How do we know that global warming isn't just a natural

>>8667106
Because we can measure each of the factors that effect the climate and the largest current forcing is from GHGs released by man.

>>8667106
The Medieval Warm Period was caused by the coal-powered industry of orcs and goblins.

>>8667114
In fact, without man's GHG emissions, the earth would be cooling slightly.

Also, the current observed global warming is much larger than the medieval warm period in both magnitude and rate.

File: IPCC got it wrong.png (26KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x299px

>>8667106

She believes that funding for the study of natural climate variation needs to be significantly increased and that government political pressure has driven almost all funding toward anthropogenic focused studies.

She also said that in her judgement the climate impacts of man made CO2 emissions on global climate are measured on a "tiny scale".

She encouraged people who have concerns about the validity of arguments alleging man made climate change to continue to speak out about their concerns.

>>8667114
>>8667132
how do we stop the man?

>>8667132
Is there a correlation between the amount of tons of GHGs released and heat being retained?

File: SD-PC_SD-PCU.png (255KB, 1165x660px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1165x660px

>>8667234
Peak CO2 I'd say
Supply-Driven Peak Conventional
Supply-Driven Peak Conventional + Unconventional
Climatists share a common aesthetics, a future collector's item

>>8667234
feed him to the woman

>>8667114
>Because we can measure each of the factors that effect the climate
Bullshit. They keep discovering new factors and things that affect the factors. There's nothing like a complete picture.

It's a whole world they have to model to get it right, including the cumulative effects of weather over time. A major weather event can tip the climate one way or another for decades. And that's without even getting into the role of volcanos.

>>8667236
There is not only correlating but direct causation. Look up radiative forcing measurements of GHGs.

>>8667353
Wow you mean scien've improves itself? Well obviously that means we can't trust it.

>A major weather event can tip the climate one way or another for decades.
Thank you for immediately showing that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's simply nonsense to say that weather "affects" the climate. Weather IS the climate in one particular area at one particular time. How fucking stupid are you? Do you really think you are fooling anyone by pretending to know anything about climate?

>>8667420
>Wow you mean scien've improves itself? Well obviously that means we can't trust it.
We can't when the argument for trusting it is the claim that it's a mature field that has taken all relevant information into account, and therefore robust against new developments overturning its current predictions, set beside a reality that it's still finding new relevant information.

>It's simply nonsense to say that weather "affects" the climate.
Weather affects life, life affects the climate.
Weather affects geology, geology affects the climate.
Weather affects albedo, albedo affects the climate.

If you can't conceive of how variation of weather within the current climate can affect the future evolution of the climate, you're not intellectually equipped to participate meaningfully in any discussion of climate change.

>>8667353
>>8667643
name a single weather event that had a major, decades-long impact on climate.
protip, ye can't get ye flask

>>8667658
Individual extreme weather events can open or close waterways, forming or draining lakes or wetlands. They can start or prevent huge wildfires.

It's obvious that they can have long-term effect on local climate, and the global climate is simply the aggregation of local climates.

>name a single weather event that had a major, decades-long impact on climate.
>major
This is a strawman.

Let's look back: >>8667353
>It's a whole world they have to model to get it right, including the cumulative effects of weather over time. A major weather event can tip the climate one way or another for decades.
>major weather event
>tip the climate one way or another
not
>major, decades-long impact

You attached the "major" from my description of the cause to the effect, implying that I was saying that the effect on climate was obvious and easy to establish, where I had actually used the word "tip", implying that the influence was subtle but applied to a sensitive system full of complex feedbacks.

>>8667106
There is reasonably natural fluctuation, but all indicators are that society is rushing these fluctuations with waste and sloth, greed and lust.

>>8667643
>We can't when the argument for trusting it is the claim that it's a mature field that has taken all relevant information into account, and therefore robust against new developments overturning its current predictions, set beside a reality that it's still finding new relevant information
Who has made this argument you lying sack of shit? That's not how science works.

>Weather affects life, life affects the climate.
>Weather affects geology, geology affects the climate.
>Weather affects albedo, albedo affects the climate.
Classic slippery slope argument.

>a butterfly's wings affect air currents, air currents effect tornado formation, therefore butterflies cause tornadoes.

>>8667845
Yes you said "its a whole world they have to model" yet you provided an example of a weather event effecting a region by flooding or draining a lake. That's not the global climate we're talking about. Of course, events like forest fires are taken into account both as a source of CO2 and as an effect of drought caused by warming and loss of precipitation. So ironically in your attempt to argue that there are factors not being taken into account by climatologists you named one they do.

>>8667106

>>>/pol/112192195

>>8667962
>random lines drawn on a graph

File: noaa-hadley-published-anoms-1-1024x819[1].png (243KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1024x819px

Becouse this not-flawled graph currently indicates minor fluctuanse between perioid of last 100 years. We need more money to investigate!!

File: 1485402953051.png (168KB, 792x633px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 792x633px

reminder.

stop replying to denialists. ignore them. you wouldn't give the time of day to a creationist or a flat earther would you?

>>8668104
>not-flawed
I see a flaw, the two trends are improperly baselined to made it seem like they disagree

>>8668104
>last 100 years
That graph only goes back 22 years. Why can't deniers read graphs?

>>8667951
>Yes you said "its a whole world they have to model" yet you provided an example of a weather event effecting a region by flooding or draining a lake. That's not the global climate we're talking about.
The global climate isn't a separate thing from the local climates, it's just the aggregate of them. If you can't predict local climate change, you can't predict global climate change. If you can't predict the weather, you can't predict local climate change.

And when I say a "major weather event", I don't just mean like a hurricane. I mean like a multi-year drought. That's also weather, and they can't predict it.

>Of course, events like forest fires are taken into account
So you're saying they predict the weather? A generalized rate isn't enough.

You can't just assume the variations all average out. They don't. They feed into each other, and can end up taking the whole system off in a certain direction, potentially in such a way that there's no pressure for the system to return to how it was before, just more such random variation.

>>8668111
>I am silly: the autistic flowchart

File: BLM.png (436KB, 1640x772px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1640x772px

>>8668104
Base Lines Matter!

>>8668111
Just report these bait threads, it works, /sci/ does actually have mods they are just lazy and you need to report stuff for them to actually take action.

File: contributions to global temperature.gif (86KB, 1237x545px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1237x545px

>>8667106
The natural fluctuations are still happening, but they don't add up to enough to explain the current change.

Adding in man made greenhouse gasses fits really well with the difference. It could be some other, unknown cause, but there's not much else that's changed so quickly. (Quickly being like 100 years from Victorian times to now compared to the medieval warm period taking about 500 years to peak.)

>>8667106
>>>/news/109162

Here's the recent /news/ thread about daily mail misrepresenting John Bates. Let's grace it.

>>8668111
Normally I'd agree, but flat earthers and creationists aren't affecting global policies to a significant degree, and even if they were a worst case outcome would still be recoverable.

>>8668251
>If you can't predict local climate change, you can't predict global climate change.
Weather is more chaotic than climate. Again you have no idea what you're talking about if you think predicting weather is necessary to predict the climate.

>So you're saying they predict the weather? A generalized rate isn't enough.
Again, predicting weather has nothing to do with it. We understand what global factors effect the rate of forest fires, the temperature and atmospheric circulation that controls precipitation and moisture levels. Weather events are the result of what's being predicted, not what's being predicted.

>You can't just assume the variations all average out.
The variations which don't average out are the factors being studied. Feel free to point out any evidence of such factors climatologists are ignoring. Until then you are just talking out of your ass.

>>8668348
>now you respect me, because I am a threat

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

140KB, 1161x1024px

>>8668335
If you assume the NASA ad hoc model in the first place. This model can't explain the warming of the late 19th century or the warming of the early 20th century. It just assumes that warming at that rate must anthropogenic.

>>8668583
What a moronic strawman. No climatologist claims that human CO2 is the only thing effecting the climate. It is the main thing affecting the long term warming trend. Over the short term there are factors like ENSO and AMO that can produce random trends. Now either you know this and are deliberately misrepresenting climate science or you are ignorant of it and pretending to know what you're talking about. Which one is it? Either way you should be ashamed of yourself.

>>8668583
Maybe its comparable to the first derivative. Nevertheless, without correct model you can't say if correlation does imply causation.

>>8668628
In other words you're saying that there are no climate change models that can make useful predictions. The main supposed cause, is radiative forcing by emission. This has been the standard model for agw since the 60s.

Those other effects are supposedly small contributors, which is why they are not identified as effects worth changing policy over.

You cucks don't get it both ways. Its one or the other. I believe in global warming. I don't believe in this emissions bs. Give me a real model and I'll subscribe to it.

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

966KB, 1161x1024px

>>8668583
oops

>>8668710
>In other words you're saying that there are no climate change models that can make useful predictions.
So you are deliberately misrepresenting climate science. That's what I thought. You delusional retards are truly pathetic.

>>8667234
You don't. Assuming that global warming is as much as a problem as we say it is, (of which it is not) we still cannot cut off those CO2 emissions. We require those fossil fuels to power devices that are necessary towards maintaining modern civilization.
Inb4 "let's just stich solar panels on everything!"
It won't work.

Don't worry, once man kills themselves from the heat, Earth will eventually correct itself.

>>8668729
First of all, I'm not the other guy you've been arguing with.

Second, I'm not misrepresenting anything. You claim that evidence for agw is conclusive. When it's pointed out that the supposed correlation between your evidence and prediction don't match reality, you make up an excuse for why the prediction is wrong. If those secondary effects you mentioned are relevant, then they could be used to adjust the model, but they aren't.

Tldr it's not a strawman to say the predictions of warming based off of emissions are wrong if the predictions are not real.

You're literally worse than the average climate denier by denying that climate can't be denied.

>>8668856
>the supposed correlation between your evidence and prediction don't match reality
>predictions are not real
here's where the denier argument falls apart; they ASSUME that models don't accurately describe what's going on, when that's not really true.
in this case, you're claiming that the existence of short-term (~10 year) trends invalidates the clear and conclusive medium-to-long-term (~100 year) trend. this is literally two steps removed from going on about how surface temperature has yearly cyclicity.
and if you rescale the pic that other guy posted, like I did >>8668724, you can see that the warming actually tracks CO2 emissions fairly well.

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

135KB, 550x417px

>>8668973
>>the supposed correlation between your evidence and prediction don't match reality
>>predictions are not real
>here's where the denier argument falls apart; they ASSUME that models don't accurately describe what's going on, when that's not really true

Ah yes, they're so accurate.

File: Hot Spot Falsification.gif (140KB, 1022x707px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1022x707px

>>8670805
>>8668973
>>the supposed correlation between your evidence and prediction don't match reality
>>predictions are not real
>here's where the denier argument falls apart; they ASSUME that models don't accurately describe what's going on, when that's not really true

Really incredibly accurate

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

187KB, 1592x612px

>>8670809
>>8670805
>>8668973

Astonishingly accurate

>>8668973
I don't deny climate is changing. The problem is that co2 emissions don't explain the warming.

You can arbitrarily resize anything to make a narrative. CNN and fox have plenty examples of this. That's why you use rates instead. How do you pick an appropriate time interval? Climate deniers pick random time periods, so do agw supporters. The science is bad on both sides

>>8670805
Those are projections of methane emissions, not predictions. If I said "if CO2 increases then temperature will increase" and CO2 decreases and the temperature decreases, this does not mean my projection failed.

>>8670809
Your paper is outdated. The hotspot was conclusively proven years ago: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=8191818D46A7F57CB3BF70A8CA318F79.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

>>8670812
That graph shows sea ice area decreasing. Sea ice volume is decreasing even faster.

So only two out of three were actual predictions and those two turned out to be true.

File: Pyramid.jpg (71KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x800px

>>8670805
>graph from climatedepot claiming that IPCC overestimates methane concentration
>no citations anywhere
so accurate!
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
>inb4 ad hominem

>>8670809
>muh hotspot
you're nearly two years behind
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=1D0173428522299D08FF28E267CE71D9.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

>>8670812
>claims climate models are inaccurate
>posts figure that doesn't show any models
I will never get tired of how deniers think posting a graph makes them Automatically Right.

>>8670816
>co2 emissions don't explain the warming
keep telling yourself that
>You can arbitrarily resize anything to make a narrative.
not actually true. resizing doesn't change the SHAPE of the curve.
>How do you pick an appropriate time interval?
part of it is what intervals are covered by the data we have (e.g. starting at 1979 for satellite data) and part of it is the trend in question. we think serious warming started in the early 1900s, so we go back to the mid/late 1800s when records allow (a lot of temperature records go back to 1880) to capture the start of the purported trend.
>The science is bad on both sides
nice false equivalency you drip

>>8668348
It must be nice not being American.