Climate Change

>>8628683

/pol/ how do you explain this picture that NASA released?

I am legitimately curious. Do you see this as a problem? Do you think the change is reversible?

>>8628683
rip arctic it could change but its very unlikely even if you believe climate change is happening for different reasons
>>8628697
what i wanna know is why most scientists and people think that the water levels would rise?
does earth not follow displacement laws?

File: The German 2016 Research Foundation's Priority Program SPP 1689.png (162KB, 1051x729px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1051x729px

>>8628683
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000446/epdf

Here's a rundown of humanity's options.

>>8628876
Antarctica is a land mass. Most of the ice is on top of it. When that ice melts, it will fall into the ocean.

>>8628880
Step 1: stop relying on fossil fuels.

>>8628885
but people even state that with the arctic circle

The ice from Antarctica had to come from the water and has to displace weight in the water right
so why do people pretend that it would cover homes?

File: 1484866798852.jpg (62KB, 877x391px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 877x391px

>>8628683
>check google earth
>ice and snow are still there

Hmmm...

>>8628894
Wut?

File: lockout tagout.jpg (736KB, 750x1270px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 750x1270px

>>8628894
Because some places are BELOW sea level right now and people actually build and live there (the same people who get their shit wrecked by every fucking hurricane that comes along.)

Complacency is a disease.

>>8628894
The ice isn't IN the water. It's on top of a continent. Maybe it was once in the water, but it hasn't been in a long time.

File: Capture.jpg (57KB, 999x547px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 999x547px

>>8628876
There is much reason to be concerned about the yearly decreases in ice sheet loss in the northern hemisphere. Sea ice is what's really holding back the land glaciers / ice sheets from melting more rapidly. Firstly, their melting still brings colder water into the North Atlantic, forming a blanket of cold water that disrupts ocean circulation.

Secondly, glaciers and ice sheets in greenland / antarctica are thought to rapidly increase their melting once the sea ice extent is reduced to a minimum. Too much net loss of ice in summer due to abnormally high arctic temperatures, and not enough precipitation in greenland to keep up with the losses, so there is a net loss each year of land ice.

Watch this video by James Hansen on a recent paper he did studying a variety of impacts of climate change on the North Atlantic, with paleoclimatic evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8&feature=youtu.be

Also, here's a link to the actual study itself, it is quite long, so the video is a better summary of the ideas unless you have a few hours to read through this:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2015/20150704_IceMelt.pdf

>>8628683
>With the current technology--NO
>maybe a form of population control from famine.

>>8628683
Only if we can stop AND reserve global warming.

>>8628894
>but people even state that with the arctic circle
Greenland also has a glacier.

>why do people pretend that it would cover homes?

They aren't pretending. It would take at least 5000 years to melt all the ice.

There is enough ice on land at the south pole that melting it all would raise the sea level by over 200 feet.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

>>8628683
yes it happens every year, it's called seasons.

File: lain4.gif (295KB, 700x704px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 700x704px

>its the 50th "keep pretending climate science is real" thread on /sci/
look at the catalog before you post and please keep your delusion and politicized scams into one containment thread people

when did people become so gullible that they fall for the scientific dogma this easily?

>>8628683
Not on a human timescale

>>8628940
>yes it happens every year, it's called seasons.

wew lad

>>8628944

No, this is the first, "Hey here is a picture from NASA that shows that climate change is actually real," thread

And, if people don't think climate change is real, I think it would be very interesting to hear their explanations of why so much ice would just disappear like that.

Why don't we just...
a. refill the Aral Sea with sea water
b. dump a bunch of sea water in the middle of the desert and places that are in drought i.e. Ethiopia
c. launch a giant ice block of sea water at Mars in order to make it more livable (if we're on target)
then we'd have much more space

>>8628683
The question is less about is climate change reversible but rather what will the world be like and how can we possibly adjust

>>8628683
Not unless you want to wipe out ~75% of the world. And even then it'd be tough, firebombing China alone would be worse than a century of continued industrial activity at the current rate of expansion. I actually read an article claiming that much of the unusual weather phenomena being attributed to climate change generally were caused specifically by aerosols released in China.

>>8628880

Thanks! This is very interesting to read.

>>8628940
What season is it currently in the Northern hemisphere? Sea ice has had net losses each year for decades.

>>8628925
Melting all the ice doesn't even matter. You only need to decrease the sea ice enough to induce rapid melting of the glaciers, and thus have meters of SLR by the end of the century, essentially forcing mass migration from vulnerable coastal cities like Miami if sea walls, dikes, etc. aren't built.

>>8628889
this is literally the least likely option. US is on it's way but if you think China or India are just going to stop, you're delusional.

>>8629006
China is already slowing down their reliance on petroleum usage, and is investing heavily into solar. China has the fastest growing renewable industry in the world. Also, we in the US can't really talk shit about China considering per capita, we use far more fossil fuels than China or India, only the oil-producing arab countries having higher emissions per capita.

>>8629012
do you actually know facts behind any of those arbitrary claims you just made?
(you don't, it was rhetorical)

>>8629028
closeminded posts like this should be a bannable offense

>>8629028
China is the largest producer of solar

>>8628948
>>8628964
The man made pictures of OP are clearly not supposed to represent the ice sheet from the same period of time, left one is winter, right one summer.

> Sea ice has had net losses each year for decades.
You are just vomiting what you heard on fake news, without checking the single fact about it.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

>>8629028
only the oil-producing arab countries having higher emissions per capita.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.tot
China leads in emissions, but you have to look at the fact that the US population is 1/4th smaller than Chinas:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.cap
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. all have higher per capita emissions than China.

>China is already slowing down their reliance on petroleum usage
> and is investing heavily into solar
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-renewables-idUSKBN14P06P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-environment/china-coal.html

>China's solar capacity overtakes Germany in 2015, industry data show
http://www.reuters.com/article/china-solar-idUSL3N15533U

>>8629038
>You are just vomiting what you heard on fake news, without checking the single fact about it.
>https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
its things like this that make me feel truly sick

sick that the left will lie to back up their political views with fake science in an attempt to fearmonger the uneducated, all while claiming the right fearmongers about islamic terror

islamic terror kills innocent people every day and they don't even want to talk about it, climate change will never kill anyone because it's not even fucking real

>>8629041
China also can't strategically depend on oil like the US can since they don't control the oil market.

>>8629038
You're just vomitting things you read without understanding the context. There is a NET LOSS globally of sea and land ice.
Your own source debunks your own claim:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

Funny how NASA is "fake news" only when it doesn't confirm your biases.

As for your source, yes, no one disputes that ice is still building up in Antarctica, despite increasing losses each year.
>We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas

>The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.

Read your own damn sources.

>>8629041
>China's solar capacity overtakes Germany in 2015, industry data show
China is more than 20 times bigger than Germany ( in term of inhabitant), scale per capita, that mean China has less than 5% of the solar energy output of Germany.
China is also the fastest growing country in term of energy consumption, do the math.

>>8629038

Here is the accompanying description from the NASA images,

>The area covered by Arctic sea ice at least four years old has decreased from 718,000 square miles (1,860,000 square kilometers) in September 1984 to 42,000 square miles (110,000 square kilometers) in September 2016. Ice that has built up over the years tends to be thicker and less vulnerable to melting away than newer ice. In these visualizations of data from buoys, weather stations, satellites and computer models, the age of the ice is indicated by shades ranging from blue-gray for the youngest ice to white for the oldest.

>>8629038
>man-made pictures
>man-made climate change
I think I'm seeing a pattern here... I GOT IT! Just kill the fag who makes those pictures. Man-made climate change solved. You can send me my Nobel in the mail.

>>8629038

Here is the original article. It actually goes through some more before and after photographs and data,

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/nasa-releases-climate-change-images-as-trump-still-claims-it-doesnt-exist-9135052

>>8629049
Also, there is a net loss in land ice in Antarctica as well, despite increases in sea ice. Even with the increases in Antarctica sea ice, overall there is a net loss due to the amount of warming in the northern hemisphere.

Warming in the arctic is much higher than in Antarctica. While Eastern Antarctica is gaining ice, Western Antarctica is losing more than it gains.

>>8629043
>>8629038
http://www.livescience.com/52831-antarctica-gains-ice-but-still-warming.html

>The Antarctic is not warming as fast as the Arctic is, said Zwally, who led the NASA study. "It's more like the global change [rates]," Zwally said. In other words, the Antarctic region is seeing a regional temperature rise that matches the temperature rise seen on average around the world, instead of the much higher temperature rise in the Arctic regions noted by NOAA.
>Scientists think the Antarctic region is experiencing a slower temperature rise than the Arctic, because the ozone hole over Antarctic has created weather trends, specifically in East Antarctica, that has slowed it down.

Yet you do the same exact thing, you parrot things you read on WUWT or Climatedepot instead of actually reviewing the scientific literature:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170119143331.htm
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276

It's funny how you are pointing to the NASA study as well, the authors of that study specifically stated that deniers like yourself would mis-interpret the results:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

File: SeaLevel.png (23KB, 590x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 590x300px

>>8628964
>thus have meters of SLR by the end of the century

Climate change is real, it's cause by man and the effects are serious.

But extreme exaggeration like that is unhelpful.

For sea level to rise by even a single meter in the next hundred years the rate of rise would have have to triple.
I doubt the final disappearance of sea ice in the summer will speed things up that much.

You can build a sea wall easily within the time.

The countries really threatened are those with large areas of really low lying coastal farmland too large to defend.
They suffer badly from just a few feet.

>>8629028
Not him, but I think you need to search more

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

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-china-is-dominating-the-solar-industry/

on geologic timescales yes

on human timescales no

>>8629062
>despite increases in sea ice.
I specifically answered to the proposition:
> Sea ice has had net losses each year for decades.
And proved it wrong by articulating my argument with a perfectly relevant source.
I hardly see how I misinterpreted the conclusion that the amount of see ice (not ice) is rising.

And just so you know, while land ice melting is indeed causing sea level to rise, see ice growing mean more sun reflection, wich has a GLOBAL COOLING effect.

File: month_deviation_trends_combined.jpg (176KB, 720x796px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 720x796px

>>8629076
We are talking about GLOBAL sea ice, that means the arctic AND Antarctica. The net losses come from the amount of ice melting off Greenland, and the net decreases in sea ice extend every year there, and the loss of ice thickness.

Look at this combined graph of sea ice decline. Gains in Antarctica are negated by the losses in the arctic.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246

File: Capture.jpg (102KB, 787x1043px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 787x1043px

>>8629076
>see ice growing mean more sun reflection, wich has a GLOBAL COOLING effect.
Yet you are wrong about this, as sea ice is decreasing, and thus ice albedo is also decreasing, meaning less reflectivity from sea ice each year. This is just one of the many positive feedback forcings from anthropogenic climate change:

You can also look at data from the NSIDC to see that there is a net sea ice loss:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

>For sea level to rise by even a single meter in the next hundred years the rate of rise would have have to triple.
>I doubt the final disappearance of sea ice in the summer will speed things up that much.
Hansen touches on this in the video I posted earlier in the thread. It's not entirely impossible to have a rapid increase in the rate of SLR over the next century, just highly unlikely with the 2C rise in temperature. We will see as we collect more and more data over the next few decades however.

File: Capture.jpg (185KB, 1226x1047px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1226x1047px

>>8629076
Again, did a little more research into your claims and found this very recent article on ice albedo, titled
>Brief communication: Antarctic sea ice gain does not compensate for increased solar absorption from Arctic ice loss
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2016-279/tc-2016-279.pdf

>the observed increase of sea ice extent in the Antarctic cannot compensate for the loss of Arctic sea ice in terms of the shortwave radiation budget in the polar oceans poleward of 50° latitude

What they are essentially saying, is that the amount of ice gained in Antarctica cannot compensate for the amount of albedo reduction from the loss of arctic sea ice. Any net gain of sea ice and albedo in Antarctica is not enough to cause more cooling in summers than the heating that is occurring due to sea ice loss in the arctic,.

>However, surface characteristics of Antarctic sea ice are less affected by global climate change (Allison et al., 1993;Brandt et al., 2005;Laine, 2008). Antarctic sea ice is mainly melting from below as the ice drifts away from the continent into warmer circumpolar waters, which is opposite to the surface melting induced by melt ponding on Artic sea ice. Therefore, sea-ice extent losses in the Arctic are most pronounced during the Northern 5 Hemisphere summer
>consistent long-term observational, satellite-based time series shows that changes in the bipolar shortwave energy budget caused by a decreasing Arctic sea ice cover are not balanced by the slight increases observed in Antarctic sea ice extent. Increases in Antarctic sea ice only occur during the Southern Hemisphere winter and thus have only a minor impact on the energy balance, while Arctic sea ice changes are accompanied by a spatially uniform decrease of sea-ice albedo, further increasing the energy input to the northern polar ocean and thereby strengthening the ice-albedo feedback.

>>8628959
You are aware of the difference between sea water and fresh water, are you not?

>>8628683
>not flat
it's photoshopped

File: greenland_accumulatedsmb_20170124.png (39KB, 632x263px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 632x263px

Can't see anything spectacular. Antarctica land ice grows as usual and the long since promised ice-free Northern Passages still didn't materialize. Who needs sea ice anyway. Image shows Greenland in denial so far..

File: greenland_MB_timeseries_dmi.png (106KB, 627x518px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 627x518px

>>8629262
Standard tactic of climate deniers; post an unsourced graph and cherrypick the context.

Let me guess, you read this at realclimatescience. iceagenow, climatedepot or any of the numerous copy-pasted cherrypicking denial blogs?

First, let's find the actual source of your information, using google image search, and weeding through the denial blogs, I found this webpage, Global Cryosphere Watch.
http://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/icesheets/

Which is further sourced from this (Danish?) source:
http://beta.dmi.dk/groenland/maalinger/indlandsisens-massebalance/

I'm guessing it's about mass balance in Greenland, showing an increase in some regions during winter, which to the surprise of no one, is not exactly shocking, especially since the mean is from 1990-2013. One year of a slightly increased ice deposition in some areas of Greenland, surprise, doesn't debunk anthropogenic climate change. You have to look at the entire trend, not just take one year out of context (especially considering we are going from El Nino to La Nina again).

Taking this as a "record breaking ice growth," well just look at the previous year on the graph you posted, 2015-2016. Indeed, during that time-frame it would have appeared to be a "record breaking" (under a very loose definition of the phrase) growth as well, yet looking at the entire trend is necessary. Perhaps actually wait until next august, when the series is finished to make any more assumptions. What happens when we have another "record low" ice growth like 2011-2012 on the graph? Will the denial blogs blog about that, or will they stay silent because it doesn't confirm their biases?

So basically, once again, deniers take a piece of scientific data, and cherrypick it to fit their cognative biases once again. Not really surprising.

File: Capture.jpg (263KB, 753x1144px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 753x1144px

>>8629262
Furthermore, I actually bothered to translate the Danish source, here's a direct quote from the article, translated through google translate:

>During the year it snows more than melts, but calving of icebergs included the also in the ice sheet total mass accounts. Satellite Observations over the past decade shows that the ice cap actually is not in balance. Calving excess surface mass balance and Greenland therefore lose mass by about 200 Gt / year.

So basically, this is not taking into account glacial calvings which when added into the accumulation of ice, leads to a net loss of 200 gigatons per year.

As for the image in my previous post, here is the translated text from below:
>Top: The total daily contribution to surface mass balance from the entire Greenland (blue line Gt / day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from 1 September to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red), which had particularly high melting on Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve (dark gray) from the period 1990-2013. The same calendar day of each of the 24 years (in the period 1990-2013) will have a different value. These differences from year to year is illustrated with the light gray band. Here, however each calendar omitted the lowest and highest value among the 24 years.

Your argument is essentially the same as Inhofe going into congress with a snowball and saying "Look, it's snowing in winter! Take that global warming!"

Go ahead, take this source:
http://beta.dmi.dk/groenland/maalinger/indlandsisens-massebalance/
If you have Chrome, you can auto translate the webpage into English. It helps to actually read the scientific source of your data, not secondhand blogs that cherrypick and misrepresent the information for their own gain and biases.

>>8629339
>>8629317
RIP /pol/tards

>>8629317
>"record breaking ice growth,"

File: still shrinking.jpg (164KB, 1364x992px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1364x992px

>>8629369

File: Greenland mass balance.png (13KB, 700x334px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 700x334px

>>8629369
I suggest you cease using "alternative fact" sources of information on climate change that routinely misrepresent the scientific evidence. Also, in general, snow is much more likely to accumulate... in winter. Shocking I know. Melting rates generally accelerate during the summer, which too I'm sure you find shocking. Let's say we even had one year in which there was a net gain in Greenland ice. Would it matter, if the trend continued and there were subsequent losses in the next decades? It would not alter the trend significantly.

As you can see, each winter correlates with a spike in the graph of ice accumulation, which is then offset by melting in the summer each year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0rp6-BEur8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw7GfNR5PLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLd15drxDA

Finding ways to cherrypick and misinterpret the data helps no one. You would do better to actually look at the sources of data yourself, you know, from entities like NOAA that actually collect it.

Further, here is some suggested reading to educate yourself on the topic.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104130436.htm
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2899.html

File: Global Sea Ice Area.jpg (187KB, 1592x612px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1592x612px

>>8629085
>>8628683

Who ever made this graph flunked statistics class. The y axis are measurements in standard deviations. Those values are DIFFERENT for the Artic and Antarctic. A less deceptive graph would show fluctuations of Global Sea Ice.

Pic related. Nothing to worry about.

File: 8ab.jpg (84KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x640px

>>8629344
>le everyone who disagrees with me is from pol
modsreally need to clean this board up

File: ARCTIC CHERRY PICKING.jpg (35KB, 599x466px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 599x466px

>>8629698
>>8629085
>>8628683 (OP)
>Who ever made this graph flunked statistics class. The y axis are measurements in standard deviations.

And there's a reason why Arctic Ice graphs start at 1979. They cherry picked a date of unusually high ice levels. Look at pic from an early UN IPCC report; they were more honest back then.

File: Future Continents.png (738KB, 1122x820px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 1122x820px

Why should we try?

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

41KB, 620x480px

>>8629420
>Finding ways to cherrypick and misinterpret the data helps no one.
I totally agree. And yet warmists do it all the time >>8629709

>>8629698
Whoever made that graph (Monckton, so typical!)
Here's an actual rebuttal to that image though.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/deniers-worst-enemy/

The scale is poorly choosen on this graph, look at the Y-axis please and understand why, the data is so compressed that is is completely misrepresented. You do realize that each unit is 1 million square km, right? Of course if you stretch that from 0-24 it's going to be compressed.

>>8629709
It's not surprising that every image you post is backtraced to denial blogs. Every single one, maybe you're a little insulated as to where you get your scientific information from?

>And there's a reason why Arctic Ice graphs start at 1979. They cherry picked a date of unusually high ice levels.
No, the reason is because of satellite measurements of sea ice you dimwitted fuck, which began, surprise, IN 1979! It's almost as if satellites weren't capable of measuring arctic sea ice before 1979, because maybe they didn't fucking exist?

Oh wait, I thought you deniers loved satellite measurements? Wait, when they disagree with your biases, then you hate them, right?

It's so fucking clear that you don't even read the posts your replying to.

See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLd15drxDA

>>8628897
check date of images

>>8629761
>It's not surprising that every image you post is backtraced to denial blogs.
Genetic fallacy. Not an argument.

>>8629200
how could he, he can't even tie his shoelaces

>>8629707
>lrn2spell pol/tard

File: rothko pepe 2.png (142KB, 304x400px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 304x400px

>>8629792
which word was mispelled?

File: Ad Hominem Attack.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 275x183px

>>8629761
>>>8629698
>Whoever made that graph (Monckton, so typical!)
Idiot, it was created by Cryosphere Today. Irrelevant who used it.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


>>>8629709
>It's not surprising that every image you post is backtraced to denial blogs. Every single one, maybe you're a little insulated as to where you get your scientific information from?
Maybe you can pretend that those graphs don't have a scientific source and pretend that the data was just made up. But you're just fooling your self.

Your Ad Hominem is pathetic.

>>8629761
>>And there's a reason why Arctic Ice graphs start at 1979. They cherry picked a date of unusually high ice levels.
>No, the reason is because of satellite measurements of sea ice you dimwitted fuck, which began, surprise, IN 1979! It's almost as if satellites weren't capable of measuring arctic sea ice before 1979, because maybe they didn't fucking exist?

You DUMBSHIT >>8629709 is a picture from Satellite Data!

You paid shills aren't even trying.

>>8628683

>>8628697
The consensus explanation is climate change.
But consensus is not /sci/.

>>8629420
>I suggest you cease using "alternative fact"
Climate change is not a fact. If you call it fact don't whine if someone shoves "alternative facts" up in your ass.

>>8629795
>lrn2read pol/tard

>>8629773
Did you really need 3 replies to say the same exact thing?

All you can go back to is crying about ad hom, because I am attacking your shitty fucking sources, which are routinely debunked and criticized. They aren't peer-reviewed, they aren't scientific literature, they are just literal opinion pieces and shitposts from non-scientists who have no authority (inb4 muh appeal to authority) on matters of climate science.

>You paid shills aren't even trying.
Nice AD HOM. Don't play by your own rules do you? Anyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill!
Next thing you know you'll be calling me "CTR." Nice arguments pal.

>>8629811
Nothing you said here changes that the satellite record begins in 1979 for a specific reason.
Please see some actual, legitimate sources of information on sea ice and sea ice records:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent
https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
>Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice cover
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.419.8464&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>Acceleration in the decline is evident as the extent and area trends of the entire ice cover (seasonal and perennial ice) have shifted from about 2.2 and 3.0% per decade in 1979 – 1996 to about 10.1 and 10.7% per decade in the last 10
years. The latter trends are now comparable to the high negative trends of 10.2 and 11.4% per decade for the perennial ice extent and area, 1979 –2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice
>Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in December 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) instrument. However, this was not directly comparable with the later SMMR/SSMI, and so the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite.,[5] and continues with the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSMI). Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) and Cryosat-2.

>>8628683
Yes. In a sense, we can reverse the damage we have done to the atmosphere (for some unknown reason we don't) but we can't change the heat cycles nor can we really stop the extra heating effect caused by us. We can only fix our mistakes and hope that it wasn't to late

>>8629909
>we can reverse
only to a point, around 450ppm / 2C

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m50s

File: ARCTIC SATELLITE DATA FROM NOAA.png (77KB, 623x519px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 623x519px

>>8629869
>>>8629811 (You)
>Nothing you said here changes that the satellite record begins in 1979 for a specific reason.
>Please see some actual, legitimate sources of information on sea ice and sea ice records:
>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent
>https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

> I got caught being stupid, that really is Satellite Data.
Idiot that data is from the NOAA! PIc related. It was published in an early IPCC report. And check the source, the data was obtained from satellite observations.

You're so desperate, you're calling the NOAA non-legitimate! You're tactic of ad hominem is pathetic. But that's all you've got, so I'm not really surprised.

>>8629869
Warmist edited wiki articles are Truth!
>>Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in December 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) instrument.

So we'll just pretend the NOAA didn't have any pre

>However, this was not directly comparable with the later SMMR/SSMI,
>we can't look at the two different scan types and compare.
What warmist shill tweaked this wiki article?

>>8629948
>So we'll just pretend the NOAA didn't have any pre 1979 data.

>>8628683
What's the worse that can happen? A meteor 6 miles across didn't end life on earth, nor did the previous mass extinction events.
A bunch of niggers and sandniggers will die in droughts? Fuck them.
Coastal cities will be under water? It will be a blessing, and I hope all the liberals drown with them.
A bunch of species will go extinct? Cry me a river. Ecological systems will find a new balance like they have being doing for billions of years.
Will humans survive all this worst case scenario? Maybe, and if they do, only the fittest. A humanity culling is past due anyway.

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

12KB, 359x140px

>>8629869
>Next thing you know you'll be calling me "CTR."
nah, just a nerd virgin.

>>8629869
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice
>>Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in December 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) instrument. However, this was not directly comparable with the later SMMR/SSMI, and so the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel

And yet the NOAA had access to the same data type or a way to compare different data types all along >>8629944

Its almost as if a warmist edited that Wiki article to protect later IPCC cherry-picking.

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

168KB, 792x633px

>>8629707
>>8629709
>>8629731

every time

Throwing legitimate science journals and sources at scientifically illiterate deniers is trying to teach a dog how to read. You'll get nowhere.

File: mean_anomaly_1953-2012.png (113KB, 600x457px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 600x457px

>>8629948
>>8629950
>>8629944
>>8629953
>>8629963
Again, 4 replies (now 5!), are you new to 4chan or something? Are you trying to make it seem like you're more than one person or something?

Again, you still have not posted a .pdf or direct link to your source, just a source-less image taken out of context, hmmm. isn't that considered cherrypicking, the very same cherrypicking you claim to despise?

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
I guess this graph from this NSIDC source is not valid either?

>Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2012: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through December 2012, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2013/04/was-esmr-screwy.html
>the ESMR (Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer) 1973-1976. It was a much simpler instrument than the SMMR, SSMI, SSMI-S, and AMSR which started flying in 1978 and since. The more recent ones have two very important improvements over the ESMR -- they use multiple channels (think of it as colors) and they use both horizontal and vertical polarizations rather than just total power.

>>8629963
Wrong. I know little on this topic, and I'm researching it right now. ESMR was a completely inferior way to measure sea ice, which is why the switch to SMMR was undertaken and why observations don't start in 1972.

>>8629963
NSIDC has nothing to do with the IPCC you cunt. IPCC doesn't do their own research, they don't collect the data, they don't publish peer review paper. It's an organization that looks at the scientific evidence and publishes reports for policy makers. That's fucking it.

File: Fast_f3a6ef_5753191.jpg (62KB, 640x774px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x774px

>>8629972
> Throwing legitimate religious doctrines and sources at religiously illiterate deniers is trying to teach a dog how to read. You'll get nowhere.

>>8629918
You lost me at geopolitics

Anyway through utilization high potential high frequency discharge one can 'rip' or mores so bond the carbon out of the atmosphere, same can be done with nitrogen to produce an evironmentally friendly method of fertilizer production and ozone can also be produced using the same method.

>>8629996
show the machine that does it, without using a billion tons of oil to run it

>>8628683
With lots of nuclear, maybe / probably. Too bad the environmentalists would rather fuck the world than do that.

File: 588177.jpg (64KB, 674x622px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 674x622px

>>8630033
See Nikola Tesla: Colorado Springs Notes, page 334, Photograph X.]

FIG. 1. BURNING THE NITROGEN OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
Note to Fig. 1.—This result is produced by the discharge of an electrical oscillator giving twelve million volts. The electrical pressure, alternating one hundred thousand times per second, excites the normally inert nitrogen, causing it to combine with the oxygen. The flame-like discharge shown in the photograph measures sixty-five feet across.

This is taken from teslas problem with increasing human energy, and it refers to this device, pic related

Also we have 1 solar, 2 wind, 3 hydroelectric power sources capable of powering a large enough scale version to be useful.
Also through utilization of the difference in potential in the ionosphere and magnetoshere one can 'siphon' the excess potential, or the literal difference between the charge in the given fields through an applied load.
The earth is a charged sphere why don't we utilize it's properties, i mean seriously pull shit out of the ground and burn it to create a difference in potential from the earth surface so I have electrical pressure to power things. Its barbaric and kind of counterintuitive of its own cause. Wouldn't it make more sense to draw from a source of higher potential and less Resistance. Its nearly like someone profits off digging this shit up or something.
All you need is a structure sufficiently earthed and of relative height to the potential you wish to harness, need a 'net' or antenna capable of inducting radiant energy to give you a bit of a starting charge, a charging cuircut, 3 transformers with relative spark gaps, a medium to oscillate your cuircut periodically and a load to apply you potential to. (There are a few things I intentionally left out or described wrong, it at least offers me plausable deniability) but its basically that simple, more so that the creation of electricity via coal or any means sourced within earth

>>8630107
>Nikola Tesla
>he married his pigeon
ok

>>8630085
>thinking electricity production causes most of the CO2

>>8630085
Environmentalists are not climate scientist, and almost everyone I know involved in the Earth sciences believes that Nuclear is a perfectly viable solution to decreasing fossil fuel emissions. Stop generalizing.

Isn't the definition of an ice age "when there is ice on the poles of the earth"? Last time I checked, we were coming out of an ice age, and while fossil fuels etc will speed the process up, the earth has only had ice at it's poles for a fraction of it's existance. Do we really think that we are so important that this process should stop, just because we weren't here before the poles froze in the first place?

Tl;dr humans aren't the center of the universe. Earth isn't meant to maintain ice capa anyway

>>8630112
>>he married his pigeon
Wut

>>8630162
I'm an Earth Science student so hopefully I'm an authority enough for you to trust. You're mixing up your terms.

We have been in an ice age for about 2.5 million years, give or take 100,000 years. About 30 million years ago Australia broke off from Antarctica (the two had been 1 continent for about 700 million years) and floated north. This created the Antarctic Circumpolar current, a current that goes around Antarctica without stopping. Because nothing gets in its way it builds up energy and became the strongest current on Earth.

This wasn't the only development. About 3 million years ago North and South America collided with an island chain between them, the Isthmus of Panama. This created an uninterrupted landmass from Arctic to Antarctic and forced warm tropical currents north and south in the Atlantic ocean. This severely weakened the once stronger equatorial current and cooled the Atlantic currents by exposing them to polar water quicker than before.

By 2.5 million years ago weaker currents from the equator being diverted from Australia could no longer cross the barrier of the circumpolar current and Antarctica froze solid. The arctic froze later as a response to Antarctica freezing. It's hard to imagine perhaps but Antarctica freezing caused the Arctic to also freeze on the opposite side of the Earth.

To be in an ice age several things must be present, which has rarely ever happened in Earth's history. Ice ages are not the norm.

Carbon dioxide must be low, equatorial currents must be weak, and a landmass must be present on one of the poles. If all those conditions aren't met, no ice age.

What you are confused with is we are currently in is called an Interglacial. We are still very definitely in an ice age. Interglacial periods simply describe the ebb and flow of glaciation toward the temperate zone and toward the poles with an interglacial period describing when ice at the poles is at its minimum. While a 'glacial' describes conditions where glaciers reach their maximum.

Fun fact. We should be heading back into a glacial. That's what the Millankovitch cycles tell us. Humans have most likely delayed the next glacial by 5000 years or more while some scientists fear we may have destroyed it altogether.

>>8630191
You are correct. Most models that we use to predict the trends (which aren't perfect, as deniers claim climatologists say they are, but are good enough that the predictions are useful for the field and accurate) show that without greenhouse gas forcings from anthropogenic CO2 emissions, that climate would be cooling every so slightly, being pretty stable as well, but cooling.

>>8629761
>actually linking to a wordpress blog as a source
xD

>>8628683
we need to import ice from space

>>8629420
>>8629731
>>8629846
>deniers can handwave the disappearance of three thousand billion tons of ice
Let me guess, it went into the cocktail glasses of all the globalist Jewish overlords right?

>>8628683
Go back to /x/ libtard.

File: nxllq3hcc4j6sebjgw15.gif (706KB, 800x423px) Image search: [Google]

706KB, 800x423px

Bump

>>8631015
This is a better way to understand sea ice decline that those images. You have to look at the older, thicker sea ice that doesn't melt in summer, and how rapidly it has decreased. That is the telltale sign that things are not normal at all, as you wouldn't see these effects on a natural geological timescale climate change.

When you look at sea ice decline, this is the most important factor. Sea ice is not going to disappear, the extent is decreases every decade, but it's still cold enough in winter in the arctic for sea ice to form, and will continue to be for centuries, but the extent is decreasing, and arctic waters are heating up due to smaller amounts of sea ice every year, causing a positive feedback effect of decreased albedo and increased ocean temperatures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw7GfNR5PLA

File: thats-not-an-argument-3737029.png (73KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x365px

>>8630789

Who was in the wrong here?

https://youtu.be/rSe7UDVRNnE

>>8628914
I'm not entirely convinced this is true. There are a few technologies we have now that could help, for example capturing co2 through carbonate looping. For this to be practical we would need to lower the temperature of the process from 600 degrees to somewhere closer to room temperature, and work out the problem of scale, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

File: bands.jpg (75KB, 604x597px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 604x597px

>>8628894
my sides

File: centipedos.png (101KB, 719x902px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 719x902px

>>8630789

Join your "brethren".

>>8629707
no everyone who disagrees with science is from /pol/
leave us alone so we can try to figure out how to innovate our way out of the shit storm your policies will have on our environment.

>>8628683
Any proof that climate change hasn't been occurring since before human intervention?

I have no faith that the plans put forth to combat climate change are even effective and not just money grubbing schemes.

File: braveheartbruce.jpg (232KB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1920x816px

>>8629006
> if you think China or India are just going to stop, you're delusional
So, in other words, new technologies will never be adopted worldwide?

Says someone on the Internet.

>>8628944
why do you say that it is dogma?

>>8631493
buzzwords and memes.

File: 1481230788823.png (301KB, 1551x1599px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1551x1599px

>>8631447
>no everyone who disagrees with science is from /pol/
please stop conflating fake climate science with real science

i don't think you'll find any gravity deniers on /pol/

>>8628876
Ah, most of the increase does not result from sea ice melt, however it is an indicator of the real problem which is thermal expansion. If the oceans get warmer the water will expand and make sea levels increase. For every cm of increasing sea level, water will move inland about a meter on average.

>>8628683
>wanting it to be cold
you are a bad person.

File: leaf4.jpg (84KB, 636x636px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 636x636px

>>8631846
canadian here

the cold is underrated

>>8628945
Boi, why not on a human timescale?

If we can fuck it up this fast why can't we unfuck it with sufficient technology

File: 1480039392452.jpg (27KB, 300x347px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x347px

>>8632040
>If we can fuck it up this fast why can't we unfuck it with sufficient technology
>if we can nuke the entire planet this fast why can't we unnuke it with sufficient technology

>>8632043
We could rebuild it, realistically, it would take a long time but it would be on a human timescale,

provided the *entire* surface of Earth is not literally nuked

>>8629707
he says as he posts a knowyourmeme filename, /pol/tards are hypocrites

>>8631833
>fake climate science
So all these findings around the world isolated from each other are just a conspiracy run by the jews right ? The vast majority of scientist are simply raking in hand over fist over off of this climate change meme right ?

File: 1481806604585.jpg (37KB, 544x486px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 544x486px

>>8632058
am i supposed to rename everything i find doing a google image search?

>>8632072
yes, it's poor form/bad manners otherwise

>>8629974
> Oopps, I got BTFO again because I assumed that graph was made up by an evil warmist.
> But I'll never admit how wrong I was?
> Please forget about how I was totally wrong here claiming an evil denier made the graph
>>8629761
>>>8629698
>Whoever made that graph (Monckton, so typical!)

Now the warmist does the red herring to make us forget how wrong he was:
> Here's my red herring. Please forget about how I was totally wrong here:
>http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
>I guess this graph from this NSIDC source is not valid either?

No because its uses standard deviations as the measurement value which is only meaningful in homogeneous statistics. The random variables which describe polar ice melt/growth are non-homogeneous; that is, they are time-dependent.

>>8632515
>>8629974
>>8629963
>Wrong. I know little on this topic, and I'm researching it right now. ESMR was a completely inferior way to measure sea ice, which is why the switch to SMMR was undertaken and why observations don't start in 1972.
>>8629963
>NSIDC has nothing to do with the IPCC you cunt. IPCC
You shit head. That graph was published in the UN IPCC FAR report of 1990 (Fig. 7.20, p. 224):
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

This demonstrates that the data was considered worthwhile by the UN IPCC. Even if "gasp" they used ESMIR. Deal With It.

What stupid red herring trick are you going to try this time to hide another of your myriad mistakes?

>>8629963
>IPCC doesn't do their own research, they don't collect the data, they don't publish peer review paper.
Nice red herring buddy. I never said they do their own research. I said they do review, which they do.
Their Entire Publications (AR & FAR) go through their own special peer review process!!
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

File: image001.png (76KB, 1155x860px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1155x860px

>>8632515
>>8632517
>MUH RED HERRING
Do you not realize that you are guilty of the exact same fallacy? You prance around the point of sea ice decline by claiming it's data manipulation, instead of actually addressing the evidence. Then you go back to 1990 to pull out a single graph from an old ass IPCC report that is the ONLY source I can find that even uses the ESMR satellite data. EVEN IF YOU USE IT, THERE IS STILL A DECLINE.

Literally look at this graph, it starts at 1952 despite observations from that time being from ships and upwards sonar from submarines, and is not very complete. Tell me that this is not a decline, look at the anomaly deviation:
Read the Meier et. al paper from 2012 that quantified sea ice extent from 1950s to 2012:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html

READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, FOR THE LAST TIME.
>Here, a method is presented to adjust a compilation of pre-satellite sources to remove discontinuities between the two periods and create a more consistent combined 59-yr time series spanning 1953–2011. This adjusted combined time series shows more realistic behavior across the transition between the two individual time series and thus provides higher confidence in trend estimates from 1953 through 2011
>The results indicate that trends through the 1960s were largely positive (though not statistically significant) and then turned negative by the mid-1970s and have been consistently negative since, reaching statistical significance (at the 95 % confidence level) by the late 1980s

Here's another more recent paper that goes all the way back to the 1930s, still a decline:
https://diablobanquisa.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/new-time-series-september-arctic-sea-ice-extent-1935-2014/

You are delusional. Your armchair analysis of climatological data, and your assertions that you know better than the experts that study the data show how ignorant you are.

File: Capture.jpg (93KB, 553x1178px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 553x1178px

>>8632517
That IPCC report is from 1990. You do realize this is almost 30 years old now, right? This graph you posted is literally the ONLY climatological graph I can find that uses ESMR satellite data, maybe there's an actual reason that data is not used today and it starts in 1979?

It's really sad how you have to go all the way back to 1990 to cherrypick a chart to confirm your biases. Sea ice decline in the arctic is a reality.

Look at this video, understand how the thickest sea ice that takes years, decades to accumulate is diminishing at a rapid rate, increasing every year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

Also here's a direct link to the paper from my last post:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.pdf

>The sensors used in the consistent, long-term passive microwave sea ice time series, SMMR-SSM/I-SSMIS, are multi-channel (five frequencies, four with dual polarization). Preceding this multichannel passive microwave era, a singlechannel sensor, the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) on the NASA Nimbus-5 platform operated from late 1972 through early 1977

>Because it was only a single channel instrument, the NT algorithm is not applicable and a single-channel algorithm was used
> There were several quality control issues with ESMR, limiting data collection. Nonetheless, daily and monthly sea ice concentration and extent estimates have been produced for most months between January 1973 and December 1977
>The different algorithms, limited data quality, and the lack of an overlap between the ESMR and SMMR complicate merging of the ESMR extents with the SII values in a consistent manner.

Again, here you have an explanation in the literature itself why ESMR data is not merged with SMMR

http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0009
You want to view ESMR data, here you go:

This right here is why ESMR was not used, and ceased being used to collect sea ice data after SMMR-SSMI came online in 1979.

Mean to link to this video by the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA

>No because its uses standard deviations as the measurement value which is only meaningful in homogeneous statistics. The random variables which describe polar ice melt/growth are non-homogeneous; that is, they are time-dependent.

You can say whatever bullshit you want, you can pretend like you know better than the experts that actually analyze the data (go ahead with your MUH APPEAL TO AUTHORITY), but you don't. Your methods are not more valid than theirs are.

Your entire post reads like an "I AM VERY SMART!" pseudo intellectualism. You think you're better than the people at the NSIDC? Wow! You should go publish your own research in an academic journal, surely since you have pointed out such severe flaws in their methodology, you could just stroll up to these scientists and completely blow them the fuck out, right? Hell, you could even email the good folks of the NSIDC over at CU and present your astounding findings on how all of their analysis is wrong [email protected]

Again, what your complaint really comes down to is you disagree with how climate data is analyzed, using anomalies and a comparison to a running average, and whether the anomaly was positive or negative for the time period. This is a perfectly rational and reasonable approach to analyzing the data, and this is why it is used in climatology, you're armchair analysis of expert methods is sadly irrelevant.
I suggest you do a little research on how climate data is analyzed, and what better way than to read from the climatologists such as Gavin Schmidt at GISS along with his colleagues over at Real Climate?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

As far as IPCC goes by the way, you know that they invite climate skeptics to participate in the review process, right? They invite a wide variety of people from many scientific fields to review their reports before they are published.

>>8628683
Creata big hole in the ozon layer, which is hard to so, but possible

File: alola.jpg (50KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x450px

>>8632517
>That graph was published in the UN IPCC FAR report of 1990
...so, it's exactly like >>8629974 said:
>It's an organization that looks at the scientific evidence and publishes reports for policy makers.
it's a little unclear what point you thought you were making here.

>Their Entire Publications (AR & FAR) go through their own special peer review process!!
Okay, now you're just demonstrating your ignorance of some terms here. "peer review" and "expert review" are different things. Peer review is when a researcher in a field does some research and sends their write-up around to other researchers (their PEERS) to make sure that their research is scientifically sound and statistically rigorous. Expert review is when an organization (typically a political organization of some sort) is putting together a document that draws on research, and they send it around to actual researchers (EXPERTS on the topic) to make sure that the technical details are correct.
It's more or less the difference between having your novel critiqued and having your novel proofread. But you don't know that, and you don't really care.

>>8629035
After our industry shipped itself over there, yeah.

>>8628697
>/pol/ how do you explain this picture that NASA released?

They would tell you the earth is flat and everything released by nasa is fake

>>8629006
>US is on the way

Not with Trump being president.

why are some so vehemently against anthropocentric climate change? I mean, the ones that aren't connected to big coal, just normal dudes that are so convinced it's all a conspiracy / bullshit. Is it contrarianism?

>>8632836
Some people don't like seeing other people within their state go jobless because of a not so immediate threat

>>8632850
Better to pay the price for acknowledging reality now, than deny reality and let it accrue interest.

>>8632836
It's a disease. People who refuse to accept the evidence because there has been such a massive amount of misinformation spread around for decades. Climate change denial is nothing new, propaganda campaigns to spread misinformation on climate change have existed since the late 1990s.

Really though, it boils down to politics, and the fossil fuel industry using very successful efforts to spread doubt and misinformation. Look at all the mainstream organizations that have received fossil fuel money, and still campaign for climate change denial like Heartland, George C. Marshall, Cato, etc. All of these libertarian, strictly anti-regulation organizations that will do whatever it takes to protect their special interest and prevent any regulation on carbon emissions. The reality is they don't care about what the causes of climate change are, they don't want to pay the consequences no matter what.

Go read Merchants of Doubt, it's a really great overview of how deniers have spread lies and deception for decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

There's a documentary that's based on the book too, pretty great watch.
http://rarbg.to/torrents.php?search=merchants+of+doubt

Also this is a great video on climate denial in general to explain the idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhykhXxjzGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

Most of the deniers in these threads are parodies of what the typical climate science denier. They make the same, old tired debunked talking points over and over and over again. They never accept or look at the evidence, they don't care about it.

>>8632855
Okay, what will you do with the tens of thousands now unemployed miners and their families?

>>8628876
>what i wanna know is why most scientists and people think that the water levels would rise?
>does earth not follow displacement laws?

Oh wow those scienticians are stupid rite?!?!

>>8632862
What about the tens of thousands of unemployed fast food workers from automation? What about the tens of thousands of unemployed truck drivers from self driving trucks / cars? What about the tens of thousands of unemployed auto workers due to automation?

Times change, jobs are created and jobs are lost as industries go out of favor. We need to move away from using fossil fuels, it's just a necessity that has to happen. It doesn't need to be instantaneous, but keeping jobs is little justification due to the potential economic and infrastructure, not to mention agricultural impacts from climate change on our future.

Like I said, no one thinks fossil fuel usage will stop overnight, and neither will the jobs instantly disappear, but there needs to be a slowdown in usage, and it needs to start now, not later. R&D for Nuclear needs to be increased, and regulations decrease, since nuclear is the best solution for maintaining our energy needs while switching off fossil fuels, and can provide all our energy needs for centuries. At the same time R&D on renewable and they will get cheaper and cheaper and more efficient. This not only creates plenty of jobs to replace those lost in the fossil fuel industry, but it will allow costs to be cut over time and lower the price of energy.

>>8632862
I don't know, I'm not an economist.
If we didn't have a good answer to that question, do you think that would justify accepting the much larger long-term costs of doing nothing about AGW?

>>8628894
The oceans will get warmer and cover more area due to thermal expansion.
Don't know how big of an effect that is though.

>>8632862
Electricity and light bulbs will destroy thousands of candle makers businesses, what will we do of them?

File: Westside Highway near the USS Intrepid.jpg (181KB, 964x639px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 964x639px

>>8632862

We'll build a wall to keep the ocean out.

File: 01 Vinnikov 1980.jpg (123KB, 800x526px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x526px

>>8632629
>>>8632515
>>>8632517
>>MUH RED HERRING
>Do you not realize that you are guilty of the exact same fallacy? You prance around the point of sea ice decline by claiming it's data manipulation,
ANOTHER STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Never said it wasn't declining. Said you're being statistically deceptive.

>Read the Meier et. al paper from 2012 that quantified sea ice extent from 1950s to 2012:
>http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html
>READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, FOR THE LAST TIME.
How authoritarian. People who will lose their job if they say otherwise, say climate change is true.
LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DATA. And without statistical gamesmanship.

You want to read papers?
READ THE HISTORICAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND SEE HOW MUCH HISTORY HAS BEEN ALTERED

Why doesn't the modern literature agree with the past? Because they rewrote it!!
Look at Vinnikov, K. Ya, et al. "Current climatic changes in the Northern Hemisphere." Meteorologiya i gidrologiya 6 (1980): 5-17.
Your posted graph chooses September, the deepest melt time and far and away the most variable. How about an annual graph like Vinnikov? Pic related. Cherry pick much?
Again, READ THE HISTORICAL SCIENTIFIC LITARATURE. Because it's not goal-seeked with a pre-determined conclusion. You're in for a big surprise.

File: 02 Vinnikov + NOAA.jpg (92KB, 915x369px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 915x369px

>>8634959
>8632629
-- Continued
02
>>8632629
>>>8632515
>>>8632517

Now look at this combined graph of Vinnikov and the NOAA data via UN IPCC 1990 (which you despise because the don't have the correct goal seeked conclusion.) Wow! The arctic sea ice certainly look oscillatory.

Again, look at total sea ice here: >>8629698
What are the sea ice area values?
Year_______Peak Sea Ice___________Minimum Sea Ice
1979_______22 million sq. km_______17 million sq. km
2015_______21.5 million sq. km______15.5 million sq. km
Change______2.3%_________________8.8%

Not much of a change.

File: 03 Sea Ice Thickness.png (1MB, 1735x853px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1735x853px

>>8634960
>>8632648
>>>8632517
>That IPCC report is from 1990. You do realize this is almost 30 years old now, right? This graph you posted is literally the ONLY climatological graph I can find that uses ESMR satellite data, maybe there's an actual reason that data is not used today and it starts in 1979?
>It's really sad how you have to go all the way back to 1990 to cherrypick a chart to confirm your biases. Sea ice decline in the arctic is a reality.
>Look at this video, understand how the thickest sea ice that takes years, decades to accumulate is diminishing at a rapid rate, increasing every year.
>You want to view ESMR data, here you go:
>Look at my cherry picked statistics.

Above, I illustrated how grossly distorted this "the sky is falling" crap is.
Again, go back and look here: >>8629698

And what of sea ice thickness? Keeping in mind that the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels oscillate counter-cyclically.

Look at the massive increase in thick sea ice in the Arctic (thickness increases as colors go from cool to warm). Again, you've got to go straight to the data instead of watching cherry picked, give us more money videos.

Source, Danish Meteorological Institute
2015: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20150804.png
2016: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160804.png

>>8634961
>>8632681
>Mean to link to this video by the way.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA [Embed]
>>No because its uses standard deviations as the measurement value which is only meaningful in homogeneous statistics. The random variables which describe polar ice melt/growth are non-homogeneous; that is, they are time-dependent.
>You can say whatever bullshit you want, you can pretend like you know better than the experts that actually analyze the data (go ahead with your MUH APPEAL TO AUTHORITY), but you don't. Your methods are not more valid than theirs are.
>Your entire post reads like an "I AM VERY SMART!" pseudo intellectualism. You think you're better than the people at the NSIDC?

When it comes to statistics, yes. This is a very elementary error. Assuming that the random variables are homogeneous makes for huge mistakes. I'm reminded of the huge statistical mistake of taking heavily sampled data (high frequency sampling), e.g, instrumental temperatures and gluing it onto much less sampled data (low frequency sampling), e.g, temperature proxies from 100s to 1000s of years ago. Wow! Instant hockey stick. And a huge statistical mistake. Yes, I know statistics. Didn't mean to make you feel so insecure.
>Wow! You should go publish your own research in an academic journal, surely since you have pointed out such severe flaws in their methodology, you could just stroll up to these scientists and completely blow them the fuck out, right?

You will believe what you find convenient to believe, but yes I have published; in other fields. [I'm sure you don't believe this, don't waste your time saying, "you're full of shit."] If you think that someone could come along and make Climate Change "Science" look bad, then you are truly ignorant. Many $Billions of dollars ride on this scheme. Not to mention salaries, and political aspirations. Its not really a science any more. Closer to a secular religion.

>>8634965
>>8632720
>>>8632517
>>That graph was published in the UN IPCC FAR report of 1990
>...so, it's exactly like >>8629974 said:
>>It's an organization that looks at the scientific evidence and publishes reports for policy makers.
>it's a little unclear what point you thought you were making here.
>>Their Entire Publications (AR & FAR) go through their own special peer review process!!
>Okay, now you're just demonstrating your ignorance of some terms here. "peer review" and "expert review" are different things. Peer review is when a researcher in a field does some research and sends their write-up around to other researchers (their PEERS)

You don't need to explain peer review to me. But you are forgetting that the UN IPCC brings in "peers" to evaluate if a publication is good enough for inclusion in their reports. Its a second level of review.

>>8634966
>>8634965
>>8634961
>>8634960
>>8634959
lol, it's hilarious how this guy comes into these threads at the same exact time every day with his pre-typed responses, I can just imagine him typing out his shitty arguments in microsoft word and copy pasting them into the thread, before he leaves until the next day. You're clearly some faggot from Wattsup or something specifically coming to these threads to start arguments, sad tbqh. You clearly don't even know how to properly reply to posts in these threads either, now fucking new are you?

File: sea ice decline current.jpg (69KB, 1238x709px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1238x709px

>>8634959
You're the type of person who would be ranting and raving about Einstein being wrong in the 1910s and that Newtonian physics weren't invalidated.
>HISTORY HAS BEEN ALTERED
If you mean more and more data has been collected, and scientific models have become better and better, then yes, climate science has definitely advanced a lot in the past 100 years. You still present no evidence for a conspiracy, and your posts are a laughing stock of these threads.

Oh but wait, now I understand, you want to just cherrypick sea ice decline by using very obscure sources of information, you do realize how infinitely superior satellites are to pre-satellite measurements of sea ice?

>>8634961
You haven't demonstrated anything in these threads aside from your penchant for conspiracy and denial of fundamental scientific ideas and concepts. Your fallacy-ridden ramblings sadly don't change the evidence for sea ice decline from satellites.
>Again, you've got to go straight to the data instead of watching cherry picked, give us more money videos.
Yes, videos based directly off the data are cherrypicked, my god arguing with you retards is impossible, you have impossible standards and play by the same denial playbook every single time. You never change, you never evolve. Your arguments are tired and stagnant.

Oh, also, hilarious how you are suddenly an advocate for HYCOM-CICE, a sea ice scientific MODEL, when apparently you believe all the climate models are wrong, and they should be thrown out.

I thought that you sceptics thought DMI was fraudulent anyways, isn't that the running narrative on your blogs? You do realize that THESE ARE THE VERY MODELS YOU DESPISE? The ultimate irony here is the source you post, DMI, directly supports my argument, not yours, yet you are too stupid to see:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

The actual NSIDC observations from satellites > the models regardless.

>>8634965
>You will believe what you find convenient to believe, but yes I have published; in other fields.
No one cares. You are still wrong and your appeals to your own supposed authority mean as little as the opinion of a veterinarian on astrophysics.

You also seem to imply that climate scientists have no background in statistics of maths, when in fact many of them have extensive backgrounds in maths, because climate science actually involves numerous people from numerous scientific fields, as impossible as you seem to think that is. For example, James Hansen is a physicist. Michael Mann has a PhD in Geophysics, Gavin Schmidt has a PhD in applied maths. These are just three prominent examples, to argue that these gentlemen do not understand statistics, or that their methods are invalid is another fallacy of yours.

> Many $Billions of dollars ride on this scheme. Not to mention salaries, and political aspirations. Its not really a science any more. Closer to a secular religion.
Oh boy here we go again with the ad hom, red herrings, anecdote, appeals to emotion (muh religion) and strawman, from your own mouth! It's hilarious how often you criticize others for fallacies and then turn right around and do the same exact thing.

Once again, all conjecture, no substance, nothing but a bunch of conspiracy claims of grandeur. You only say these things because you know you have no actual, credible argument, so you have to resort to /pol/-tier conversational methods.

It's insane how supposed "skeptics" like yourself are some of the least skeptical people in the world when it comes to the very bullshit you peddle. You stay insulated in your hugboxes / echo chambers of denial, never venturing out into the actual literature because you're too scared, and it will invalidate your shitty conceptions the actual science.

>>8630126
Climate scientists are not setting the agenda. The environmentalists are.

>>8630122
Any plausible plan to solve for transport fuels, heating, and most other industrial use of fossil fuels is almost certainly going to rely on electricity. Once we get practically 0 CO2 electricity, then the rest can follow. Transport fuel is an open question, but there are promising approaches, again assuming practically 0 COs electricity. That gets us to about 86% of all human CO2 emissions.

>>8628697
>/pol/ how do you explain this picture that NASA released?
Jews

I'm all for fixing climate change if the Chinese pay 100% of it.

>>8635082
Why is it so hard for people to admit, just once, that maybe environmentalist are right on one issue, the issue of climate change? Environmentalists aren't perfect, but fuck, if there's one issue that's actually valid and has scientific evidence to support it's climate change, and environmentalists are of course going to be at the forefront of a movement designed to make people aware and drive policy changes.

Also, not every environmentalist is anti-nuclear.

>>8635107
US is far more to blame for the problems if anything, it's our consumer culture that drives china's economy, and thus their increased fossil fuel emissions. That's not to say that China is doing great things, but fuck, at least they don't have a partisan political system with one side completely stonewalling and diving into conspiracies about scientific evidence to stall policy changes. When it comes time to actually get shit done about climate change, China is far more capable of driving that change than the US, at least right now considering how the US has an administration controlled by climate change deniers.

File: Buttfingerer.png (177KB, 680x274px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 680x274px

>>8634959
>Never said it wasn't declining.
oops >>8629076
>the amount of see ice (not ice) is rising.
you realize we can all just scroll up, right?

>People who will lose their job if they falsify the data, accurately report their results based on the data available.
FTFY

>Why doesn't the modern literature agree with the past? Because they rewrote it!!
...do you realize that until the satellite record started in the 1970s, we didn't have a reliable way to measure sea ice extent? earlier measurements were entirely extrapolated from observations of ice from passing ships, and we didn't have nearly enough vessels (research and commercial) out there to get proper coverage of the oceans. the reason old records and new measurements are sometimes in disagreement is because old records are based on unreliable measurement techniques.

>>8634960
>Wow! The arctic sea ice certainly look oscillatory.
this is true if and only if you have no idea what "oscillatory" means.
again, comparing old (ship-based estimation) and new (satellite photography) measurements of sea ice is nearly meaningless due to the unreliability of the older methods.
>total sea ice
>Not much of a change.
if you're retarded and think a sqkm of Arctic ice is equivalent to a sqkm of Antarctic ice, I'd see how you might come to this conclusion
since 1979, the Arctic has lost ~1/3rd of its summer sea ice, and the Antarctic has gained another ~1/5th of its summer sea ice (remember, their summers are disjoint) due to increased ice flow off the landmass. the two sea ice masses have different origins, different interactions with the ocean, and different ecological and climatological implications.
it's just like a typical denier to try and oversimplify everything he can't understand.

File: global_warming.webm (2MB, 682x403px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 682x403px

>>8628697
/pol/ster here - despite the shitposting, most of us generally accept that global warming is happening.

Where we disagree is with the alarmist conclusions being drawn about the immediate severity of global warming, the blanket dismissal and censorship of dissenting opinions within the scientific community, and the crappy half-measures that outspoken supporters of the IPCC's warming model keep pushing.


If the left was really serious about dealing with climate change and not just using it for political ammunition, they'd
a) Stop opposing nuclear fission like a bunch of retarded hippies and
b) Call for economic sanctions against China until it stops putting out more greenhouse emissions than then next, like, five industrialized nations put together and
c) Start exploring options for active reduction of existing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.

File: FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160804[1].png (705KB, 1337x1113px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 1337x1113px

>>8634961
>Look at the massive increase in thick sea ice in the Arctic
oh wow, a slight increase over a 1-year time span. and you accuse others of cherry-picking statistics?
I like how you conveniently cropped out the graph off to the right showing that Arctic sea ice thickness and volume have been declining overall over the past decade or so. pic related, it's the uncropped version.
that's deniers for you. they'll happily edit a figure to get rid of the parts that prove them wrong.

>>8635109
>Also, not every environmentalist is anti-nuclear.
Most of the organizations are. Green Peace. Sierra Club. US Green Party. Etc.

>>8635122
Yeah, unfortunately basically the entire environmental lobby is anti-nuclear. Every time someone tries to build a new plant they get fucking swarmed by Greenpeace and their ilk.

File: Untitled.png (73KB, 599x563px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 599x563px

>>8635114
China does not put out more emissions, this has been discussed before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
China is barely double the US, and per capita the US is much, MUCH higher than china. The average US citizen contributes far more to emissions than the average Chinese person, not to defend China because they are still pumping out so much.

You have to also understand that the reason China's emissions are high is directly due to their industry supplying the west with cheap, shitty products.

As for pulling out CO2 from the atmosphere, wouldn't that be an absolutely massive geoengineering project? Cheaper just to cut down and reduce emissions altogether.

>>8635110
>>8635114
>>8635121
Glad there's someone else in this thread bothering to respond to this idiot. You're right though, I didn't even notice his image used a 1 year period, the data from the source he posted shows a net decline in sea ice. Also their data shows that this year's sea ice is already at a new low from the mean value, even beating 2015's low.

>>8635122
It's true, and it's a real shame they can't see that Nuclear is the best solution we have for climate change. That said, Greenpeace has still done a lot of work with climate change that I respect, such as the stuff they did with Exxonmobil. I don't 100% hate them, but people need to have a more rational outlook on Nuclear and be pragmatic, it's a perfectly viable solution, and it's mostly safe, especially newer plants.

>>8635131
>As for pulling out CO2 from the atmosphere, wouldn't that be an absolutely massive geoengineering project? Cheaper just to cut down and reduce emissions altogether.

Might need to do both in order to avoid really bad effects, depending on exactly what sort of mechanisms are in play, and how fast we can cut down on emissions.

>>8635131
>>8635114
Oh nevermind you said 5x the next 5 industrial nations, you are correct on that, looked at it myself.

>>8635127
nuclear and electric cars are the only way we save this planet?

File: Burgerdog.jpg (24KB, 467x533px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 467x533px

>>8634965
>Assuming that the random variables are homogeneous makes for huge mistakes.
Amazingly enough, some people who are a little better-read than you have understand this, and went ahead and homogenized the data, presumably for this very reason.
>http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g00799_arctic_southern_sea_ice/
Talk about incorrect assumptions.

>>8635139
>Electric cars
Maybe. I don't know the right answer fort transportation. Electric cars work for short commuters, but it's not really good enough for trucking. Definitely not good enough for shipping. Supremely not good enough for flying. For flying, you absolutely need liquid hydrocarbon fuels. For shipping, you need liquid hydrocarbon fuels, maybe hydrogen(?), or a nuclear reactor on the ship (which I want to avoid for obvious reasons).

It may be that we can produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 from the air or ocean, plus water, plus electricity. It depends on whether the techniques that are shown in the lab can be scaled up at reasonable cost. This is IMHO the best bet, but there are other options too.

>>8628697
>/pol/ how do you explain this picture that NASA released?
You fell for jewish trickery my friend

>>8635143
I remember seeing something about using massive sails on cargo ships years ago, or even massive kites like windsufers use to reduce fuel consumption. In fact these measures would make sense economically if only to save the shipping companies money on fuel.

>>8635143
I remember hydrogen being discussed as "a fuel of the future" but it seems like it disappeared, also my mom used to tell me how they had methanol-powered cars and buses a while back that also disappeared. Does big oil has something to do with suppressing these things or is that just paranoia speaking?

>>8635131
>As for pulling out CO2 from the atmosphere, wouldn't that be an absolutely massive geoengineering project?
Probably, but if CO2 really is the primary climate driver, it's the only option for not just slowing global warming, but actively reversing the effects.

>>8635149
It might work AFAIK, except for planes.

>>8635139
It's a start.

Ultimately a bigger step in the right direction would be moving away from the 'throwaway culture' that's developed over the last few decades. The emissions produced and the resources wasted manufacturing, transporting, packaging, and selling random crap probably does as much if not more damage than all vehicle emissions.

Nobody keeps stuff anymore, nobody repairs stuff anymore, they just throw it out and buy a replacement, because it's objectively cheaper and simpler to do so.

That's a much much much harder and more nebulous problem to tackle, though.

>>8635155
Is there no way to make planes "green"?

>>8635162
I just said: CO2 neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuels. As long as you make the fuel from CO2 pulled from the air or oceans, then it does not contribute to global warming, because it doesn't net add to CO2 in the air.

But that seems to be the only option for flying.

>>8635166
Is there already tech to filter CO2 out of the air or is that the next Nobel Prize winner?

>>8635159
I agree. I'm not a socialist, but consumer culture is a cancer. Everyone has to have the latest tech bullshit, and they toss their old shit away where it gets sent to a landfill, or recycled by being sent to India or Africa tech dumps where locals literally smelt the metals from the electronics with no protections.

Then you have shit like small pieces of plastics floating in massive gyres in all the Earth's oceans, fragments so small they are nearly invisible to the naked eye, fish and shit eating them up. We have fucked up so much shit due to consumerism.

>>8635169
There's several techs. Search for US navy synthetic gasoline, e-diesel, and green freedom method.

>>8635114
>Where we disagree is with the alarmist conclusions being drawn about the immediate severity of global warming, the blanket dismissal and censorship of dissenting opinions within the scientific community, and the crappy half-measures that outspoken supporters of the IPCC's warming model keep pushing.
Fair enough.

>>8635171
wow, thanks anon this is really cool

>>8635195
The prob is that none of the stuff is demonstrated at large scale, and the costs are uncertain. AFAIK.

Not very easily, but who cares

I was never a huge fan of biodiversity, or how habitable the equatorial zones are if your society doesn't average 120 on IQ tests and build underground floodproof superstructures.

If polar bears go extinct what's the big deal? If india just can't support its population and half of the people there die, what's the big deal? If rare insects and cephalopods that might go extinct are so important why are we complaining instead of diverting all activism/advocacy/lobbying funds into hunting them down, sequencing their genomes, and studying them as intensively as possible?

inb4 natural beauty and the inherent value of human life

Pfffffft. Year round motorcycle season in canada seems like a better deal.

Let's just hope we don't trigger an ice age instead

>>8628683
*sigh* yes.

You asked a binary question, you get a binary answer.

>>8635169
There is, and there's tech to synthesize straight ethanol from atmospheric Co2 using copper nanospikes. On top of this, we've already figured out how to run ICEs on methanol and ethanol fairly well. It's just very expensive to make the tech, more expensive to run it long enough to make a difference, doubly expensive to get everyone to use the alternative fuel, and you're not getting it without central planning and forced labor, period, so instead you get something that leverages the uneducated oohs and aaahs the free market thrives on - newly manufactured EVs.

>>8635222
I've seen reasonable estimates that it might be cost competitive, i.e. 4 dollars per gallon gasoline the pump. It's very optimistic though.

>>8635227
>4 dollars per gallon

Europe is going to be thrilled!

>>8635233
Kek

>>8629012
Bullshit. China is still opening around 3 coal power plants a week. For every investment in solar, there are dozens more investments going to fossil fuels.

>>8635581
The solution is clear:

For the sake of the environment... we must nuke China.

>>8628683
Beginning with the impossible
-a giant mirror to cool the earth.
-moving the earth farther away.
-absorb excess C02 in a few years.

Hard
-put aerosols to cool the planet.
-use algea blooms to absorb C02. Will acidify oceans though.
-transition to renewable+nuclear+battery.
-make all modes of transport electric.

Easier
-kill most of mankind.
-stop using oil and generating electricity.

>>8631833
>holocaust thread on /pol/
>The truth doesn't fear investigation!
>climate thread on /sci/
>Trump (surrounded by oil executives) only silenced the EPA because they're making fake news!

>>8628959
If any of these are serious suggestions then you should just kill yourself

>>8635599
>algal blooms to absorb CO2
goodbye all coastal ocean life (oxyden depletion)

>>8628683
What for? Ice-free passage would save energy.

>>8635114
>Where we disagree is with the alarmist conclusions being drawn about the immediate severity of global warming, the blanket dismissal and censorship of dissenting opinions within the scientific community, and the crappy half-measures that outspoken supporters of the IPCC's warming model keep pushing.

What do you mean "we"?

>>8635114
>If the left was really serious about dealing with climate change and not just using it for political ammunition, they'd

What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing can be done about climate change until conservitards stop denying it exists

>>8635712
The Democrats had considerable control over the country for the last eight years. Eight years to start putting up meaningful solutions for dealing with climate change. Eight years and the most we got out of the Democratic Party was subsidies for a bunch of solar and wind power companies that went broke, and more meaningless regulations, taxes, and carbon credits. Year nine wasn't going to be the year when everything suddenly turned around and get off their asses.

*Some* conservatives are skeptical of the research on climate change. That doesn't mean those same skeptics don't also see the enormous benefit in reducing our consumption of fossil fuels, reducing our reliance on foreign oil, increasing the availability of cleaner and more reliable alternatives like natural gas and nuclear fission, etc.

>>8635832
It's global scale problem caused for the industralization of the modern world.

And you expect people that can't agree on anything to fix it for you on eight years, while at the same time deal with every other problem they have.

>>8635860
They didn't have to fix the problems of the entire world. They didn't have to fix global warming in eight years. They didn't have to completely overhaul America's power infrastructure and industrial practices in eight years.

All they had to do we make small, but meaningful, changes and they didn't. They passed more needless taxes, they passed more meaningless regulations, and then they patted themselves on the fucking backs like they just saved the world.

>>8635882
Well let's just deny climate change and cut their fundings.

That will work.

>>8635885
1) Who fucking cares if he actually believes in climate change so long as he still does shit that has a meaningful impact on it? It doesn't matter if he cuts US fossil fuel dependence because it's the right thing to do environmentally or the right thing to do financially - so long as it gets fucking done. It doesn't matter if he significantly expands US nuclear power capacity because it cuts emissions or because it creates thousands of high-skill jobs and provides cheap electricity to people - so long as it gets fucking done.

2) Until he actually threatens RESEARCH funding, quit freaking out about budget cuts - so far all the shit that's on the chopping block is redundant regulatory offices and shit, not grants or awards.

>>8635832
You act as if there wasn't significant obstruction against literally anything Obama did while in office, or that Republicans didn't control congress for the majority of his terms. The truth is, we're lucky Obama got as much done as he did. I didn't personally like a lot of Obama's decisions, but he did a reasonable job (aside from the spying on Americans, treatment of whistleblowers, and continuation of an endless war on terror).

>*Some* conservatives are skeptical of the research on climate change.
Almost all of them these days. You're practically ostracized from the Republican party for suggesting otherwise. Seriously, go look at any Republican that has made statements supporting the scientific evidence, they get voted out of office really quick. The deniers (and fossil fuel special interests) have a stranglehold on conservatives.

It's actually grown more and more in recent years, every year it becomes increasingly partisan in the republican party. Used to be that there were plenty of conservatives that wanted solutions to climate change, not anymore, and especially not under Trump's denial administration.

For example, look at Newt Gingritch in 2008, beginning of the year he was open to addressing cliamte change, and there's that infamous video of him with Nanci Pelosi talking about the issue. Later in the year he's back on the "It's all a bunch of liberal enviro crap!" train.

Honestly, I could care less about Trump or his ideas, most won't effect me, but his anti-science agenda is what really pisses me off about him. Conservatives have some good ideas, but their outright fear of scientific authority and their adherence to religious dogma just irks me so hard.

>>8635899
If Trump were truly pragmatic and not partisan, he would expand the DoE and expand research into nuclear fission technologies. He would expand funding to renewable R&D and implement solar and wind projects across the country to create jobs. He wouldn't have hired a guy that knows nothing about nuclear engineering to head a department centered on it. He wouldn't have hired a guy who has sued and wants to dismantle the EPA to run it.

Did you forget that Trump is using Dr. Happer, that fucking shill, as a science adviser? He even met with trump a few days ago. This is where this administration is headed, putting idiots like Happer on a pedestal. I wonder if Trump would even consider meeting with actual climatologists to discuss the evidence for climate change.

He wouldn't threaten to shut down NASA's atmospheric research, which has been a mission of NASA since it's inception. He wouldn't have filled his advisers with literal climate change deniers.

Every single decision Trump has made so far has told me he is not pragmatic about climate change, he is completely partisan and inundated with an anti-science agenda.

File: 1485567585303.jpg (139KB, 400x1168px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 400x1168px

>>8635131
>China does not put out more emissions
>China is barely double the US

What did the jew mean by this?

>>8628683
I think that humanity will have to build up and not out in order to undo the effects, thus far. Along with the usual "get rid of fossil fuels kek" argument

>>8628683
Most of /pol/ PROBABLY believes in climate change although the trolling and ironic posting is too heavy to accurate discern it. I believe that most people who troll/shitpost on /pol/ have very moderated and watered down versions of /pol/ views anyway though. Its clear that most of /pol/ probably isn't in favor of treating climate change as if we are going to die tomorrow as >>8635114 says

File: 1393094009711.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>8629123
>>8628683
Fuck Mercator and that stupid fucking popular map.
I literally didn't know how the north pole and pretty much everything around it was actually layed out until right now.
Fuck projection show earth as a fucking sphere, it's not so fucking hard.
Also fuck my old globus for putting huge fucking connectors at the poles which made them impossible to look at.
And fuck me for never looking this shit up in google earth.

I think every planet with an atmosphere has a constantly changing climate. Trying to reverse a change that already in motion is probably not going to happen unless something extremely drastic is done. In Earth's case, if you're so worried about waters warming and ice melting, just cause a nuclear winter. That'll reverse the current warming trend.

File: IMG_3648.jpg (168KB, 792x633px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 792x633px

>>8628944
Btfo

>>8636040
This.

Despite what people would have you believe, /pol/ is not unreasonable. Most of them have relatively moderate political views apart from a rather odd lean towards nationalist policies.

File: I've seen through your tricks.jpg (33KB, 746x691px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 746x691px

>>8636384
>/pol/ is not unreasonable
>relatively moderate political views
nigga they still think PizzaGate is real
and right now there are like ten Canada hate threads up, three or four TEH JEWZZZ threads, and a few calling for the impeachment of the judge who dared to grant a stay against an executive order issued by Dorito Mussolini

>>8636873
No, /x/ thinks PizzaGate is real. They also think a bunch of creepy French plastic surgery addicts run the world. /x/ is the source of 90% of the conspiracy shit on /pol/. All the Moon hoax shit, all the 9/11 shit, all the Kennedy shit, all the aliens and free energy shit - it's those fucking /x/ fags.


>a few calling for the impeachment of the judge who dared to grant a stay against an executive order
She issued a stay on the basis that it was unreasonable to require persons who were in-flight or in-customs at the time the order was signed to be sent back... the stay does not allow any of those people to actually enter the country, however, and anyone who flew over after the order was signed still has to go back. There is technically no legal or constitutional statute for her to oppose the entire order, however, and if if she does issue a stay on the full order, it would legally be grounds for removal from her position on the Supreme Court.

Whether you agree with Trump's immigration order or not, it is entirely within the legal purview of the Executive Office to issue said order.

File: Having a drink.jpg (19KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 413x395px

>>8636921
>/pol/ doesn't think PizzaGate is real
>>>/pol/archive
>ctrl+f PizzaGate
>1 of 75

>>8636384
board of peace?

File: Future Animal Life.jpg (342KB, 895x834px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 895x834px

>>8629717
Well?

>>8628683
What if we just let them melt? Sure some land will be flooded but its not the end of the world. Right?

>>8637065
Lots of suffering for something we can easily control.

Why don't we just not use fossil fuels anymore? Why not invest in alternative sources of energy to avoid unnecessary suffering?

>>8629717
>>8637064
Heat death of the universe is unavoidable, why not just get every country to nuke life to obliteration right now?

>>8637082
We're all gonna die eventually too, let's just all commit suicide now, there's no point in living because we're all eventually gonna die.

>>8636873
>nigga they still think PizzaGate is real


>Clinton flew on the plane of a convicted child sex trafficker 26 times, many times leaving behind his SS detail
>Pedophile symbols appear in pizza establishments logo, as well as in music videos from bands they promote
>John Podesta literally has news articles a few years ago where he's proud of his collection of naked teenagers hanging on his walls

Right, but none of this is odd at all.

>>8637075
Because libertarians. I'm completely serious. The main drivers of climate change denial in the US are libertarians and other associated anti-regulatory entities.

>>8637061
/x/ spam... there's a fucking bajillion Bogdanoff threads too, that doesn't mean anyone takes it seriously.

File: FiWMangaIntros.jpg (3MB, 1244x1849px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1244x1849px

>>8637082
>>8637088
Jesus fuck, you guys are such Debbie Downers. Do you not understand what I'm trying to convey?
If we can't salvage the present, why not move to the future?

File: Bait taken.jpg (26KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 308x308px

>>8637091
spotted the /pol/esmoker

>child sex ring in basement of pizza parlor! JEWLUMINATI!
>pizza parlor doesn't even have a basement
I bet you guys think you know where Pee-Wee's bike is too.

>>8637223
Tbh you seem dumber than the average /pol/tard considering you ignored all the true facts I presented you and decided to strawman instead.

I bet you think you're infallible.

>>8637092
Evangelical conservatives are much more likely to deny AGW than libertarians. And the denial movement started with industrial astroturf.

File: disgusting animeme.jpg (16KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x320px

>>8637223
>SJWtards defend pedophilia on a science board as always.
Deporting in 3..2..1..

File: Call of Duty Bath Ops.jpg (31KB, 595x458px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 595x458px

>>8637803
>>8637852
>delusional /pol/ kiddies can't help but respond
man, this is almost as fun as playing spot the vegan
you may each have a (You)

haven't lurked in a while, can someone summarize this for me? is climate change really happening or not? are we causing it?

>>8637979
>is climate change really happening or not?
Yes

>are we causing it?
Yes.

>>8637979
>is climate change really happening or not?
Yes

>are we causing it?
No

>>8628697
/pol/ would say " OY VEY GOYIM YOU FELL FOR THE JEWISH TRICK" and they'd also say "NASA IS A BUNCH OF KIKE CONSPIRATORS" and they'd squeeze in something about Trump in there as well...

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

95KB, 946x671px

>>8638003
Wrong. Climate is projected to be cooling slightly without human influences.

>Each of the thousands of model simulations is a consistent realization of the ocean atmosphere energy balance. The resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7–6.5 ◦C, 5–95%, mean 3.6 ◦C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from palaeoclimate archives11. Using a more informative prior assumption does not significantly alter the conclusions (see Supplementary Information). Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing. The discrepancy between the total and the sum of the two contributions (14% on average) arises because the total ocean heat uptake is different from the sum of the responses to the individual forcings. Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07 ◦C (0.03–0.13 ◦C) to the warming since 1950

tl;dr - atmospheric scientists take into account the numerous contributions to both heating and cooling the entire planet, they study solar intensity, solar cycles, milankovitch cycles, sunspot cycles, atmospheric aerosols, volcanism, and other natural factors that drive climate. What they have found is that the vast majority of temperature changes that we observe are driven from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with natural forces contributing very little to the warming, in fact without anthropogenic forces playing a role, the Earth would be cooling.

https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iEj76iX-xE

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

173KB, 657x594px

>>863632
My definition of shitsource:

anything I don't like; even if its peer reviewed, or from documented data, or even from NASA GISS or the NOAA or other institutions.

Pic related. All data is from NASA GISS (Or published by James Hansen former director of NASA GISS). "But my response is, 'hurr durr, posting actual data from NASA GISS is shit data because you're a conspiracy theorist.'"

Thus does unfalsifiability permeate it's self into 'science.' "By definition, anything I don't like is a shit source, therefore Climate Change is true."

File: 3 Tampering Graphs.png (119KB, 672x1778px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 672x1778px

>>8636321
>>863632
My definition of shitsource:

anything I don't like; even if its peer reviewed, or from documented data, or even from NASA GISS, the NOAA, the United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN) or other institutions.

Sigh. This is really pathetic. Nonsensical even.
And see here: >>8638099

>>8638099
>>8638106
Oh look, it's the same faggot going on about "MUH FRAUD" when you're clearly a Dunning-Kruger brainlet who can't understand temperature adjustments no matter how simple and clear the methods are made to you.

How many times are you going to post the same bullshit images sourced from WUWT and other climate denial blogs? Every single thread you come in, post this as some kind of "smoking gun," and then completely fail to provide coherent or rational responses when it's pointed out how incredibly misleading your images are.

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

Since you won't go to my link because even Muller is not a government shill to your types (despite Watts publicly claiming he would accept whatever Muller's results were).
>I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.

>Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.

>There are a number of folks who question the need for adjustments at all. Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is that (with the exception of the newly created Climate Reference Network), there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record.

File: Figure5.png (201KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 900x900px

>Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers. Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.

>Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

>All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.

>The figure below shows the four major adjustments (including quality control) performed on USHCN data, and their respective effect on the resulting mean temperatures.

>>8637995
>>8638003
what

File: HausfatheretalUSHCNUHIsuppliment-S12.png (49KB, 566x451px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 566x451px

>>8638151
>>8638099
>>8638106
>Oh look, it's the same faggot going on about "MUH FRAUD" when you're clearly a Dunning-Kruger brainlet who can't understand temperature adjustments no matter how simple and clear the methods are made to you.
>How many times are you going to post the same bullshit images sourced from WUWT and other climate denial blogs? Every single thread you come in, post this as some kind of "smoking gun,"
>and then provide coherent and rational responses when it's pointed out how substantive your images are.
ftfy

Brainlet boy, I read Zeke's paper. Its crap.
First of all, the time of reading adjustments make early Urban night readings colder than rural readings. That's Physically Impossible!
Second, The adjustments for (urban/rural) homogenization are asymmetrical. They "tested" their homogenization/correction algorithm by using only rural or urban data for adjustments. What did they find? The selected ("matched") urban stations were similar to the non-selected (not "matched") ones. This shows that there was no bias in homogenization if you're using urban stations (which shouldn't be used in the first place because of the UHI effect, but that's another story.)
But here's the kicker. The choice of selected rural station vs. non-selected rural station WAS ASYMMETRICAL. That is, the chosen "adjustment" station was significantly moving more towards warmer, than the non-chosen station. Pic related.
Source: Fig S.I 2 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2012JD018509/asset/supinfo/HausfatheretalUSHCNUHIsuppliment.docx?v=1&s=790bb59c861d283a26062dce1f7b09ecb5e8f7df

>>8638500
-- Continued

This makes absolutely no sense as the adjustment is supposed to be on the "purported warming/cooling signal" which would be detected by the ensemble behavior of the stations (which for rural stations would be the majority in early times; and significantly colder than urban stations in later times; meaning a cooling impact, not a warming impact.). In short, it was cherry-picked. Of course, this completely eviscerates his "proof" that his homogenization algorithm isn't goal seeked to create warming from nothing.
Thus, it's a dishonest algorithm. I give him credit for publishing the smoking gun, even though its buried in the supplementary material.

To summarize, the homogenization algorithm is consistent for Urban temperatures stations. However, because of the UHI (which increases over time), they shouldn't be used in the first place. On the other hand, the algorithm goal-seeks warming rural stations, creating an exaggerated warming signal. Thus, overall, this correction algorithm is deeply flawed, as it goal seeks warming temperatures.

P.S. Do you really believe that "corrections" will always increase the rate of warming? Over and over again? Look at that graph again from my previous post, buddy. At this rate, the temperature record will eventually be a vertical line! Seriously, you've traded in common sense for "muh authority says it's so."

P.P.S. This proves that the data is tampered. Purposefully or not.

Paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/full

File: CLEAN TERRESTERIAL DATA.png (712KB, 1171x899px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1171x899px

>>8638503
>>8638151
>>8638099
>>8638106

>http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
>Since you won't go to my link because even Muller is not a government shill to your types (despite Watts publicly claiming he would accept whatever Muller's results were).

Muller, of course, works for a government owned university, the University of California, Berkeley. He is a public sector employee. More importantly, he is a lying sack of crap. He pretended to be a skeptic, which proved to be false. In fact, he admitted that he was a hard core warmist already:

Here's a nice quote of his from 2003:

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Thus, when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.

You, of course, hate Watts because he provided an independent proof that the homogenization adjustment algorithm is flawed. He showed that clean data (Class 1 and 2 stations, generally with less UHI, instrumental problems or a history of temp stations movement) warm about 50% less than all data (Class 1&2: 0.155 degrees/decade vs. NOAA 0.309 degrees/decade). Pic related.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

This is why you have such unabated, unsubstantiated and unjustified hatred of Mr. Watts. He destroyed the legitimacy of the "homogenization" adjustments.

>>8630112
My idiot-o-meter exploded

File: Autism.jpg (15KB, 250x235px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x235px

>>8638500
>the chosen "adjustment" station was significantly moving more towards warmer, than the non-chosen station. Pic related.
That's not what the picture shows, you retard. The graph is not of temperature trends, but rather of ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE TRENDS. It says so right there on the y-axis!
Are you just incapable of reading at a 90 degree angle? I know you deniers aren't much for reading (you usually prefer text) but still...

>>8638505
>when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.
Muller's 2003 and 2008 statements were on the record in 2011, when Watts preemptively endorsed the findings of Berkeley Earth. Watts didn't reject Muller's work when he learned that Muller had spoken in support of the idea that CO2 could cause warming. (And yes, Muller was indeed a skeptic; he believed that the current models and reconstructions used were statistically faulty. What he wasn't was a contrarian conspiracy theorist who denies the very existence of the greenhouse effect.) No, Watts suddenly rejected Berkeley Earth AFTER it produced the results that he had vowed to respect.

>muh surface stations
they assessed a third of all stations, and they didn't randomly select their sample, and that's not even the worst of it.
station siting can affect the OFFSET (the difference between the reading and the actual temperature) but not the TREND (a thermometer that reads .1C high will still tell you how much the temperature has risen by). this is supported by Menne et al., and yet Watts et al. claim the opposite without providing any supporting evidence. their claims regarding heat sinks hold up on shorter timescales, but will be drowned out by seasonal variability, to say nothing of longer-term changes in temperature.

>>8638773
>you usually prefer pictures
fuck me, right?

>>8632873
If only the collective thousands of literal geniuses had ever thought of what a moron on the internet came up with in 12 seconds! Checkmate scientists!

>>8628911
Not that guy but thanks

>>8632040
Ok, theoretically, yes, if most of the states on earth actually decide to really try it. But before we form some sort of world government countries who do might risk their economy and fall behind contries who don't, so progress will be really really slow. Or reverse if folks decide climate change is a lie.
So I guess it'll take a really bad world war or crisis and a couple of centuries.

>>8638003
>>8638017
Well, but it still could be a very very very very very weird coincidence caused by something still unknown.
Aliens, aybe, to study our reactions and science.

>>8637100
>muh no true scotsmen

They make your threads. They post in your threads. They're your boardbuddies now.

Remember about all that "spreading the redpill" shit? These are the people that came in. This is the bed you made, this is the bed that you must lie in.

File: Capture.jpg (59KB, 886x638px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 886x638px

>>8638505
cool story bro, what scientific journal was your friend Watt's """incredible""" study published in? Surely something so robust and free of flaws would have been published in the most prestigious of academic journals?

Did your buddy Watts disclose that his """study""" was published with hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial support from Heartland Institute? No? Hmm. Seems like a massive conflict of interest to have your climate science study funded by an organization that actively denies the scientific evidence for climate change, no?

Did you forget that Watts conveniently forgot to include comparisons of what the surface temperature looks like with and without his so called "unworthy" temperature stations?

So essentially Watt's conspiracy that various weather stations are giving poor readings gives virtually no difference in the temperature record, see for yourself (pic related).

Watt's study is a case study of cherrypicking, the denier's absolutely favorite tactic. It's nothing more than the typical contrarian tactic of making a huge deal out of the most insignificant and imagined error that have no significant conclusions on the overall evidence for global warming. If this is the best Watts can do to damage global warming, it's truly a pathetic attempt. It's as if someone found a grammatical error in a NOAA news release and went "AHA! SEE! YOU WARMIST CAN'T EVEN USE PROPER GRAMMAR! CLIMATE CHANGE DEBUNKED!"

Watts is nothing more than a little loudmouthed crybaby without an scientific education. He'a a personification of Dunning-Kruger, a little brainlet who thinks he knows better than anyone else because delusional. Almost all climate change contrarians can be described in this way.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

>Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in
the U.S. temperature trends.

>>8638773
>>8638500
>>the chosen "adjustment" station was significantly moving more towards warmer, than the non-chosen station. Pic related.
>That's not what the picture shows, you retard. The graph is not of temperature trends, but rather of ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE TRENDS. It says so right there on the y-axis!

Sorry buddy, the y-axis says: "CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ADJUSTMENT." The units are in degrees Celsius, NOT degrees Celsius per unit time or some such. You really blew it. You confused the slope of the line with the line itself. Its because you're desperate, so you tried to be clever, but it blew up in your face. That graph >>8638500 demonstrably shows that temperature stations are cherry picked to increase warming.

Specifically, as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer rural stations, meaning that the average temperatures would be distorted high by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Thus, a rural station which was an accurate proxy, would be below the mean value; it would move negative. But the actual algorithm ignores those stations and cherry-picks rural stations that have a positive cumulative impact.

This is the smoking gun of a fundamentally flawed algorithm. >>8638500

Yes, Zeke Hausfather's own paper proves that the adjustment/homogenization algorithm is fundamentally flawed.

DEAL WITH IT.

>Are you just incapable of reading at a 90 degree angle? I know you deniers aren't much for reading (you usually prefer text) but still...

Says the man who somehow mis-reads units of degrees Celsius as trend units. Says the man who confuses a line in a graph with the slope of that line. Seriously, why aren't the units on the vertical axis, degrees Celsius per unit time? Or some other type of trend unit?

>>8641298
-- Continued

>>8638505
>>when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.
>Muller's 2003 and 2008 statements were on the record in 2011, when Watts preemptively endorsed the findings of Berkeley Earth. Watts didn't reject Muller's work when he learned that Muller had spoken in support of the idea that CO2 could cause warming.
> (And yes, Muller was indeed a skeptic; he believed that the current models and reconstructions used were statistically faulty. What he wasn't was a contrarian conspiracy theorist who denies the very existence of the greenhouse effect.
> DAMN DO YOU LIKE MY STRAWMAN ARGUMENT?
> I JUST PRETENDED THAT ANYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK WE'LL DIE FROM AGW DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT CO2 ABSORBS SHORTER WAVELENTHS AND REEMITS LONGER WAVELENGTHS. WASN'T THAT CLEVER, HEH, HEH?
Trying to rewrite the past after seeing unstoppable proof that Muller was never a skeptic. You're not fooling anyone.


>No, Watts suddenly rejected Berkeley Earth AFTER it produced the results that he had vowed to respect.
Typical warmist. Tries to rewrite the past after being showed wrong.

>>muh surface stations
>they assessed a third of all stations, and they didn't randomly select their sample, and that's not even the worst of it.
Of course they didn't randomly pick them. The picked the best ones! Types 1 and 2. Let me guess, you think its biased to pick good data.

-- Continued
>>8641300
>>8641298
>>8638505

>station siting can affect the OFFSET (the difference between the reading and the actual temperature) but not the TREND (a thermometer that reads .1C high will still tell you how much the temperature has risen by). this is supported by Menne et al., [LOOK!!!! I READ SIMPLETONSCIENCE ]
This assumes that the environment is constant. Which, of course, it's not. The Urban Heat Island effect increases over time. So yes, the setting of the station will change the trend, because the environment around it changes over time.


>and yet Watts et al. claim the opposite without providing any supporting evidence.
Because the United States (and the world) hasn't become more urban in the past 100 years?
Because a loss of many rural stations wouldn't create a bias towards urban station with their increasing UHI?

Since you're still having a love affair with John Crook over at SimpletonScience, let me set you straight:

JOHN COOK DEBUNKED:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

JOHN COOK LIES
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.htm

>>8640248
>>8638505
>cool story bro, what scientific journal was your friend Watt's """incredible""" study published in? Surely something so robust and free of flaws would have been published in the most prestigious of academic journals?
So you're the other half of the "Rapid response team." You pretty much go straight to ad hominem and other rhetorical mistakes. Here you're doing the pathetic appeal to authority. But here's you peer reviewed paper:

Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. R. Christy, and R. A. Pielke Sr. (2011), Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.

Now it's all good right? Of course not, because you're belief system is unfalsifiable.

>Did your buddy Watts disclose that his """study""" was published with hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial support from Heartland Institute?
No proof supplied. And here is Watts begging for tiny donations for his surfacestations project:
http://www.surfacestations.org/donate.htm
Gosh, I thought he was raking in the cash from

How often do you buddies state that they are being funded by organizations that are trying to make $$Billions of $$Dollars off $$Carbon $$Taxes.
Why do you keep pretending that FedGov/NGO funding has no expectations?

> No? Hmm. Seems like a massive conflict of interest to have your climate science study funded by an organization that actively denies the scientific evidence for climate change, no?
You're right, your buddies work for agencies and NGOs that actively deny the rewriting of the temperatures record by deeply flawed algorithms. And they actively deny the failure of the models. They actively hide their flip flops.

Heh, heh, you have a nice self-serving argument to keep you in your echo chamber.

>>8641307
-- Continued
>>8640248
>>8638505

>Did you forget that Watts conveniently forgot to include comparisons of what the surface temperature looks like with and without his so called "unworthy" temperature stations?
What the hell do you mean? I listed the actual warming rates of those surface stations (given by Watts):
>>8638505 ,https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2

Seriously, do you just regurgitate whatever you read on Simpleton Science, or for that matter RealBogusClimate etc.?


>So essentially Watt's conspiracy [AD HOMINEM, anyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy nut] that various weather stations are giving poor readings gives virtually no difference in the temperature record, see for yourself (pic related).
>
Again, you're making shit up. Look back at the reference I gave you. The effect is a DOUBLING of the rate of warming.
>Watt's study is a case study of cherrypicking, the denier's absolutely favorite tactic.
Because picking clean data as defined by the NOAA (station levels 1 and 2) is such a devious tactic?

>>8641310
-- Continued
>>8640248
>>8638505

> It's nothing more than the typical contrarian tactic of making a huge deal out of the most insignificant and imagined error that have no significant conclusions on the overall evidence for global warming. If this is the best Watts can do to damage global warming, it's truly a pathetic attempt. It's as if someone found a grammatical error in a NOAA news release and went "AHA! SEE! YOU WARMIST CAN'T EVEN USE PROPER GRAMMAR! CLIMATE CHANGE DEBUNKED!" [AD HOMINEM, skeptics are small minded and mean.]
>Watts is nothing more than a little loudmouthed crybaby without an scientific education. He'a a personification of Dunning-Kruger, [AD HOMINEM, anyone who disagrees with me is stupid] a little brainlet who thinks he knows better than anyone else because delusional. Almost all climate change contrarians can be described in this way.
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
>>Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in
>the U.S. temperature trends.
>because the NOAA would trumpet how bad their data is from the tops of the mountains.
Damn that reference is funny, NOAA says NOAA done good. However, their past president was, for the most part, an honest guy.

In fact, Thomas Karl, long time president of the NOAA admitted there were problems with the data!!
“Results indicate that in the United States the two global land-based temperature data sets have an urban bias between +0.1°C and +0.4°C over the twentieth century (1901-84). This bias is as large or larger than the overall temperature trend in the United States during this time period, +0.16°C/84 yr.”

Karl, Thomas R., and Philip D. Jones. "Urban bias in area-averaged surface air temperature trends." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 70.3 (1989): 265-270.

>>8641311
>>8641310
>>8641307
>>8641302
>>8641300
>>8641298
Holy shit, the aspie is back. How long did it take you to type out all this bullshit in MS word and then paste it here?

File: Hausfather et al SI3.png (15KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 792x612px

>>8641298
Holy shit, I never knew it was possible to be this retarded. I clearly said that the graph was NOT of temperature trends, but rather of HOMOGENIZATION ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE TRENDS, just to repeat that loud and clear for you. And not only adjustments made to the trends, but adjustments made taking urban and rural stations entirely separately!

Basically, they ran PHA (homogenization) on a dataset consisting only of urban stations and on a dataset consisting only of rural stations, and checked to see which adjustments were made to both data sets (and were therefore presumably valid) and which were made to one set and not the other (and therefore presumably resulted from UHI bias).
The solid red line is the total impact of adjustments made to the urban dataset that were also found in the rural set, and the dotted red line is that of those which were NOT found in the rural set. The solid green line is the total impact of adjustments made to the rural dataset that were also found in the urban set, and the dotted green line is that of those which were NOT found in the urban set. The black line shows the difference between the two homogenized datasets; its purpose is to QUANTIFY the UHI effect in this sort of analysis, to show what it looks like when the urban signal is allowed to imprint itself onto the dataset as a whole.

Now if you scroll down to figure S.I. 3, pic related, you'll see that you get an entirely different result when instead of comparing the rural-only dataset to the urban-only dataset, you compare it to the rural-and-urban dataset. Instead of the unmatched adjustments sharply diverging, they are nearly coincident. And the total difference between the two PHA analyses is near zero across the entire interval, showing that the total homogenized temperature record follows the rural-only homogenized record, and thus that homogenization effectively removes UHI bias from the data.
Your inability to read a paper is not evidence against the paper.

File: daberoni.jpg (70KB, 779x960px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 779x960px

>>8641300
Okay, first off you seem to be unclear on the topic of what a strawman argument is. But here's the really surprising thing:
>DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT CO2 ABSORBS SHORTER WAVELENTHS AND REEMITS LONGER WAVELENGTHS
THAT IS NOT WHAT CO2 DOES THAT WE CARE ABOUT. THAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES CO2 A GREENHOUSE GAS.
The EARTH absorbs shorter wavelengths (visible light from the sun) and emits longer wavelengths (infrared mostly) because that's just how blackbody radiation works. Why CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) act the way they do is because they are nearly transparent to visible light (the Sun's emission range) but absorb significantly in the infrared spectrum (the Earth's emission range), meaning that when they re-emit that infrared light in a random direction, some of it (about half) goes back down towards the surface.
I'm used to explaining basic concepts when arguing with deniers, but I'm a little flabbergasted to have run into one so ignorant he doesn't even know how greenhouse gases work.

>Tries to rewrite the past after being showed wrong.
Projecting much?
But here, if you think Watts rejected Muller because of Muller's nuanced stances rather than because Berkeley Earth ended up concluding that AGW is real, there's an easy way to prove it. Show me evidence that Watts attacked Muller BEFORE BEST released its conclusions. Should be easy to find, right?
Or let's look at an amusing little coincidence:
If you go to LOLWUWT and search for all articles related to Muller, there's an interesting pattern. In February 2011, Watts posts in support of BEST and promises to accept their results regardless of what conclusion they draw. In April of that year, he has a guest post from Pielke mildly chastising Muller for testifying to Congress before his research has yielded serious results. And then everything's quiet for half a year, until BEST released its findings on October 20th. And starting literally the very next day, there was a nonstop stream of posts savaging Muller.

File: dont4get2floss.jpg (66KB, 960x693px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x693px

>>8641302
>The Urban Heat Island effect increases over time.
>the United States (and the world) hasn't become more urban in the past 100 years?
This doesn't mean that an individual station would read higher and higher. What increased urbanization means is that MORE stations would be located in urban environs.
And change in a station's setting happens abruptly, not gradually. Being moved, or a nearby area being paved will result in a nearly instantaneous shift in offset, the kind that homogenization can detect and adjust for.

>LOOK!!!! I READ SIMPLETONSCIENCE
The reference to Menne et al. is in the poster by Watts et al., you biscuit. They admit right there that Menne et al. shows that setting doesn't affect the trend, just the offset. And then they go ahead and say Menne is wrong, without providing any evidence to that effect. I didn't have to go to SkepticalScience to get that; literally all I had to do was read the poster you posted.
>but muh urbanization
The U.S. becoming more urban over time is not evidence that the setting of a temperature station affects the recorded warming/cooling trend. It can be food for conjecture, it can inspire people to think "what if setting DOES affect trend?" but it is not evidence that that is so. See, in the scientific world we put our ideas to the test; we run experiments to see if our handwaving reasoning holds up in the real world. (Note that there's nothing wrong with handwaving per se; the problem is when people use handwaving as a substitute for evidence.) Watts et al. have neglected to follow this step. They proceed directly from conjecture to conclusions without actually testing their hypothesis.
That's your denier for you; they love science until they're expected to back up their claims with evidence.

File: Gondola.jpg (229KB, 500x705px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 500x705px

>>8641310
>I listed the actual warming rates of those surface stations
Watts et al. didn't account for changes in setting or changes in instrumentation type; he just took the thermometer records and reported them without adjusting for such changes. The whole point of homogenization is to correct for these sorts of errors that can't be spotted by simply looking at the current setting.
NOAA took the 70 "good" stations and homogenized them, cancelling out the skips and jumps from such station changes.
>but, but homogenization spreads UHI!
except all the stations in that group were well-sited, so there should be no UHI bias in there in the first place, right?

and then they did the same homogenization using the full dataset of 1221 stations. and they got almost the exact same temperature trend. which shows that the total group records the same warming trend as the best-situated stations.
ironically, Watts's treatment makes the temperature record MORE vulnerable to changes in setting or measurement techniques, by refusing to homogenize measurements.

>AD HOMINEM, anyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy nut
>Simpleton Science
>RealBogusClimate
>John Crook
Do you expect people to take you seriously when you whine and moan about anything mean said about your hero Anthony Watts, and then go full-on argumentum ad hominem?

File: fishboat.png (897KB, 960x748px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 960x748px

>>8641307
>accuses anon of argumentum ad hominem
>accuses anon of being paid shill
It's like you don't even get the irony

>No proof supplied.
Here's a Heartland Institute fundraising plan showing that they raised $88,000 for Watts, in addition to the annual speaking fees at their conferences: http://web.archive.org/web/20160304103344/http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1-15-2012-2012-Fundraising-Plan.pdf
>here is Watts begging for tiny donations
Well, if he's asking people for money, SURELY THAT PROVES that nobody else is giving him money! Is this what deniers actually believe?

>muh carbon taxes
>still haven't provided any evidence that carbon taxes would financially benefit any research agency
zozzle

File: It's my ice cream now.jpg (67KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x800px

>>8641311
>president of the NOAA
there is no such office, you brainlet. the NOAA is headed by the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, who also holds the title of Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Thomas Karl never held that position; he was the Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information. Basic accuracy, you dickwit.

But yeah, there was a warming bias in the unadjusted record. That is EXACTLY WHY homogenization is a thing; it allows for this warming bias to be removed from the raw record.
And yeah, homogenization works. See >>8641512

File: the 001.png (48KB, 760x629px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 760x629px

>>8641318
I literally have an assburgers type ASD and even I'm nowhere near as autismal as that nutbar. I mean, shit, he's beyond saving at this point.

File: cow.jpg (135KB, 1024x600px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x600px

>>8635114

>Call for economic sanctions against China until it stops putting out more greenhouse emissions than then next, like, five industrialized nations put together

I thought /pol/ was retarded, but not THIS retarded

try harder, nigger. Also learn some grammar.

Hello, environmental scientist here. It's all too late, and there's nothing any of us can do. We're doomed. I'm working on my horticulture MPS. My suggestion: start work on a post-apocalyptic-viable profession. Several billion people are going to die.

>>8641307
Watts is literally on payroll at Heartland you dumb fuck. It's amazing how every single time I think you can't become more delusional, you prove me wrong.

>Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The Anonymous
Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance.
>We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data
Directly from leaked internal Heartland documents:
https://thinkprogress.org/heartland-institute-documents-fe211937ee4f#.stqrdosfc

Go ahead, I can already see you doing the mental gymnastics to counter your perfect image of Watts. The money is second-hand from the oil industry whether you like it or not, it's tainted.

Do you remember the time Watts got so butthurt, he tried to get a video that criticized him removed from Youtube?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

>Heh, heh, you have a nice self-serving argument to keep you in your echo chamber.
Says the guy who literally only reads climate denial blogs, refuses to read any scientific literature pertaining to actual climate scientists, gets all of his news from an insulated echo chamber of climate denialists, and believes NOAA / NASA / GISS / NSIDC and any other data collection / analysis organization that studies climate science is committing fraud, with zero evidence.

>>8629006
Developing countries usually adopt policies/technology developed on the new world, so while today's third world countries have the quality of life of 1900s America, it would take them just a couple of decades to become 1990s America.

File: img_9471.jpg (566KB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1800x1800px

>>8628697
>>8628885
>>8628911


>implying all that melted ice will not just flow off the Earth's edges

File: John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg (1017KB, 2863x1830px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 2863x1830px

>>8628880
I am not from /sci/ just lurking around here.
Can someone explain this simply in lay terms for an idiot like me?

What the chances that humanity is fucked?

My gut feeling says we have a 65% of being totally fucked and assraped.
And 34.9% of still being fucked, but less fucked then the first option.
And 0.1% of not being fucked at all and that there will be a paradise on Earth.

>>8641302
Nothing wrong with skeptical science or John Cook, despite how desperate people like you are to smear him. I tried reading through that motl article you posted, but it's literally nothing, it's essentially an opinion piece by the guy based on conjecture, he doesn't even try to support what he says with evidence, contrary to what you find on skepticalscience where the articles are actually supported with scientific literature. I know, someone such as yourself hates the scientific literature, the basis for evidence on global warming, but whatever.
You come off as so desperate though, you're really not going to convince anyone with such emotional arguments from fallacy alongside your own buzzwords.

>>8641307
https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grants
http://cpo.noaa.gov/GrantsandProjects/ClimateProgramOfficeFFO.aspx
Show me here exactly where it states that researchers have to publish results that conform to the scientific consensus on climate change? Speaking of grants in general, no shit is the government going to allocate funding into researching something that has potential economic and environmental impacts on the US, this isn't exactly a surprise.

By your same logic, other government entities like the USGS, NSF or NIH that give grants to do research are also corrupted, right? What about the thousands of scientists who work at government physics labs like Fermi that engage in particle physics research? Is all scientific work that is done under government grants unacceptable and non-scientific?

>>8641307
Call me whatever you want, "rapid response team," I don't even post on any climate blogs, only here on /sci/. I've used skepticalscience as a resource in the past, but not a primary resource, I prefer to actually look at the scientific literature instead. As I said above though, Skepticalscience is a decent resource for countering claims of climate science deniers and their articles are pretty well thought out and constructed with a basis in the literature, something you don't generally find at climate denial blogs considering the rampant belief that all climate science is corrupted, or whatever other conjecture they are running with.

File: Wow, it's fucking nothing.gif (262KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 250x250px

As far as Watt's paper goes, it's pretty laughable. Menne had a rebuttal to his paper in 2010:

>Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counter-intuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities

>However, our analysis and the earlier study by Peterson [2006] illustrate the need for data analysis in establishing the role of station exposure characteristics on temperature trends no matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence of bias may be. In other words, photos and site surveys do not preclude the need for data analysis

This is essentially a very similar result and conclusion to Watt's paper.

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

I think Watts has tried publishing more papers since then, I don't think any of them have passed peer review though, I honestly don't know because I don't follow Watts very closely or care what he has to say about anything.

> In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class. This finding needs to be assessed globally to see if this also true more generally.

This is literally from one of the authors of Watts paper, kek.

Also, the whole point the other anon in this thread made about Muller / Watts is spot on
>>8641541

Watts was praising Muller for years before he turned on him once the BEST results didn't conform with Watt's own biases. Of course, that not makes Muller their enemy and thus a shill in the climate conspiracy, simply because he looked at the data himself and did his own studies and confirmed that NOAA and others actually have accurate results and projections.

Watts and his compatriots come off as really bitter and mad that Muller's results didn't agree with their own biases, it shows a severe lack of maturity on their parts, and failure to be truly skeptical. These guys are too deep into the denial to ever admit that they are wrong sometimes though.

>>8641512
>>8641298
>Holy shit, I never knew it was possible to be this retarded. I clearly said that the graph was NOT of temperature trends, but rather of HOMOGENIZATION ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE TRENDS,

You sir, are a liar. Problem is, your comment is here for everyone to see:
>>8638773
>That's not what the picture shows, you retard. The graph is not of temperature trends, but rather of ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE TRENDS. It says so right there on the y-axis!

I, of course, never said it was a graph of trends. I said it was a graph of "Cumulative Impact Adjustment." The word "TRENDS" is nowhere in the title of the y-axis nor did I use that word. You just made that up; the part about trends. There is no reference to trends despite your word salad fiction.

Repeat: There Is No Mention of Trends or Adjustments to Trends on the y-axis. >>8638500. You created that fiction because that's what shills do, make crap up to avoid the real argument.


> just to repeat that loud and clear for you. And not only adjustments made to the trends,
Still making shit up. You really don't understand reasoning with units, do you? If these were adjustments to trends, the units of those adjustments would also be trend units as in "per unit time." They're not. There adjustments to values.

>Basically, they ran PHA (homogenization) on a dataset consisting only of urban stations and on a dataset consisting only of rural stations, and checked to see which adjustments were made to both data

Now the strawman argument. You cite a different graph and pretend were talking about the same thing.
That funny thing is, that graph >>8641512 proves my point. When rural stations are completely separated from urban stations, the "chosen" urban stations are also goal-seeked to increase the temperature. Urban stations which are lower in temp instead of higher are not chosen. This, of course, is the exact opposite of what should be.

>>8643494
- Continued
>>8641512
>>8641298

And now this
> Instead of the unmatched adjustments sharply diverging, they are nearly coincident.
Proving that urban adjustments are also goal-seeked when being matched to a combination of rural + urban (instead of urban only) they seek urban temps! Who would have known?

>And the total difference between the two PHA analyses is near zero across the entire interval,
> showing that the total homogenized temperature record follows the rural-only homogenized record, and thus that homogenization effectively removes UHI bias from the data.

Great circular argument buddy. We "homogenize" rural data using an algorithm which goal-seeks warming temps as proven by figure S.I.2. Then we compare these goal-seeked results to urban results and surprise! Urban homogenization looks like goal-seeked rural homogenization! Sorry buddy, figure S.I.2 really is the smoking gun.

To Reiterate your "proof": We homogenize rural data in a way that goal seeks stations that imitate UHI tainted urban data (as proven by Figure S.I.2). Then after doing the functional equivalent of tainting rural data with UHI, we say look! It looks like Urban data.

There are two ways to make urban and rural data be similar. The honest way would be to subtract the UHI value from urban data. The dishonest way would be to add the UHI value (by proxy or otherwise) to the rural data. You advocate the latter.

In summary, this is some of the worst "adjustments" I have ever seen. Did you think that by bringing you into this discussion (yes, the Rapid Response team was getting its ass kicked, so they had to bring in even another person) you could say something substantive? You should be ashamed for defending such rubbish.

Even a shred of common sense shows that you're full of it. The adjustments to urban data are always ADDING to the temperature; whereas adjusting for UHI should, of course, lessen the temperature value. This test of the homogenization algorithm fails.

>>8643497
>>8641541
>>>8641300 (You)
>Okay, first off you seem to be unclear on the topic of what a strawman argument is. But here's the really surprising thing:
>>DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT CO2 ABSORBS SHORTER WAVELENTHS AND REEMITS LONGER WAVELENGTHS
>THAT IS NOT WHAT CO2 DOES THAT WE CARE ABOUT. THAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES CO2 A GREENHOUSE GAS.
>The EARTH absorbs shorter wavelengths (visible light from the sun) and emits longer wavelengths (infrared mostly) because that's just how blackbody radiation works. Why CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) act the way they do is because they are nearly transparent to visible light (the Sun's emission range) but absorb significantly in the infrared spectrum (the Earth's emission range), meaning that when they re-emit that infrared light in a random direction, some of it (about half) goes back down towards the surface.
>I'm used to explaining basic concepts when arguing with deniers, but I'm a little flabbergasted to have run into one so ignorant he doesn't even know how greenhouse gases work.
>>Tries to rewrite the past after being showed wrong.
>Projecting much?
>But here, if you think Watts rejected Muller because of Muller's nuanced stances rather than because Berkeley Earth ended up concluding that AGW is real, there's an easy way to prove it. Show me evidence that Watts attacked Muller BEFORE BEST released its conclusions.
Why would he? The fact that Muller quickly invoked the deeply flawed "corrections" algorithm instead of, for example, using clean data was the smoking gun that he was a fraud. That information came out when he presented his results.
Muller: "Hurr, durr I'm a skeptic, and I just used the homogenization algorithm that skeptics say is fundamentally flawed. That means I didn't show a shred of skepticism. And guess what, Climate Change is true!" What a joke.

>there was a nonstop stream of posts savaging Muller.
Because he exactly did what warmists have always done.

File: 01-ISH-UHI-warming-global-by-year.jpg (77KB, 624x768px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 624x768px

>>8643501
>>8641555
>>8641302
>>The Urban Heat Island effect increases over time.
>>the United States (and the world) hasn't become more urban in the past 100 years?
>This doesn't mean that an individual station would read higher and higher.
Wrong. More asphalt, more concrete etc. Larger cities show a high temperature shift than smaller ones (on average). According to your argument that would not happen. Instead the UHI would grow in area but not in value.

What increased urbanization means is that MORE stations would be located in urban environs.
>And change in a station's setting happens abruptly, not gradually.
It can happen both ways. Stop pretending that urbanization is always a step function.

Being moved, or a nearby area being paved will result in a nearly instantaneous shift in offset, the kind that homogenization can detect and adjust for.
>>LOOK!!!! I READ SIMPLETONSCIENCE
>The reference to Menne et al. is in the poster by Watts et al., you biscuit.
It's also in SimpletonScience. I can guess where you got it.

They admit right there that Menne et al. shows that setting doesn't affect the trend, just the offset. And then they go ahead and say Menne is wrong, without providing any evidence to that effect. I didn't have to go to SkepticalScience to get that; literally all I had to do was read the poster you posted.
>>but muh urbanization
>See, in the scientific world we put our ideas to the test; we run experiments to see if our handwaving reasoning holds up in the real world.
> Look at me being so smug and condescending. Hey, junior Rapid Responders aren't you impressed?
Except the facts are not on your side. Pic related. Yes, UHI increases with urbanization (increased population density).

PS You'll resort to ad hominem now. Pathetic.

File: 02-NOAA-Data-Manipulation-Global-1880-2014.jpg (197KB, 761x561px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 761x561px

>>8643505
>>8641592
>>8641310
>>I listed the actual warming rates of those surface stations
>Watts et al. didn't account for changes in setting or changes in instrumentation type; he just took the thermometer records and reported them without adjusting for such changes. The whole point of homogenization is to correct for these sorts of errors that can't be spotted by simply looking at the current setting.
> By adding UHI to thermometers.
Seriously, increasing the temp values of urban readings? Who do you think you're fooling?


>NOAA took the 70 "good" stations and homogenized them, cancelling out the skips and jumps from such station changes.
>>but, but homogenization spreads UHI!
>except all the stations in that group were well-sited, so there should be no UHI bias in there in the first place, right?
Wrong. Neither Class 1 nor Class 2 guarantees no UHI. It does make it less likely which is why much less warming happens when you use the data directly. However, there will still be some UHI. Stick that into the Homogenization algorithm and Presto! UHI spreads to all stations.

UHI is an ERROR which makes a temperature too high. You do not correct for an incorrectly high temperature by INCREASING IT.

Seriously, you're not fooling anyone.

PS Its hilarious how retired Director Karl (of the NOAA's NCEI) contradicts NOAA data. Pic related. I guess Karl is an evil denier.

>>8643512
>>8641598
>>8641307
>>No proof supplied.
>Here's a Heartland Institute fundraising plan showing that they raised $88,000 for Watts, in addition to the annual speaking fees at their conferences: http://web.archive.org/web/20160304103344/http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1-15-2012-2012-Fundraising-Plan.pdf

What is actually said? " Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000." They helped him raise funds. Big deal.