable. I disagree that renewable are a dead end, I think it's fairly normal and smart to look into alternative solutions to complement what we'll have to cut into our fossile fuel consumption. I just wish we would also focus more money on nuclear because that's where the break matters, but one step at a time I guess.

Renewables aren't a total dead end, but as of now, trying to make them far more than they are is a pipe dream. We don't need any breakthroughs or anything more than modern technology to make nuclear work. Renewable require some magic breakthrough to deal with the rare earth element issue.

No one wants to get told by rich celebrities that the entire pressure of saving the world is on the middle class through their standard of living in the trash, while they continue going on their gas guzzling yachts and jets flying back and forth to conventions where they tell the middle class how awful they are.

File: 20130601_USC718.png (44KB, 290x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 290x480px

>>8630879
>If the right-wing was more focused on presenting real arguments for nuclear energy instead of playing the "I wont say I don't believe it because it's bad for PR but I'll do my best to ignore it and let the left have it", we wouldn't have half their voterbase believing it's a conspiracy while a good portion of the left spouts bullshit about GMO and nuclear energy unchallenged

The right only supported nuclear power as a form of contrarianism, and that support melted after fracking came into vogue.

The only cost of electricity that the average person cares about is the one that appears on their power bill at the end of the month.

>>8630138
>>8629672
>>Nice bait and switch buddy.
>Nice attempt to distract from how you lied about the accuracy of measurement techniques in the early 1800s.
>As for the 1940 peak, Beck relies heavily on the work of Kreutz (data from 1939-1941). And unfortunately, Kreutz's data reveal a source of methodological bias. Not only did his readings conflict strongly with contemporary measurements, but there was a robust correlation between CO2 levels and strong western winds, indicating that the observed CO2 anomaly was the result of upwind contamination from some CO2 source.
>>http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/kreutz/Kreutz_english.pdf

> Look at my latest red herring!!!
Kreutz covers all of 2 or 3 years. And not the CO2 peak during that time. That would be Misra.

>>The errors of earlier measures were 7-10% TOO LOW:
>>uh, so what if the data are unreliable, measured with inaccurate methods?
>>I'm gonna use them anyway and just try to correct them using an estimation of how much they're off by
>You deniers scream "TAMPERING" whenever climatologists do this (only when we do it, we accurately assess the instrumental error). But apparently this "tampering" is okay when you guys do it.

YOU IDIOT! THEY DIDN'T CORRECT UPWARDS. They left it as is. You guys are so used to data tampering that you just assume that real scientists also do it.

>>8632522
-- Continued

>Also, that 7-10% figure only accounts for instrumental bias, not locational bias. Those old methods used OPEN SYSTEMS,
Beck discusses location bias in some detail.

>>The rate of drop off is no larger than at 1820 or 1945.
>It looks that way because the figure you posted uses 11-year averaged smoothing, you imbecile. Even an instantaneous drop-off will look like it tapers off for 5-6 years.
Graphic please.
>Because all accurate measurements should fall along a perfectly smooth curve. No variation allowed.
You do realize that "accepted" CO2 levels are doubly smoothed, don't you?


>dude, you put forth a paper claiming to show significantly elevated CO2 in the early 1800s, and I demonstrated that the data you presented were unreliable. what strawman exactly did I beat?
Christ, you are the king of dishonesty. Or maybe just a brainlet. You questioned the accuracy of pre-1857 CO2 data and used that to "prove" the entire Beck paper, all 180 years of data was no good. That's a major strawman argument.

>>8632524
>>8630146
>>8629672
>not to mention, CO2 fluctuations of the sort you're claiming actually happened would leave an isotopic signature measurable from tree ring stable-isotope chronological studies. amazingly enough, nothing corresponding to that has been observed.
Under the incredibly stupid assumption that the CO2 comes from fossil fuels as opposed to net out-gassing (or in-gassing) oceans. You really are a brainlet.

>>8632527
>>8630146
>>8629672

- Continued
>And of course, there's the issue of where to get all that CO2. It would take a massive influx (I'm talking flood basalts kind of CO2 release) to bump atmospheric concentrations up that quickly, and there's no record of any events that could possibly contribute even a minor fraction of that. Similarly, where did all the CO2 go?
THE OCEANS!!
Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
The answer is about 6 gigatons for a mere 0.1 degree C change in ocean temperature.

Ocean area is 360,000,000 sq km = 360 x 10^12 sq metres
Ocean Mass: 1 gigatonne (Gt) = 10^9 tonnes = 10^12 kg = 10^12 m^3 water
Volume of oceans to 3m depth = 360 x 3 x 10^12 m^3 ie approx. 10^15 m^3
Mass of oceans to 3m depth = 10^15 / 10^9 Gt = 10^6 Gt
CO2 dissolved to 3m at 15ºC = 10^6 x 0.2/100 Gt = 2,000 Gt
CO2 outgassed for 0.1ºC temp rise = 2,000 x 0.3/100 Gt
= 6 Gt

>>8632529
-- Continued

>The oceans wouldn't have been able to take it all without significant changes in oceanic chemistry. The CO2 pulse you want to believe existed seems to have appeared and vanished without leaving any traces of its coming and going.

Sorry buddy, Henry's Law doesn't apply. Henry's Law only applies for solutions where the solvent does not react chemically with the gas being dissolved. A common example of a gas that does react with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) to a certain degree with water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

We are dealing with a buffered solution which requires a different analysis to determine the change in acidity from an increase in atmospheric CO2. That is, the analysis has to be done on a Carbonate <-> Bicarbonate solution. Whitfield (1974) performed the analysis that accounted for this buffering and showed that a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 313 to 454 ppm only changes ocean water pH from 8.24 to 8.16. And that is much less than the variance in the data.

Some excellent papers debunking Climate Change CO2 mythology:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Kauffman_JSE-21-4-723_2007.pdf
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski%20CO2%20EIR%202007.pdf
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/NZCPR-08.pdf

>>8626240
Not an argument

File: fluxmap.jpg (2MB, 2584x2720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2584x2720px

>>8632529
>Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
Uh, no. The oceans are a net sink for CO2.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/LDEO+Surface+Ocean+CO2+Climatology
> Of the major ocean basins, the Southern Hemisphere oceans, south of 14°S to Antarctica, is the largest CO2 sink taking up about 1.1 Pg-C/yr, while the northern oceans north of 14°N take up about 0.7 Pg-C/yr. The equatorial oceans, 14°N–14°S, emit 0.7Pg-C/yr to the atmosphere. The net uptake flux for the global oceans is estimated to be 1.6 +/- 0.9 Pg-C/yr. Taking the pre-industrial steady-state ocean release of 0.4 +/- 0.2 Pg-C/yr into account, the total ocean uptake flux for anthropogenic CO2 emissions is estimated to be 2.0 +/- 1.0 Pg-C/yr in the reference year 2000.

Plus, you've completely ignored the drop in C13/C12, which is inexplicable if you assume that the ocean is the primary driver of modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

>>8632531
Jesus, those "papers" are something else. How do you even find shit that terrible?
I mean, there's a bunch of the usual eye-rollers about how modern warming is a "recovery" from the LIA, and that solar variation dwarfs human forcing, but then this shit like this:
>According to Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), the total anthropogenic CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle of the Earth during geological history. Anthropogenic CO2 emission is negligible in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate.
What the actual fuck?

File: Costanza Belittles.jpg (41KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x375px

>>8632522
>oh no, he just showed that some of the data I relied on are actually unreliable
>better call it a red herring!
yeah, because when I show that you're using contaminated data to try and prove your point, what I'm actually doing is just trying to distract. suuure. just keep pretending that nothing's wrong, that all the problems with your data are just eeevil warmists trying to distract you.
of course, you won't be distracted. your kind has never been interested in letting evidence sway their opinions.

>the CO2 peak during that time. That would be Misra
Misra also suffers from that same problem; CO2 concentration is strongly correlated with changes in wind speed and direction, suggesting upstream contamination by some CO2 source.
>http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Sorry to burst your little bubble.

>THEY DIDN'T CORRECT UPWARDS
I never said they did. I said YOU did.
Your response to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the early data (which you did your best to avoid admitting) was to say that they should just be revised upward slightly based on an estimate of instrumental bias, and then accepted as valid. Calling others "idiot" doesn't hold much water when your reading comprehension is so rudimentarily lacking.

>Beck discusses location bias in some detail.
If by "some detail" you mean "barely any detail"

>Graphic please.
...do you really not understand how a rolling average works? if the reported mean for a year is smoothed using the 11-year window surrounding that year, its value will depend on raw data from 5.5 years before and after that year. this really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

>>8626317
Underrated.

Potholer54 is a fucking legend. Wish he posted more videos more often, I love his analysis and no nonsense take downs of people like Monckton.

>>8626325
We know climate change is a lie because people will use it to make money. Just like we know viruses and disease is a lie because we know some companies will profit from it. The companies who sell green solutions are MAKING THE CLIMATE CHANGE. You have no idea how deep this goes. Besides, if the climate was changing it's because it was always changing and super storms are helpful just like more Co2. Never mind the fact it's only one factor in plant growth but it'll totally help. Oh, and it's the Sun doing it humans are LITERALLY DOING NOTHING. All NASA's projections are wrong.

File: Dumbstruck.jpg (65KB, 729x694px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 729x694px

>>8632527
>Under the incredibly stupid assumption that the CO2 comes from fossil fuels as opposed to net out-gassing (or in-gassing) oceans.
Oh, such a brainlet you are to think that only fossil fuel carbon produces an isotopic signature! It just so happens that the carbon in the oceans is isotopically much HEAVIER than carbon in the atmosphere.
>http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Quay%201992.pdf
Brainlet.

>Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
>The answer is about 6 gigatons for a mere 0.1 degree C change in ocean temperature.
There are two problems with this:
One, there was no sudden spike in warming at 1940. If you think the CO2 appeared as a result of the oceans outgassing from slight warming, and disappeared by the same mechanism in reverse, that implies that there was sudden warming in 1938 and equally sudden cooling in 1942. And yet this hasn't been observed.

Two, 6 Gt really isn't all that much. To put it in perspective, that's about 1/5th of annual CO2 emissions today. Now, let's assume that things scale more or less linearly over the scale we're interested in (should be close enough for the purposes of this exercise).
30 Gt annual emissions translates into an annual increase of about 2 ppm CO2. Now, Beck has reported a spike of about 100 ppm centered on 1940, with concentrations shooting up from ~300 to ~400 ppm. To get that increase, to continue our hand-waving math, you'd need 1500 Gt CO2. For that to all come out of the oceans translates to a 25 degree C (!!!) increase in global temperature.
If that had happened we would have all died. There is simply no way to account for the purported spike in CO2 levels by oceanic outgassing (through heating of the oceans) alone.

Holy FUCK, you're an imbecile.

File: dude stop.jpg (12KB, 280x373px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 280x373px

>>8632531
Actually, oceanic pH has already dropped measurably, by more than the variance. (Note that the reason readings vary by time and location is that the oceans aren't actually homogeneous, and chemistry does vary over time and location. It's not just noise, like you imply.) And take it from a fucking INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGIST, small changes in ocean pH can have MASSIVE consequences on calcareous marine biota.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080625100559/http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf

>>8626203
>A scientific body is a belief
>evidence isn't real

I know you made this thread solely for the (you)s, but you need to bait better.

>>8632812
To be fair, acceptance of a scientific theory IS a belief.

>>8632747
>According to Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), the total anthropogenic CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle of the Earth during geological history. Anthropogenic CO2 emission is negligible in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate.

It sounds like that these retards are attempting to say that all of the CO2 emitted by volcanism in Earth history makes the CO2 humans have emitted in the past ~300 years negligible.

AKA, wow, it's fucking nothing, and these guys are clearly just trying to use big numbers to make the CO2 humans release seem small in terms of Earth history, even though it's not when you look at the entire picture of the current trend.

File: e7615b078e54394d49b0bf6ddf3a1685.jpg (52KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 580x282px

Earth is a
rhombus pls
respond

>>8629651
What's the point? You can increase the anomaly as much as you want, yet it still shows an increase in average temperature.

This is the problem with retards like yourself. You don't understand that even small changes, like a 1C increase in global average temps (keep in mind, minimum for end of the century with current models is 2C) has massive impacts on positive feedback amplifications that further increase the temps.

>>8626208
FPBP

>>8629227
The "acadamics" i do research with are pretty cool, in fact, i've never met any "academic" that puts something behind a paywall, the "paywalls" are the journals, they actually CHARGE the scientists to publish their studies. This is a great example of people not understanding science. My best advice to you is that if you didn't study a scientific field, stick to what scientists say and remember that you don't understand science (you could also pursue a degree in any science too).

>>8629227
Also, there's "sci-hub" dude, you can access scientific studies for free with that shit

This thread is hilarious, if you haven't studied a relevant scientific field you have no idea how ignorant you are.

Were just coming out of an ice age, obviously eventually icecaps will melt since temperature naturally fluctuates, but clearly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere isnt going to exactly slow down the process is it?

/pol/ should have been removed ages ago. Literally every single board I browse has been ruined.

>>8633019
>Were just coming out of an ice age
>13ky is "just"
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8633028
Hopefully Hirosimoot will finally get rid of it.

File: BHoixh8.jpg (111KB, 752x665px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 752x665px

>>8627415

>>8629227
You know, if you want to actually view the scientific papers themselves, often times all you have to do is find the title of the paper, and google it, and there are abundant links to the actual .pdfs

This goes for almost everything published in paywall journals like Nature or Science.

There's also researchgate, which has a lot of literature and provides the full text / graphs.

It's really not that hard to find papers from behind paywalls, it's certainly not impossible.

>>8633019
This post <3

>>8629227

You wouldn't have the attention span to try to comprehend a peer-reviewed publication, I'd take it.

Brainlets get out REEEE

>>8633019
Hahaha no. We're still IN an ice age moron. There are ice sheets at the poles. What you meant to say is that we just came out of a glacial period, which is also dead wrong because we are at the end of an interglacial period. The interglacial warming happened many thousands of years before the current warming caused by AGW. Yet you lecture others pretending to know what they're talking about. Pathetic.

>>8626213
Neither is a YouTube video :^)

>>8633706
>>8633019
Both of you are wrong in different ways.

First off, Earth is currently in an interglacial, it's true that Earth is still technically in an ice age, but an interglacial means that there is a period of higher than average temps during an ice age.

>>8633019
Is incorrect, because it's predicted that without CO2, Earth's temp would not be warming at a high rate, in fact it would be slightly cooling is CO2 ppm remained relatively stable like it has in the past few hundred thousand years. But even with that slight cooling, the current interglacial is pretty stable, and would have likely remained stable if not for human emissions
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Berger-02.pdf

>>8633706
Is incorrect because while yes we are in an interglacial, the current amount of warming due to greenhouse gasses is not natural and is outpacing natural background interglacial warming rates. Milankovitch cycles are thought to be the cause of most interglacial / glacial phases during the current ice age, and they are not correlated with the anthropogenic greenhouse gasses trend.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236

>We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

Also see:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html

>>8626902
oh im copy pasta this.

>>8626203
this is /sci/ not /pol/ anybody who posts this garbage should kill themselves

>>8626902
Or maybe climate change is occuring but isn't due to man made pollution and would be happening anyway. They could be lying about th effect that humans have in order to unite us in a one world government by using the excuse to "save the world from disaster!" much easier to control us.

>>8632786
The sad thing is that there is a good chance that you actually believe this. Even worse, you are not alone. We are witnessing one of the greatest fuckups of the 21st century. Thanks retards.

>>8634099
Or maybe you're a fucking retard that falls into the same old conspiracy crap instead of looking at valid scientific evidence. You can make any vague, non-specific statement without proof or evidence to back up your claim, but it's meaningless, it's nothing but a literal shitpost.

You're the type of person who believes fundamental physics and chemistry concepts are fraudulent, the greenhouse effect is a fact, and the contribution that CO2 contributes to climate change is well quantified:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html


Also, FYI it isn't the world that needs saving, it's humanity. Other species will suffer as well, but Earth history shows that even through the worst of calamities, life finds a way to survive and adapt, despite many things going extinct. People like yourself don't realize just how fragile human civilization is. We have one planet we can live on, humans are good at adapting, but not that good, especially when there's nearly 8 billion people who all want to live like Americans. We are literally terraforming our own planet to conditions that will alter our civilization and destroy our history.

>Those on the left are as predisposed to sift evidence through ideological filters; but in the case of global warming it happens that the evidence overwhelmingly endorses the liberal beliefs that unrestrained capitalism is jeopardising future well-being, that comprehensive government intervention is needed, and that the environment movement was right all along. For neo-conservatives accepting these is intolerable, and it is easier emotionally and more convenient politically to reject climate science.
>The aggressive adoption of climate denial by neo-conservatism was symbolised by the parting gesture of George W. Bush at his last G8 summit in 2008. Leaving the room he turned to the assembled leaders to say: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest
polluter”. It was a defiant “joke” reflecting the way US neo-conservatives define themselves by their repudiation of the “other”, in this case, the internationalist,
environmentally-concerned, self-doubting enemies of “the American way of life”. Conceding ground on global warming would have meant bridging two implacably
opposed worldviews. Bush’s words, and the fist pump that accompanied them, were read by those present as a two-fingered salute to everything the Texan opposed.
This quote pretty much perfectly describes all the /pol/tards in these threads.

Source on these quotes by the way, well worth the read.
http://www.cambioclimatico-bolivia.org/archivos/20120226005942_0.pdf

>In these circumstances, facts quail before beliefs, and there is something poignant about scientists who continue to adhere to the idea that people repudiate climate science because they suffer from inadequacy of information. In fact, denial is due to a surplus of culture rather than a deficit of information. Once people have made up their minds, providing contrary evidence can actually make them more resolute, a phenomenon we see at work with the upsurge of climate denial each time the IPCC publishes a report. For those who interpreted “Climategate” as confirmation of their belief that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, the three or four reports that subsequently vindicated the scientists and the science proved only that the circle of conspirators was wider than previously suspected.

>>8634404
Some are just questioning the validity of the meassures.

It's a big planet and to claim that we have a meassurable influence in the way the temperature it's distributed globaly, requires a lot of proofs.

I do think that global warming it's meassurable and real, but the way the political side of the argument it's been played it's terrible.

Back when the theory was still fresh this was a topic of discussion and the way it turned out, it's mostly manbear pig vicepresident fault.

>>8634414
The more research I do on the "skeptics," the more connections you find between them and the sphere of science denial, how they are connected to various conservative, libertarian entities that espouse doubt on climate science. It's actually quite clever how these organizations have managed to create such a wide ranging cloud of confusion and misinformation around the actual scientific evidence, it's clearly working in their favor. They don't care if global warming is real, it's irrelevant, but any obstruction to policy decisions is a success in their efforts.

I would honestly say there are hardly any genuine climate skeptics left, the evidence pretty much speaks for itself, the real issue is that scientists have shit communication skills at which to do public outreach, and when they do public outreach they are criticized by the so called "sceptics" for spreading propaganda.

>Back when the theory was still fresh this was a topic of discussion and the way it turned out, it's mostly manbear pig vicepresident fault.
The theory was still fresh in the 1980s, Al Gore didn't really do much except make the discussion more public, it had already been a very large scientific topic for decades before Al Gore made his movie. It's been a public and scientific issue far before Al Gore came along, I think it has to do with (don't know how old you are, but at least for me) my generation's upbringing revolving around the ideas gaining public spotlight with Gore. I'm almost 30, and some of the earliest discussions I can remember about climate change come from Inconvenient truth, even though the discussion didn't start there.

It's essentially impossible to separate politics from the science of the issue at this point though, because all the solutions to the issue rely on political and economic policy making, which means politicians need to be directly involved, which muddles the actual science and evidence.

>>8626213
>"Hey, someone made some embroidery debunking climate change"
>That's fucking dumb
>"Not an argument, looks like I win again"

File: stop.jpg (43KB, 599x804px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 599x804px

>>8634436
>libertarian at heart
>reading other libertarian on climate change
STOP EMBARASSING ME REEEE

>As we saw, marrying science to politics was a calculated strategy of conservative activists in the 1990s, opening up a gulf between Republican and Democratic voters over their attitudes to climate science. Both anti-relativists and climate deniers justifiably feared that science would enhance the standing of their enemies and they responded by tarnishing science with politics.


>The association between “left-wing” opinion and climate science has now been made so strongly that politically conservative scientists who accept the evidence for climate change typically withdraw from public debate, as do those conservative politicians who remain faithful to science.

>While Einstein’s theory posed no economic threat and industrialists were absent from the constellation of anti-relativity forces, climate denial was initially organised and promoted by fossil fuel interests. In the last few years, climate denial has developed into a political and cultural movement. Beneath the Astroturf grass grew.

>>8634595
This isn't remotely the first time this sort of thing has happened. Look at the pushback by the Tobacco industry from the 1950s to 1990s.

Another good example presented in this book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_for_a_Species

By the same author the quotes I posted earlier is how in the 1910s and 1920s, there was fierce opposition from many scientists against Einstein and relativity. There were even special interest groups formed very similar to the libertarian think tanks today in Wiemar Germany to combat relativity. Many brilliant scientists got suckered into it, because they refused to admit they were wrong and Einstein was right, even when empirical evidence validated Einstein's theories. History really does repeat itself.

>>8634628
I know. I think a big problem with libertarianism is how it tends to attract nutjobs that are not really interested in the doctrine's ethics and moral compass, but rather because they have a Dunning-Kruger induced paranoia about how they know better than everyone else and must be left alone.

>>8633937
>Is incorrect because while yes we are in an interglacial, the current amount of warming due to greenhouse gasses is not natural and is outpacing natural background interglacial warming rates.
Did you read past the first sentence? I said the interglacial warming happened before AGW. You seem to have incorrectly assumed I'm a denier based on me calling out an idiot for being a hypocrite.

>>8634684
Maybe I misread you then, I assumed you were saying that because inter-glacial warming occurred in the past, that the current warming was natural or something like that.

>>8634595
Yeah AGW was one of the things that made me leave the libertarian echo chamber. I was always more of a scientist than a libertarian.

>>8634436
>there are hardly any genuine climate skeptics left
I might go so far as to say Judith Curry is the only one. And she's retired now.
Honestly, a lack of genuine skepticism is a very bad thing. We NEED skeptics to stress-test our ideas and try to poke holes in our methodology and analysis (under the logic that anything that's left standing must be good work). But when all we have are contrarians who argue in bad faith and ignore the evidence supporting a theory, they become our enemies (rather than merely our adversaries). And that opens the door for actual bad science to slip through unchecked, because there are no skeptics left and deniers attack good science and bad science equally.
Ironically, deniers promote what they claim to oppose: unsupported hypotheses becoming accepted.

>>8634791
I agree completely. I am open to scientific skepticism, it's an essential part of the scientific process, and climate scientists themselves have to be skeptical of the things they publish, and ask the questions that need to be asked like any good scientist does, and question their methodology and look for better ways to interpret the data to decrease uncertainty. w

>deniers promote what they claim to oppose: unsupported hypotheses becoming accepted.
There's such a wide variety of ways that people deny climate change, and a variety of skeptics display numerous different trains of thought, they're a lot less cohesive than one would imagine, for example some still dispute that the warming trend is manmade at all, blaming solar variables, or milankovitch cycling, or volcanism among other things.

Then there's the people who think with rose tinted glasses that CO2 is great and that everything will be better a little warmer or some variation of this argument.

Then you have people that say that it's real and that it's still a conspiracy between globalists or whatever and that there's nothing that we can do so we better just cut all regulations to industry because it's pointless, multiple varieties of this as well.

But they're all united in the hatred and smearing of legitimate scientists doing legitimate scientific work. I mean look what they have done to Hansen, they have time and again tried to tear his reputation apart, since the 90s, or look what they did to Mann with the whole hockey stick charade.

Even Judith Curry has become even more extreme since she retired from academics. Go read her blog and see how her views are becoming subtly more contrarian with each passing month.

Another problem is so many of the skeptics aren't experts at all, and it's often the ones that aren't experts that get cited the most and make the most appearances on talkshows and whatnot, like Monckton for example, or Inhofe, Watts, etc.

>>8634816
>the ones that aren't experts that get cited the most
Civil engineers, so many civil engineers..
How do we solve the engineer problem?

>>8634791
we need SKEPTICS of GRAVITY

File: 04 Fig 9 Jaworowski 2007.png (43KB, 347x498px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 347x498px

>>8632747
>>>8632529
>>Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
>Uh, no. The oceans are a net sink for CO2.
>http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/LDEO+Surface+Ocean+CO2+Climatology
>> Of the major ocean basins, the Southern Hemisphere oceans, south of 14°S to Antarctica, is the largest CO2 sink taking up about 1.1 Pg-C/yr, while the northern oceans north of 14°N take up about 0.7 Pg-C/yr. The equatorial oceans, 14°N–14°S, emit 0.7Pg-C/yr to the atmosphere. The net uptake flux for the global oceans is estimated to be 1.6 +/- 0.9 Pg-C/yr. Taking the pre-industrial steady-state ocean release of 0.4 +/- 0.2 Pg-C/yr into account, the total ocean uptake flux for anthropogenic CO2 emissions is estimated to be 2.0 +/- 1.0 Pg-C/yr in the reference year 2000.

Huh? If ocean CO2 uptake flues is 2.0 +/- 1.0 Pg-C/yr = 0.2 Gigatons (metric) +/- 0.1. Pg-C/yr. Sounds like a low ball estimate.

>Plus, you've completely ignored the drop in C13/C12, which is inexplicable if you assume that the ocean is the primary driver of modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
>>>8632531 (You)
No, the methods of measurement were tweaked to greatly exaggerate it. Anthropogenic CO2 comprises about 6% of atmospheric CO2.

No Correlation Between Anthropogenic CO2 flux and Change In Atmospheric CO2. Pic related. Taken from Jaworowski, Zbigniew. "CO~ 2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." Executive Intelligence Review 34.11 (2007): 38.
There's a reason why CO2 always goes up AFTER temperatures. Yet warmists never mention that inconvenient truth.

>Jesus, those "papers" are something else. How do you even find shit that terrible?
then this shit like this:
>>According to Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), the total anthropogenic CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022%

Clearly you're ignoring the fact that they're talking about the history of the earth. So yes, that statement is in the ball park.

>>8632770
>>>8632522 (You)
>>oh no, he just showed that some of the data I relied on are actually unreliable
>>better call it a red herring!
>yeah, because when I show that you're using contaminated data to try and prove your point, what I'm actually doing is just trying to distract. suuure. just keep pretending that nothing's wrong, that all the problems with your data are just eeevil warmists trying to distract you.
>of course, you won't be distracted. your kind has never been interested in letting evidence sway their opinions.
>>the CO2 peak during that time. That would be Misra
>Misra also suffers from that same problem; CO2 concentration is strongly correlated with changes in wind speed and direction, suggesting upstream contamination by some CO2 source.
>>http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
>Sorry to burst your little bubble.
>>THEY DIDN'T CORRECT UPWARDS
>I never said they did. I said YOU did.
>Your response to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the early data (which you did your best to avoid admitting) was to say that they should just be revised upward slightly based on an estimate of
Stop changing your story. You accused me of referencing scientists that tampered data. I caught in something between sloppiness and a lie. So now you pretend you were talking about something else.


>...do you really not understand how a rolling average works? if the reported mean for a year is smoothed using the 11-year window surrounding that year, its value will depend on raw data from 5.5 years before and after that year. this really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Yes, but the shift in the value (high to low, or vice versa) is graphed from data taken from the entire window of data. That would be 11 years.

>>8634970
>>8632795
>>>8632527 (You)
>>Under the incredibly stupid assumption that the CO2 comes from fossil fuels as opposed to net out-gassing (or in-gassing) oceans.
>Oh, such a brainlet you are to think that only fossil fuel carbon produces an isotopic signature! It just so happens that the carbon in the oceans is isotopically much HEAVIER than carbon in the atmosphere.
>>http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Quay%201992.pdf
>Brainlet.
>>Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
>>The answer is about 6 gigatons for a mere 0.1 degree C change in ocean temperature.
>There are two problems with this:
>One, there was no sudden spike in warming at 1940. If you think the CO2 appeared as a result of the oceans outgassing from slight warming, and disappeared by the same mechanism in reverse, that implies that there was sudden warming in 1938 and equally sudden cooling in 1942. And yet this hasn't been observed.
>Two, 6 Gt really isn't all that much. To put it in perspective, that's about 1/5th of annual CO2 emissions today.
Huh, I've heard its on par with total emissions?

Now, let's assume that things scale more or less linearly over the scale we're interested in (should be close enough for the purposes of this exercise).
>30 Gt annual emissions translates into an annual increase of about 2 ppm CO2.
Nope. That 6Gt. And the data I gave was 6 Gt per 0.1 Degrees C. Look at pic realted. SSTs changed by 0.3 degrees in from 1986 to 1988. That 18 Gigatons in 2 years!
Now, Beck has reported a spike of about 100 ppm centered on 1940, with concentrations shooting up from ~300 to ~400 ppm

File: 06 Deleted CO2 data.png (88KB, 444x320px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 444x320px

>>8634971
-- Continued

You're making the hugely erroneous Keeling assumption. Namely that there's a 'constant' background level of CO2. Beck was adamant that this was false. He gave plenty of examples of deleted data, see pic for one reference. He stated that there was no global CO2 level but it varied significantly by the type of area where the CO2 was being measured. Unfortunately, Keeling has become gospel. Any inconvenient data is simply deleted, creating a circular argument.

Notice in the pic of all the data, including the deleted data, there is significant variance and no sudden drop off.

PS Don't waste my time with satellite "photos" of "CO2 density." The variability of said sensor data is calibrated to fit the Keeling hypothesis, e.g., low variance.

File: 07 pH Levels.png (32KB, 890x561px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 890x561px

>>8634973
>>8632805
>>>8632531
>Actually, oceanic pH has already dropped measurably, by more than the variance. (Note that the reason readings vary by time and location is that the oceans aren't actually homogeneous, and chemistry does vary over time and location. It's not just noise, like you imply.) And take it from a fucking INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGIST, small changes in ocean pH can have MASSIVE consequences on calcareous marine biota.

What Fucking Ever. Take that from a Ph.D. LEVEL FUCKING PUBLISHED SCIENTIST [spare me the "I don't believe you," that's expected]. The fact that you claim to be a paleontologists suggests that you need to bone up on your quantitative skills. That's very important.

And see the graph of data, including the data that was conveniently ignored (roughly pre 1980). Enormous variability.

>>8634975
>What Fucking Ever.
Yeah, I don't believe you. Especially since you weren't even clever enough to understand what he posted.

>>8634988
This guy is delusional, he has done the same exact thing for the past 3-4 days in these threads, posting his nonsensical fallacy-ridden sperg replies in every single climate change thread on /sci/. Seriously, go look in the catalog and see and check the timestamps on his posts.

>>8634975
Nice appeal to authority by the way. Always hilarious to see someone sperging out over fallacies have posts that are riddled with his own. Also, learn the fuck how to greentext and reply properly, you're clearly so fucking new here my god.

>>8634975
Dunning-Kruger effect: the post.

File: elegant croc.jpg (144KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 960x960px

>>8634969
>Executive Intelligence Review
You DO realize that EIR isn't actually a peer-reviewed journal, right? It's literally Lyndon LaRouche's newsletter.
this sort of thing is really just cargo cult science. people make pretty figures and format their write-up to look like a journal article, but fail to make the document meaningful and rigorous.
>CO2 always goes up AFTER temperatures
the graph you posted clearly shows temperature increasing AFTER a big increase in CO2 emissions, you brainlet.

>>8634970
>You accused me of referencing scientists that tampered data.
No, you illiterate. I accused you of referencing studies with unreliable data, and provided evidence to show that the data had been affected by contamination of the measurement sites.
I also accused you of hypocrisy, when you insisted that data obtained through an unreliable and inaccurate method should simply be adjusted slightly (if anything) rather than excluded from the analysis (when you accuse climatologists of tampering when they adjust for measurement error). And you've been trying to dodge that ever since by misrepresenting what I said. (You know, LYING.)

>>8634969
>The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time
Wow, that sure sounds like something you would totally see in an empirically based scientific journal, right?
>Executive Intelligence Review
Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) is a weekly newsmagazine founded in 1974 by the American political activist Lyndon LaRouche.
weekly newsmagazine

T O P K E K

This is your source? Fucking this? A political magazine? You might as well start citing Infowars, or Breitbart.

It's amazing how people like you think that peer-reviewed science is a fraud, and then to support this you post shitty fucking magazines with bunk articles by non-scientists. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Also, you do realize that the vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 goes into the largest CO2 sink on Earth, the OCEANS? There is a cycle of carbon that was in relative balance before humans started emitting gigatons of CO2 each year. You are adding something like 30 gigatons per year to the atmosphere, add that up over centuries and you have a very significant amount. Natural emissions are absorbed into the environment naturally without human intervention, but when humans start adding so much, nature can't take care of all this additional carbon, you disrupt the cycle completely. only 40% of our emissions actually get absorbed, so most of our shit stays in the atmosphere, despite being a smaller part of the total CO2, it's constantly adding to the ppm. To rise 100ppm naturally, it takes anywhere from 5 to 20k years, humans have done that in just over 100.

File: linear_regression[1].png (55KB, 479x312px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 479x312px

>>8634971
>Huh, I've heard its on par with total emissions?
post sauce on that, because you heard wrong. sometimes you see it reported as ~8 Gt carbon...which translates to ~30 Gt CO2, since CO2 is 27% carbon

>>8634973
>You're making the hugely erroneous Keeling assumption. Namely that there's a 'constant' background level of CO2. Beck was adamant that this was false. He gave plenty of examples of deleted data, see pic for one reference.
Sure, this COULD be explained by CO2 concentration varying wildly and unpredictably...ooor (wait for it) it could be explained by old measurements using outdated methods being unreliable!
>He stated that there was no global CO2 level but it varied significantly by the type of area where the CO2 was being measured.
So Beck is claiming that the atmosphere isn't well mixed. Are you starting to see why people who know their shit don't take him seriously?
>Notice in the pic of all the data, including the deleted data, there is significant variance and no sudden drop off.
Except how around 1885 we suddenly stop seeing all sorts of insanely high readings. Also, did your boy actually do any sort of regression to get those trend lines? Or did he just arbitrarily draw on a graph? Because one's statistically sound and the other isn't. Pic related.

File: Fucking Stupid.jpg (49KB, 740x419px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 740x419px

>>8634975
>see the graph of data, including the data that was conveniently ignored (roughly pre 1980).
We went over this a few threads ago >>8619367, and you suddenly got all quiet after I debunked this failed abortion of a figure. (Well, it wasn't this exact figure, but it was another figure showing the same gawdawful attempt at a data series.)
Hmm, why does it look like pH varies so much? BECAUSE THE OLD MEASUREMENTS USED VARY WILDLY BY TIME OF YEAR AND LOCATION. If you're trying to see how pH changes year to year, you ABSOLUTELY MUST control factors other than what year it is! So if one year most of your measurements are taken from the Indian Ocean in April and the next year your data are dominated by measurements from the mid-Atlantic in September, what you get will be PRACTICALLY MEANINGLESS.
>https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/not-phraud-but-phoolishness/

I'd have thought that an actual published scientist (one who claims to care strongly about statistical rigor) would understand the importance of controlling your outside variables, and maybe understand why some data are more reliable and meaningful than others. What's your Ph.D. in, you jive turkey?

>it's another delusional denier gets BTFO and caught lying in every post but will post the exact same shit tomorrow episode

>>8635678
Notice how he leaves the thread as soon as he posts his pre-typed responses every time, what a fucking coward.

>>8632844
Why are you so hostile? All the guy did was point out that different scales convey different trends

File: donald-trump-meme-retarded-followers.jpg (119KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x333px

>>8629266
That's like retards checking the nerd's homework to see if they like it or not.

>>8635763
They DON'T convey different trends, that's the point. Scale does not affect the trend. That's like saying 1 kg/m^2 is a different density than 0.1 g/cm^2