Hey /sci/, I'm dealing with a climate change skeptic who

>>8668752
The claim is correct. Humans emit about 30 gigatons annually while natural sources emit about 770 gigatons. What the denier fails to mention of course is that natural sinks absorb even more CO2, 790 gigatons while humans absorb 0. So humans are responsible for all of the change in atmospheric CO2 causing warming, and would be responsible for even more without natural sinks absorbing some of our emissions.

>>8668777
I was fairly certain this is the correct answer, what ui'm looking for ais a peer reviewed article that makes the argument. I'm not a client scientist, I dont know how to read the literature.

File: ccgg.MLO.co2c13.1.none.discrete.all[1].png (159KB, 650x500px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 650x500px

why is he claiming that the particular value of the d13C observation is proof against climate change? the data series shows a clear downward trend indicative of more and more isotopically light CO2 entering the atmosphere.

>>8668780
wow, sorry for my shitty input. Spellcheck keeps correcting what i write.

>>8668777
Man made climate change is not about climate or even the environment. It is about carbon control or more directly life control. The masses are beginning to awaken...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-11/carbon-taxes-cow-farts-and-central-planning
>Virtually all economic activities (as well as most daily personal affairs in any modern society) produce some type of emissions. So by putting a cost on carbon any of them, from the most mundane to the most complex, would be impacted. Entire industries could be impaired with the stroke of a pen. Powerful stuff indeed.

>Furthermore, the tax base could be greatly expanded as a result, at a time when governments are desperate for new sources of revenue.

>Climate change skeptics, pointing to alleged gaps in the theory of manmade climate change (where carbon emissions resulting from human activity are primarily responsible for the rise in global temperatures since the 19th century) and the heavily politicized nature of the process have long argued that having such a powerful interventionist tool is really the ultimate goal of the politicians pushing for it.

>Stated differently, it may not be just about saving polar bears but rather central planning – on steroids.

/sci/ - /pol/tards arguing about climate change

>>8668782
What does dc13 actually mean? It's given as a ratio of c13 to c12. c12 is the stable isotope, it should be millions of times higher than c13 anway, but at any rate, the isotope that should really be downgraded is C14. Natural sources contain C14, ancient sources like fossil fuels do not. Why don't climate scientists directly measure the percentage amount of Carbon 14 compared to carbon as a whole?

>>8668782
BTW, can you give me the reference for this graph?

>>8668786
>muh carbon control
This indicates the /pol/tard's inability to respond to scientific facts with anything but conspiracy theories.

File: co2_data_mlo.png (114KB, 694x543px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 694x543px

>>8668786
>Zerohedge
Next you'll be posting us some Breitbart or Infowars links, right?

>>8668780
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html

>>8668798
Thanks.

>>8668794
In this day and age with even a child like grasp of human history, is it that hard to comprehend? Control carbon in a world filled with carbon based life is basically a ploy to control all life in that world? What else could it possible be? To save that life? No thanks, I don't need saving or religion. It can only be one or the other, it is the dialect the entire AGW theory rests on.

>>8668797
Noooo I will not be. I look at the world like a business as do most people when they grow out of their ideological phase. Sure zerohedge is a tad doomish but I like their tag line. That simple article merely states the obvious as far as I am concerned. Even a climate scientist is in business be it contract work or as an employee of an employer with a bias and an agenda to push AGW because that's where the money is. There is no money in the 'denier' camp at all.

I don't think you will find a single climate scientist who does what he does to save earth from catastrophic climate change - those future 'scientists' are still in school, he does what he does to put food on his table and probably enjoys his work and most likely believes the AGW theory. I am OK with that but am just seeing a far larger picture through the lens of human history. Everyone wants to rule the world in the end, maybe even the odd climate scientist!

And why do 'they' love Mauna Loa observatory so much? Why can you not measure that anywhere? Is it a difficult measurement that can only be done at an earth system research laboratory? Who funds that laboratory? NASA?

File: Druidbro.jpg (91KB, 600x378px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x378px

>>8668789
>It's given as a ratio of c13 to c12. c12 is the stable isotope, it should be millions of times higher than c13 anway, but at any rate, the isotope that should really be downgraded is C14. Natural sources contain C14, ancient sources like fossil fuels do not. Why don't climate scientists directly measure the percentage amount of Carbon 14 compared to carbon as a whole?
okay there are some problems with this. both 13C and 12C are stable, but 12C is way more common naturally. 14C is radioactive and is continually generated in the atmosphere by cosmic rays impacting the earth. the trouble with trying to measure changes in the 14C anomaly is that there are a multiple possible explanations; a lower anomaly could mean more light carbon emitted from within the earth, or it could be changes in cosmic ray flux caused by variability in the solar wind causing less 14C to be produced. and even if you tie it to emissions of lighter carbon (we can rule out solar variability through the sunspot record) that still doesn't tell you whether it's fossil fuel carbon or inorganic carbon (e.g. from volcanism) that's being emitted, since both will be entirely depleted of 14C due to long-term isolation from the atmosphere.
luckily, fossil fuels and inorganic carbon differ in 13C content. lots of biochemical reactions are finely tuned, so finely tuned that they can preferentially select more common isotopes of a given element based on tiny differences in bond strength. so when plants fix carbon from the atmosphere, they select ever so slightly for 12C over 13C, causing organic carbon to be isotopically light. purely physical processes don't do this. so if the atmosphere is suddenly becoming more depleted in 13C (relative to 12C), it's extremely strong evidence that some organic carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) is making its way into the air. yes, 13C is already rare, but it's getting even RARER.

>>8668791
>https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts

File: Faggot alert.gif (152KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 680x453px

>>8668838
>why do 'they' love Mauna Loa observatory so much?
high altitude, away from city pollution and major agriculture, long instrumental record at site, provides coverage of the mid-Pacific
you're claiming that """carbon control""" is obviously true because it makes sense to you, but you can't see the immediately apparent advantages conferred by the Mauna Loa locality? niggapls.bmp

In a way he is right. Every year only 4% of the CO2 produced is by man made sources. The thing is that is an Extra 4% EACH YEAR that builds up.

>>8668838

>an agenda to push AGW because that's where the money is. There is no money in the 'denier' camp at all.

Why especially climate science? Why not quantum physics? Or evolution? Or socialisation research??

What is special about climate science that they don't have a respectable sceptic, whereas socialisation research can produce Judith Harris, and quantum physics could produce a Schrodinger?

File: pol2.jpg (150KB, 890x876px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 890x876px

>>8668786

>>8668752
read #33

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>8668752
OP here. Thanks for all your help guys.

global warming on net is a good thing. plants are growing faster and we are getting more productive land + more rainfall, assuming it is warming in the first place. If you are negatively affected by pollution the courts are supposed to deal with this sort of thing by upholding private property rights which is one of the very few things the government is supposed to be there for. If you can convince the courts that you have some sort of damages you should be able to be compensated for them and have a court order for this kind of activity to stop.

>>8669304
>+ more rainfall
bullshit

The subtropics (latitudes 23.5-40) will dry up and blow away. This is where the worlds breadbaskets all are today.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m

>>8669416
why would increased water vapor in the atmosphere result in the subtropics drying up and blowing away?

>>8669420
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#Hadley_cell_expansion

>>8669428
does this "Hadley cell expansion" account for increased water vapor?

>>8669438 continuing
because it only seems to mention if these areas get warmer. do they also increase the world's water vapor in this model?

>>8669442 continuing
also i'd like to mention that the things we can do with GMOs is incredible.

I think potholer54 made a video on specifically this.
https://youtu.be/CcmCBetoR18

>>8669304
>global warming on net is a good thing.
Not at the rate it is happening right now.

>>8669416
geopolitics, is this seriously a real field? sounds like a nice meme to me

>>8668752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
https://youtu.be/zOwHT8yS1XI
in my modes opinion I doubt global temperature will rise more than 30% by 2100

>>8669461
is it possible that the residual hysteria has influenced your understanding that perhaps there could be a possibility that global warming could be a net positive impact?

>>8669473
It's certainly possible, but unfortunately the evidence says net negative.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/mindex.shtml

When you want to step outside the realm of imagination and bring evidence to support your claims, please tell me.

>>8669487
is it possible that these people are confirming their bias in order to justify themselves?

>>8669521 continuing
the "summaries, frequently asked questions, and cross-chapter boxes" etc link is broken and the "Report: Website" link reports a dns lookup error

Most studies tha show that the climate change is man made are selective and manipulate data to get funding from government subsidizes. Global warming is a serious issue, however there are too many variables at play to pin it all on humanity.

>>8669521
>is it possible
>is it possible
>is it possible
Not an argument. This is a science board. Provide evidence for your claims.

>>8669527
Works fine for me

>>8669530
>Most studies tha show that the climate change is man made are selective and manipulate data to get funding from government subsidizes.
Can you show me one?

>>8668752
>the claim checked out
>i'm having trouble finding the citations to fire back
Stop clinging to your fucking position like it's an article of faith.

>>8669530
So what variables are causing the observed warming trend?

File: 2017-02-12_10-28-24.png (30KB, 454x596px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 454x596px

>>8669573
i am presenting a reasonable doubt

>>8669575
pic

File: 2017-02-12_10-28-24.png (77KB, 1292x777px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1292x777px

>>8669581 continuing

>>8669581
Denying the evidence is not reasonable. You are presenting unreasonable doubt based on a conspiracy theory you don't even have evidence for.

>>8669595
your evidence is an echo chamber of bias towards this sort of thinking to justify their own budgets. imagine that i am correct. what would happen to these organizations and their perceived importance? i don't claim that these people are dumb or malicious, only that it is easy for them to ease into a popular preconceived notion and into one way of thinking

>>8668752
People in denial can't be helped. They're ignorant; hence unable to learn, change, mature or understand the concept of responsibility.

>>8669621
Again, where is the evidence of bias? Where is the fault? Until you provide evidence for your claims it's simply baseless speculation that can be dismissed as easily as it is proposed. Your posts are a waste of time.

>>8669582
http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Summaries, Frequently Asked Questions, and Cross-Chapter Boxes works for me.
The website is probably down due to being .gov. trump is working hard at censorship for government owned websites if you aren't aware.

File: Largest_Corporate_Annual_Earnings_of_All_Time.png (89KB, 1641x928px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1641x928px

>>8669530
>Most studies tha show that the climate change is man made are selective and manipulate data to get funding from government subsidizes.

Then they're in the wrong fucking business then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses#Largest_corporate_annual_earnings_of_all_time

>>8669633
the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time. This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.

>>8669643
not this person but i'd say that following consensus in your field is just easier than rocking the boat and this perhaps manifests in their work

>>8669660
If rocking the boat was impossible then the climate change theory wouldn't exist in the first place because fossil fuels are the boat.

File: flooding-miami.jpg (109KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1200x801px

>>8669660
>not this person but i'd say that following consensus in your field is just easier than rocking the boat and this perhaps manifests in their work

More like if you could sue fossil fuel companies for the damage caused by global warming, they would end up on the hook for trillions.

http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/d1cd8a7e6519800885257c1200482c39!OpenDocument

>>8669660
> the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time.
No it didn't. People have known that the earth was vaguely spherical since before there was anything approaching what we might call "science." Hell, we knew roughly how large the earth was for literally thousands of years.

File: Gossuin_de_Metz_Limage_du_monde_1245.jpg (50KB, 401x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 401x600px

>>8669660
>the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time. This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.

Stop spreading this stupid myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Declining_support_for_the_flat_Earth

>>8669682
If you are negatively affected by global warming the courts are supposed to deal with this sort of thing by upholding private property rights which is one of the very few things the government is supposed to be there for. If you can convince the courts that you have some sort of damages you should be able to be compensated for them and have a court order for this kind of activity to stop.

>>8669692
>>8669693
maybe i'm thinking flat universe. there are other examples of incorrect consensus among the scientific community

>>8669709
> maybe i'm thinking flat universe
That makes even less sense. I think it's more likely that you're just spouting nonsense.

>>8669713
are you suggesting that there hasn't ever been incorrect consensus among the scientific community?

>>8669709
As someone who has worked in litigation, I'll just say this.

Courts are a last resort. If you can try to either prevent the damages in the first place or recover by some other means, you should do that. Court battles are messy, time consuming, and expensive affairs that you should only resort to if you have exhausted all other options. The idea that litigation in courts can take the place of environmental regulation is something that is only bandied about by people who have never seen what goes on in litigation.

>>8669718
No, I'm just suggesting that you don't actually know anything about the subject.

Also, the fact that other people have sometimes been wrong in the past is not evidence that these specific people are wrong about this specific subject now.

>>8669709
>there are other examples of incorrect consensus among the scientific community
Welcome to the scientific method, where you use evidence to hopefully disprove other scientific theories and be praised for dispelling myths. Do you realize how famous people become when they actually disprove theories? Why do you think Nobel prizes are always awarded to people who have novel ideas supported by valid evidence instead of to those who are just replicating results? Can you imagine how many people want climate change to be wrong? They'd be an instant billionaire if they can prove it. Unfortunately this isn't the case and nobody's found any valid evidence despite all efforts.

>>8669660
>the scientific consensus that held the flat earth
There was no such thing.

>This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.
The only reason you know they're wrong is because the current scientific consensus proved them wrong. You are the one claiming the earth is flat when the scientific consensus says that it's round. I'm not even asking you for a scientific consensus. I'll gladly agree that AGW is false when you provide sufficient evidence for your claims.

But you have yet to provide a single iota of evidence. You could just as easily make the same claims about the earth being flat or evolution being false. Why don't you accept those conspiracies? Because you are a hypocrite that's why. I don't see why you keep wasting time by posting solipsist nonsense that you aren't even applying consistently. Present a valid argument against the science or fuck off.

File: come on now.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>8669660
>the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time
no it didn't, you retard. the earliest attempts at actual astronomy, back in the 500s BCE, confirmed that the earth is round. the idea that flat earth models had widespread support in more recent history is a myth that spread like wildfire in the 1800s.
>This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.
Flat earth ideas weren't the result of evidence being misinterpreted, but rather of a lack of evidence entirely. Once the state of human knowledge on the matter had moved beyond "well it sorta feels flat, there's an up and a down" to actual astronomical observations, it was pretty immediately apparent that the Earth was indeed round.
>hurr the conventional wisdom was wrong before therefore it's wrong now about whatever I say it is
listen here fucko, you want to know the difference between deniers and people like Barbara McClintock, Alfred Wegener, and Galileo Galilei? THE LATTER GREAT SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY HAD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTROVERSIAL CLAIMS. They were vindicated because the data bore them out. You've just got a basket of "what-ifs" that you're trying to pass off as "becauses".

>>8669709
The fact that human beings are capable of making errors applies to everyone. That includes you. So if that can justify dismissing something as wrong without any actual evidence that it is wrong, then it can justify dismissing you as wrong just as easily. So by your own standard, we have zero reason to bother listening to you because humans have been wrong before.

Do you see how stupid that is? If "humans have been wrong before, so they're wrong now" was an acceptable argument, then everything would grind to a halt because that can be applied to literally any human endeavor. In any given field, there are people in the past who have been wrong about something. Is that a reason to dismiss the idea that, say, some diseases are caused by microscopic organisms? After all, there have been mistakes in the field of medicine before, so should we assume without evidence that they're wrong about germ theory?

>>8669719
this is literally the one of the only things we have a government for. it doesn't matter how resource intensive this would mean for them. i ask that you look around you and consider the opportunity cost of regulating and taxing everything you see and suggest that they can't perform the one function they are legitimately given. environmental regulation is not a legitimate function of the state. the reason that you have such convictions against court intervention is because you have traded that with a separate entity that assumes control which acts independently from the courts. the power delegated to do this comes from the mentality that there should be someone in charge of this to control market behavior. you would hold no such reservations about introducing the court to this problem if it wasn't for the environmental regulation in the first place. instead of suing for damages and the court ordering the bad actors to stop, the EPA will instead assert themselves in whatever capacity which eliminates any sort of rightful conclusion.

>>8669724
my examples were only suggestions of a phenomenon and that was only my point. i understand that this doesn't prove anything. my objective here is to introduce doubt

>>8669726
i think there is great uncertainty about the issue in general although people have their convictions and there is the left/right element which polarizes the issue further about the data.

>>8669736
i love you. i'd like to see the earth in 10 years. i think we really do need more information :) would you still hold the same enthusiasm if the earth was the same or lower temperature by then? or would you point to other natural events happening at that time as your proof instead or claim that it will increase in the future?

>>8669737
this was an incorrect example. maybe the malthusian population thing is a better one?

>>8669817 continuing
>>8669747
i'm only suggesting that the consensus can be wrong. suppose instead not the state but other actors were financing these studies and what impact that might have on the data.

File: full circle.jpg (15KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 640x640px

>>8669304
but to rebut your original point:
>plants are growing faster
increased CO2 has minimal effects on primary productivity in most systems since the limiting factor is usually already nitrate, phosphate, or iron. more warmth can mean a longer growing season, but global warming doesn't mean warming everywhere, which brings me to the next point:
>we are getting more productive land + more rainfall
except that due to Hadley cell expansion (>>8669428) the places that get more warmth and rainfall will be places like current subtropical deserts and subpolar zones, where the soils are too poor to support agriculture. meanwhile, the temperate zones (where longstanding climate trends have led to the accumulation of rich soils) will face increasing aridity.

File: Galaxy Bottle.jpg (742KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 1920x1200px

>>8669817
>this is literally the one of the only things we have a government for
courts are for redress. an efficient government prevents grievances in the first place to reduce harm done and the burden on the courts.
by your logic, we shouldn't have the Food and Drug Act. instead, if someone eats tainted food and it makes them sick, they or their next of kin should sue the agricultural producer. do you see how fuckstupid this is?
>muh markets

>my objective here is to introduce doubt
no shit

>i think there is great uncertainty about the issue
not among people with two brain cells to rub together.
brainlets are uncertain whether it will be good or bad. actual scientists are only uncertain about EXACTLY how bad it will be.

>this was an incorrect example. maybe the malthusian population thing is a better one?
it's not. Malthus is essentially correct.

>>8669822
>i'm only suggesting that the consensus can be wrong. suppose instead not the state but other actors were financing these studies
conjecture conjecture conjecture.
I'm only suggesting what if you weren't such a faggot, would you still eat so many dicks?

>>8669817
>i think there is great uncertainty about the issue in general although people have their convictions and there is the left/right element which polarizes the issue further about the data.
You're claiming the climate is a left or right issue, why is that? Why aren't you claiming geology is a political issue as well? There are people with a lot to lose who own property next to volcanoes. Why aren't they claiming volcanoes in seismically active areas never erupt? Why is that not a left/right issue?

>i love you. i'd like to see the earth in 10 years. i think we really do need more information :) would you still hold the same enthusiasm if the earth was the same or lower temperature by then? or would you point to other natural events happening at that time as your proof instead or claim that it will increase in the future?
Al Gore's movie was 11 years ago, why are you still making excuses for why the world's warmer? You're clinging to a belief system here, not introducing doubt.

>>8669822
So provide evidence for it being wrong, I can say that the consensus for water being two parts hydrogen one part oxygen could be wrong. That wouldn't do anything helpful at all though so why do you feel the need to do it for climate change?

>>8669843
well maybe i disagree with mr Hadley and bottlenecks for plant growth. i just quickly found this i'm obviously not an expert :)

C4 plants already use CO2 efficiently. An increase in the concentration does not help them much. C3 plants, on the other hand, benefit greatly from increases in CO2 because less of the inefficient O2 photosynthesis occurs. Plants in a high CO2 environment increase their plant mass by 20 to 25%. Yields of some crops can be increased by up to 33%. This is the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations over Earth normal. Still higher concentrations can be expected to yield still better results.

>>8669871
yes FDA is unnecessary. its not the state's job to prevent grievances through the creation of new entities but to simply uphold property rights though the courts and part of that means issuing firm verdicts on these cases. and as to the efficiency of it, i'd argue that relying on the justice system is a better way of dealing with this issue. you disagree and i understand your position but i am right :)
Malthus was really on point about the size by this time but wrong about resource allocation, the idea that there is only so much stuff to go around that in the future we will all be worse off as proven not true not only in the future but in his own past. everyone was much richer when he was older vs when he was younger and he failed to notice that trend in the rise of standard of living despite population growth in his own lifetime.

>I'm only suggesting what if you weren't such a faggot, would you still eat so many dicks?

hey be nice

>>8669955 continuing
>>8669890
>You're claiming the climate is a left or right issue, why is that?

because of the hysteria and impending doom narrative that never seems to materialize from both sides arising from different claims, either terrorist are going get you or the corporations are taking over or environmental conditions are deteriorating. i said that there was only an element of this left/right thing not that it was specifically a left/right issue entirely. of course you know of this, playing coy :)

>Al Gore's movie was 11 years ago, why are you still making excuses for why the world's warmer? You're clinging to a belief system here, not introducing doubt.

i'm only trying to explain my skepticism and why you should have some.

>So provide evidence for it being wrong, I can say that the consensus for water being two parts hydrogen one part oxygen could be wrong. That wouldn't do anything helpful at all though so why do you feel the need to do it for climate change?

i would say that the climate data is open to more interpretation than this chemistry observation you present

>>8669955
>i just quickly found this
No source?
>Earth normal
I think I can see why no source, what the fuck is Earth normal? Must be a blog.

>>8669960
Stop watching crap in the media, start reading science journals, Science and Nature are excellent sources of material.
CO2 causes heating according to basic chemistry, study more chemistry.

>>8669975
it was the first search result for plant growth c02 bottleneck
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/05/co2-plant-growth.html

>>8669975
i agree c02 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, warming the earth yeahyeahyeah. i'd love to learn more chemistry, wish i had more time in my life and that the days were longer

>>8669817
>my objective here is to introduce doubt
Amazing, following the tobacco industry's playbook to the letter I see? At least you're dishonest in the fact that you're purposefully spreading misinformation for the benefit of your oil masters and their profits.

>>8669978
http://www.asi.org/index2.html
Does this look like a credible source of information for the subject matter you're talking about? They really need more emphasis on critical thinking in schools. Especially on how to verify your sources.

>>8669983
there is nothing nefarious about profits unless it is stolen :)
i'm not spreading misinformation. the reason i take the time to speak with you all is to teach you skepticism of issues so that you can spend your time worrying about something real or more important.

>>8669987
no but this seems to be more credible:
"Reference:

Fakhri A. Bazzaz and Eric D. Fajer, "Plant Life in a CO2-Rich World," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January, 1992, pp 68-74."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plant-life-in-a-co2-rich-world/

seems to be an academic article by scientific american. i don't know.. is this source credible to you? what scientific journals would you prefer this information from instead?

File: 2017-02-12_14-51-29.png (155KB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1920x800px

>>8669999 continuing
this was the source given in that text, it was provided at the bottom of the page :)

>>8668752
Addressing Anthropogenic Climate Change = Abolishing Fossil Fuels.

That's the whole debate.

File: Crystals.jpg (145KB, 531x783px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 531x783px

>>8669955
>maybe i disagree with mr Hadley
>i'm obviously not an expert
so you admit that you don't know anything about the topic but you think we should overturn literally THREE HUNDRED YEARS WORTH OF EVIDENCE AND ADVANCEMENT simply because you don't like how it sounds. why are we supposed to take you seriously again?

>Plants in a high CO2 environment increase their plant mass by 20 to 25%. Yields of some crops can be increased by up to 33%. This is the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations over Earth normal.
Okay you retard, you didn't read what I wrote. Plants require more than just CO2 for growth; generally, growth is limited NOT by CO2 availability but by nitrate or phosphate (on land) or iron (in the oceans). This is well-established. Greenhouse experiments show increased growth under high CO2 conditions BECAUSE IN THOSE GREENHOUSES THE OTHER NUTRIENTS ARE PROVIDED IN EXCESS.
Saying that more CO2 means more crop production is like thinking that twice as much flour means twice as many cakes...when you've only got a quarter cup of sugar in the house.

>its not the state's job to prevent grievances
and why not? surely everyone's better off if we solve problems proactively rather than reactively.
>as to the efficiency of it, i'd argue that relying on the justice system is a better way of dealing with this issue
that's provably false. in India, where they DO rely on the courts instead of actually enforcing regulations (consumer protection, etc.) properly, there's a backlog of over 30 million cases, which will take literally DECADES to clear.
maybe once you graduate high school you'll reconsider your happy-smiley-pie-in-the-sky image of the most imbecilic form of libertarianism.

>hey be nice
no

>>8669999
>Even without considerations of global warming, increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may greatly alter the structure and function of ecosystems. These changes will not necessarily benefit plants
Always check the source instead of reading the blog.

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

109KB, 556x494px

>>8669978
>http://www.asi.org/
>The Artemis Project is going to take you there! The Project is a private venture to establish a permanent, self-supporting community on the Moon. Here, you will find out how we are going to get there, how we are going to pay for it, and how you can come too!
LEL

>>8669999
>seems to be an academic article by scientific american
SciAm is a popular science magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. And if you LOOK at the article, you'll see that the introduction directly refutes the point you're trying to make:
>Even without considerations of global warming, increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may greatly alter the structure and function of ecosystems. These changes will not necessarily benefit plants.

it's this sort of bullshit that lets people know you're a fuckwit.

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

67KB, 600x800px

>>8669999
>what scientific journals would you prefer this information from instead?
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2007/2_8_07.pdf

>>8670020
yep i'm not an expert and yet i disagree with the conventional beliefs :)

>c02
i understand that there can be bottlenecks to plant growth past getting as much c02 as they can take in. this guy: >>8669470 presents nasa videos claiming that the earth is getting greener with more plant growth from increased c02 levels. why are you so mad?

>its not the state's job to prevent grievances
and why not?
>surely everyone's better off if we solve problems proactively rather than reactively.

regardless of the efficiency of if everyone is better off or not, it is wrong for the state to take away rights to justify

>>8670027
>>8670029
? the question was about bottlenecking plant growth due to other factors other than c02 absorption. the conclusion of this separate article is unrelated, the data was used to show that i was right about some plants being about to grow faster and other factors not being such a limiting factor to growth. the conclusion of this article is "without considerations of global warming". this is a separate matter if you'd like to pursue that claim. remember the question was about c02 absorption being not a restricting factor as compared to more important nutrient absorption. i don't see why you guys are chimping out over this. it claims "These changes will not necessarily benefit plants", sure yeah it sounds like the author has some reservations about the prospect of added c02 absent the fears of global warming. i'm interested in knowing more about this. it clearly doesn't go into detail because its both only a title and isn't a definitive statement about his conclusions. sounds like he has some reservations about it always being the case that its a good thing. again its nothing to chimp out over

File: bomb_spike_graph.jpg (30KB, 645x494px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 645x494px

>>8668789
>Why don't climate scientists directly measure the percentage amount of Carbon 14 compared to carbon as a whole?


Actual C14 scientist here, C14 measurements in the atmosphere is currently USELESS because of "bomb peak." Hydrogen bomb testing in the 50's has elevated C14 of CO2 values of the current atmosphere into very high non-natural value that swallows up the natural 14C values from cosmic rays.

For example, assuming pre bomb test are 100% "percent modern carbon" or PMC a fairly common 14C unit then the current 14C in the atmosphere are 130% modern carbon

>>8670088 continuing
>regardless of the efficiency of if everyone is better off or not, it is wrong for the state to take away rights to justify

i didn't finish my thought before having to address the other posts, i intended to say that it isn't the role of government to micromanage every aspect of our lives. trying to do so infringes/repels natural rights and requires more resources which is then demanded though taxation. also what we don't see in this transaction are the opportunity costs associated with it all.

>>8670088
>yep i'm not an expert and yet i disagree with the conventional beliefs :)
You don't even know what the "beliefs" are, why those "beliefs" exist, or why they might be wrong. You're saying you believe something isn't true because you don't like it. Go to school and come back when you learn why that's wrong.

>>8670109
must we understand the text of the religions in order to deny them? can i not disagree with conclusions others have made absent understanding every aspect of their arguments?

>>8670116
No, you need to know why something is wrong to say it's wrong. Otherwise the best you can do is say "I don't know". I can tell you why I have no belief in any religious system but it would be faulty for me to say I believe there is no god. I have no proof of an absence of god(s) and the best I can do is say I don't know.

i love you guys even when you are nasty to me :)

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

32KB, 455x455px

>>8670088
>nasa videos claiming that the earth is getting greener with more plant growth from increased c02 levels.
greening in the Arctic doesn't do any good (in terms of crop production or carbon sequestration) due to the poor soil quality. read >>8669843 again.

>it is wrong for the state to take away rights to justify
so if Uncle Sam tells me I'm not allowed to stretch flour with paint dust and sell it to consumers, MUH FREEDUMBS are being VIOLATED. and the obvious right way to handle that problem is to just let me sell the tainted flour, and make people I've poisoned sue me to try and get their medical bills paid.
This Is What Libertarian Morons Actually Believe.

>the conclusion of this separate article is unrelated, the data was used to show that i was right about some plants being about to grow faster and other factors not being such a limiting factor to growth.
The claim that rising CO2 emissions would benefit plant growth was literally directly contradicted by the article it cited as its only reference. You can't get much more retarded than that.
Nor did the ASI post (or the article it cited) support your claim that nutrient limitation wasn't an issue.
>the conclusion of this article is "without considerations of global warming". this is a separate matter if you'd like to pursue that claim.
and the overwhelming consensus is that WITH global warming things will only get WORSE due to climatic disruption. the whole point of the SciAm article is that even setting aside those effects, more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean more plants.
>remember the question was about c02 absorption being not a restricting factor as compared to more important nutrient absorption.
except you were talking about differences in carbon fixation between C3 and C4 plants, not nutrient vs CO2 limitation. we can literally scroll up and see what you were actually talking about.

>chimping out
>chimp out
back2 >>>/pol/, bigboy

File: CERN.jpg (764KB, 1594x996px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 1594x996px

>>8670088
>it clearly doesn't go into detail because its both only a title
actually it's a subtitle :^)
>and isn't a definitive statement about his conclusions.
newsflash, there's a whole article underneath the subtitle
>sounds like he has some reservations about it always being the case that its a good thing.
so now you're trying to pretend that the author agrees with you and is just a little uncertain...even though the whole point of the article is that what you're claiming isn't actually reflective of the real world impacts of rising CO2.
nice damage control.

>>8670103
>it isn't the role of government to micromanage every aspect of our lives
which is clearly exactly the same as requiring that food sold in stores be safe to eat
>trying to do so infringes/repels natural rights
what exactly is a natural right?
>requires more resources which is then demanded though taxation
so you actually think that it's more expensive to enforce food safety regulations than to make everyone who gets food poisoning file a lawsuit against the vendor? do you think that courts don't cost taxpayer money or something? hot damn, talk about penny wise, pound foolish.

>>8670089
interesting, I didn't know that nuclear tests produced 14C. today I learned.
if you don't mind my asking, what applications of 14C do you work on? just radiometric dating, or is there something else?

File: 040609_nexticeage_hsml-grid-6x21.jpg (16KB, 474x310px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 474x310px

>>8670251
>if you don't mind my asking, what applications of 14C do you work on? just radiometric dating, or is there something else?

I'm measuring carbon-14 in bubble ice, 14CO2, 14CH4, and 14CO as paleoclimate reconstruction. There's less than a dozen people who do this measurements around the world so I'm sure you can find my lab pretty easily.

>>8670301
That's neat, where are the core samples you study from? I know there's GISP and Vostok, are there any more ice core projects than those?

>>8670237
that was an unfinished thought, this was my amended statement:

"i didn't finish my thought before having to address the other posts, i intended to say that it isn't the role of government to micromanage every aspect of our lives. trying to do so infringes/repels natural rights and requires more resources which is then demanded though taxation. also what we don't see in this transaction are the opportunity costs associated with it all."

regarding the nasa videos:
"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening"
"The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States"

the greening in the arctic is only part of the increased growth

>>8670251
i'm being asked to pay for the subscription so i don't have access to the full article sadly.

food wouldn't be safe if it weren't for the FDA? absent the FDA food would be unsafe?

natural rights are intrinsic to humanity that you and i hold without an authority having to grant them. i could list them but it would be easier to do a google search. it is strange explaining because i was taught them when i was very young and its hard imagining someone that isn't familiar with the concept

absent the moral argument, yeah i even still believe that using the courts would be more productive

File: Untitled.png (119KB, 1305x653px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1305x653px

>>8670313
>are there any more ice core projects than those?

Yep there are tons. The first ice core comes from Camp Century in the 60s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ujx_pND9wg
Camp century is basically a military base underneath the greenland ice sheet. This is way back in the depth of cold war when the US army thought that they could make a nuclear launching base that is protected from radar. Of course they learned very quickly that ice sheet moves, and keeping nuclear warhead and semi permanent bases with nuclear warheads under shearing ice sheet is not a very good idea, so the base was abandoned quickly but as a result the scientific community obtain an invaluable first ice core ever that wasn't even drilled, but cut with chainsaws and buldozers over ice trench.

After Camp Century there are many more ice cores drilled. The latest collaborative ice core drilled being the WAIS core (west antarctic ice sheet) by us the 'Mericans. There's also an intermediate depth ice core drilled over South pole (SPICE) http://spicecore.org/ . Finally on top of pic related the Chinese are also drilling in Dome A, Antarctica.

Currently we're handling some SPICE samples, and also have some non-deep cores drilled over blue ice areas. 14C measurements require a ton of ice, so it is not usually the priority over more important and classic constituents as CO2, CH4, dust, water isotopes, etc

File: goodbye fascist.png (320KB, 300x561px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 300x561px

>>8670320
>that was an unfinished thought
buddy all your thoughts are unfinished

>food wouldn't be safe if it weren't for the FDA? absent the FDA food would be unsafe?
food literally WAS unsafe in this country before the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in 1906. patent medicines were laced with opium, food was commonly preserved with formaldehyde, and sanitary practices were patchy at best. industry fought against consumer protection laws for DECADES AND DECADES claiming (as you do) that it would be a horrible infringement on their MUH FREEDUMBS.
& you know what happened? industry didn't take a hit. they absorbed the (fairly minimal) costs, and consumers were able to rely on their food and drink to be safe. you and I are the product of a world in which our mothers and fathers didn't have to worry if the food on the table was going to subject us to the ravages of clostridium, or if a spoonful of cough syrup was going to give us a fatal opioid overdose, or the very water we drank was going to lead to debilitating heavy metal poisoning that would haunt us the rest of our lives.
this isn't a hypothetical; THIS KIND OF SHIT ACTUALLY HAPPENED UNTIL WE AS A NATION STEPPED UP AND STOPPED IT.

>natural rights are intrinsic to humanity that you and i hold without an authority having to grant them
if nobody grants them, how do we know which ones they are?
the correct answer is that they are rights WIDELY AGREED UPON to be intrinsic to humanity. and since they're defined by broad consensus, it becomes a little difficult to decide what they do or don't protect.
where, in any common law (our legal tradition going back centuries) is the State enjoined from regulating industry? hell, even in medieval society it was well understood that such practices were part of the regular role of local government (guilds etc.)

>i even still believe that using the courts would be more productive
than you are an ignoramus and a fool, because all the evidence is against you. look again at India.

>>8670357
>goodbye fascist
i'm a fascist because i promote freedom and liberty?

reason has a new video i'm watching now that i'll share with you :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsfKxX4dWas

>>8669978
> i'd love to learn more chemistry, wish i had more time in my life and that the days were longer
>>8670362
>wastes time watching propaganda WILLINGLY
Get the fuck off the internet and pick up a scientific textbook, you're wasting your life trying to dictate politics when you're an uneducated piece of shit.
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki

>>8670349
Thanks for the detailed response, really interesting work you get to do.

>>8670383
most scientific findings fail to be repeatable, most of what you read in a scientific journal can not be replicated. if i could stop time i'd read scientific textbooks though. i'm not uneducated. i'm very knowledgeable :)

>>8670401
>I hate science and it's shit
>I know, I'll go to a board dedicated to science
wew lad

File: fishpom.gif (3MB, 1530x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1530x1080px

>>8670401
>most scientific findings fail to be repeatable, most of what you read in a scientific journal can not be replicated.
[citation needed] fucko
>i'm not uneducated. i'm very knowledgeable
Dunning-Kruger in action, ladies and skeletons

>>8670412
i found these:

https://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/

http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a.html

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063221

https://peerj.com/articles/148/

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

https://theconversation.com/we-found-only-one-third-of-published-psychology-research-is-reliable-now-what-46596

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

File: NICL_main-archive-freezer.jpg (219KB, 1100x413px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1100x413px

>>8670399
Yeah no worries. Sadly the reality is less swashbuckling science than you would've thought it is. A lot of scientists doesn't really get the opportunity to go to the field, as mechanical engineers, heavy equipment operators, logistics manager, even cook, plumbers and mountaineers are more needed on the drill site than your lab nerd. We just get our cores from the National Ice Core Lab (NICL) in Denver

>>8670433
All but one of your citations are about biomedical or psychology research. All of them are about clinical research methods which are fundamentally different from climatology.

Further, the main results of climatology have already been replicated and independently verified. Please learn about what you're talking about before posting.

File: Harambe Days.png (2MB, 1468x1468px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1468x1468px

>>8670433
>blog post
>paper about failure of potential drugs
>essay with no primary data (again, restricted to biomedical science)
>journal comment listing red flags that identify work as difficult to reproduce
>survey (limited to oncology) that didn't address rates of reproducibility, but rather what fraction of researchers had ever had difficulty reproducing someone else's results
>paper talking about how poor documentation of materials makes it difficult to reproduce results (again, limited to biomedical research; noticing a pattern?)
>news article talking about issues of reproducibility
>news write-up on Reproducibility Project, which found low rates of reproducibility...but failed to account for the fidelity of the reproduction to the original http://www.pnas.org/content/113/23/6454.full.pdf
>paper showing that retractions are usually the result of misconduct rather than simple error.
>another write-up of Reproducibility Project, see above

a few things stand out:
first off, you don't seem to understand what reproducibility is and isn't. you've included papers warning that methodological vagueness can make it hard to accurately reproduce an experiment (which is a separate issue from reproducing its results), and talking about retractions (which are ENTIRELY different).
secondly, there's an issue with biomedical research that is particular to the field. since drug trials are done on living beings, there are a lot of hard-to-control variables, and ethics considerations severely limit your methodology. for these reasons and a few others related to identifiability of materials (antibodies differ from batch to batch, model organisms differ from strain to strain) reproducibility is lower in biomed than in other fields.

>>8670433
It is true that there are perverse incentives in science. A lot of individual results are suspect. There are systematic biases such as publication bias, "industry sponsored research: e.g. pharma bias.

You can't simply think "science = true" you have to look under the covers.

I spent a few months doing this with global warming. On the skeptic side there is nothing more than a PR campaign. I found that truth is on the scientists' side in this case.

>>8670433
>https://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/
Blog, says so in top left, also medicine.
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html
Medicine
>http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Medicine
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a.html
Medicine
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063221
Medicine
https://peerj.com/articles/148/
Medicine
>http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble
Psychology and medicine
>https://theconversation.com/we-found-only-one-third-of-published-psychology-research-is-reliable-now-what-46596
Psychology
>http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract
Medicine
>http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/
Psychology
If you studied statistics you'd know you could at best say psychology and medicine has some issues. If you do a study involving only males you can't say it applies to all humans. If you find issues with only medicine and psychology you can't say science has issues.

>>8668838
Everyone around us is constantly manipulating us for their own selfish ends. When will people grow up and realize that no one actually loves them? People only love themselves and do things to virtue signal to themselves so they can love themselves more. The only way to fight back is to isolate yourself and wait for this system of things to implode.

>>8670521
I love you anon.
(Sponsored by Brawndo, if you don't drink Brawndo fuck you)

>>8668752
>dealing with a climate change skeptic
Thirty years ago that may have been a worthwhile
endeavour, but now it is just a waste of your time.

>>8670521
I thought they were joking in the article when they said cow farts were now being regulated and taxed in Cali. Wew, if there ever was a slippery slope...the basic premise to me is obvious, control carbon, control life. I am sure some people - some climate scientists - have good intentions and are generally altruistic when they can afford to do so. The problem with more taxation in any form is it hobbles the individual and empowers the state. Taxing large swaths of the first world into energy poverty is a recipe for dark ages. All this will start to get very ugly in the near future and when the majority is driven into economic and energy poverty there will not be much love to go around if you know what I'm saying. When the 'system' implodes you will be far too busy worrying about your own survival to gloat over that.

>>8670572
What's wrong with regulating methane emissions from ruminants? Ruminants are the biggest anthropogenic source of methane, moreso than natural gas.

If you have a feedlot, you can either let the cow farts pollute the air, or recycle it as natural gas for winter heating. Cow farmers and people who buy beef sure aren't paying their fair share of externalities (for example climate change induced drought in california)

>>8668752
C13/c12 ratios are unreliable, because nuclear testing fucked up atmospheric isotope ratios

>>8670596
No they're not, where are your sources? Are you talking about 14C, the radioactive isotopes rather than 13C or 12C the stable isotopes? The radioactive isotopes is fucked up as I explained here, >>8670089 but the d13C/12C ratios are not as you seen the data here >>8668782.

Carbon 14 has 10^-12 natural abundance, so one can imagine any radiocarbon produced by nuclear testing would've shifted the atmospheric values very much.

Now please inform me about a nuclear reaction from hydrogen bomb testing that can produce STABLE carbon out of other elements, say Nitrogen or Oxygen. Literally none, there is no nuclear reaction pathways that ends in stable carbon. Even if so, there are 800 Gt carbon in the atmosphere, most of which >99% are 12C. It would take a gigantic production of carbon out of thin air to be able to shift the d13C ratios of atmospheric CO2.

>>8670596
Nuclear testing had zero effect on C13 and C12. Nuclear testing creates unstable C14. C13 and C12 are stable. Nice try though moron.

File: change_in_leaf_area.jpg (930KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 1920x1080px

>>8668777
>What the denier fails to mention of course is that natural sinks absorb even more CO2, 790 gigatons while humans absorb 0.
> CO2 sinks are not constant.

What is the greening of the earth?
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

“The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two-times the size of mainland USA"

>>8670582
> climate change induced drought in california
California's drought wasn't caused by climate change, it was caused by awful government policy. They've imported an endless stream of illegals for years, and they guzzle water like no one else. On top of that, environazis have lobbied for huge amounts of water to be reserved for "endangered" fish that the government values more than people. The whole thing was caused by liberal central planning leading to criminal mismanagement of the water, not "climate change."

On top of that, the government has been using it as an excuse to pass downright ridiculous regulation that tops even trying to regulate cow farts for stupidity. They're trying to argue that the government can regulate whether a person can dig a well on their own property and pump water on their own property for idiotic reasons like "the water flows through other properties to get there, so it isn't yours."

California is what you get when government regulation gets completely out of control, a third world hellhole where law abiding ctizens are taxed and regulated into the ground while illegals who ignore our laws run wild.

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

49KB, 740x419px

>>8670803
>California's drought wasn't caused by climate change, it was caused by awful government policy.
You seem to have confused "drought" with "water shortage".
This is an easy mistake to make if you are a retard.

File: figure2_water-use.png (19KB, 676x256px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 676x256px

>>8670803
>all this spicy /pol/ meme
>drought because illegals drinking too much tapwater

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108

Urban use only account for 10% of water usage. This includes the entire drinking water for LA, San Diego and San Fransisco. The rest comes from agriculture.

Do you really think a human being can beat industrialized crop production in term of water usage? California as a whole is the world 7th largest economy and the biggest food producer by state for the whole US.

Go back to /pol/ you fucking brainlet. Don't expect to spout your spicy meme without any data to back it up here

>>8670778
>Implying greener Earth = more carbon sinks

Wrong!

For starters, much of that "green growth" is monoculture spruce forestry used for the timber and paper industry. These serve as net carbon PRODUCERS. They RELEASE carbon into the atmosphere.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/597

>Thus, two and a half centuries of forest management in Europe have not cooled the climate. The political imperative to mitigate climate change through afforestation and forest management therefore risks failure, unless it is recognized that not all forestry contributes to climate change mitigation.

Largest carbon sinks are in fact the oceanic dead zones and algae blooms we're trying to eliminate from our ecology. Cyanobacteria absorb more carbon than all of the rainforests combined.

>>8668752
arguing about CO2,
when Methane exists
wow

File: Thug dog.jpg (97KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x800px

>>8670902
>Largest carbon sinks are in fact the oceanic dead zones and algae blooms we're trying to eliminate from our ecology.
yes and no.
algal blooms can fix a lot of carbon very quickly, but dead zones themselves are the result of anoxia caused by sudden die-off and decay of all that fixed carbon. there's still some that sinks to the bottom (where it may be buried long-term, or may be fed on by abyssal fauna) but a lot of the carbon goes right back into the atmosphere.
known climate """skeptic""" Freeman Dyson thinks we could mitigate CO2 rise by fertilizing estuaries and shorelines. he's quite wrong.

>>8670803
charge people money to bury industrial byproducts on land
make dumping industrial byproducts into water systems illegal
no one bats an eye

suggest taxing people based on releasing industrial byproducts into the air and everyone loses their minds

>>8670778
>CO2 sinks are not constant.
Where did I say they were? I was giving the approximate annual flux. A few years ago we were producing a bit less emissions and the oceans were absorbing a little more CO2.

>>8670965
>no counterargument
/pol/tard BTFO

>>8670965
How do you explain the growing population in California, some of which for sure due to illegal immigration but the water usage in gallons, not percentage from urban use actually decreasing?

It doesn't really fit your /pol/ narrative doesn't it? Do you have any counterpoints, or facts to back your argument anymore?

>>8670803
>>8670965
>Fuck climatology, droughts are caused by illegal immigrants.
>I'm not a /pol/tard, you're just triggered!
Wow.

>>8670989
> the growing population in California
It's not. California's population is shrinking because people are fleeing the cesspool that it has become. The only problem is that they're trying to bring all the stupid liberal politics that made it awful with them and force everyone else to become just as retarded as them.

File: California-population[1].png (77KB, 852x423px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 852x423px

>>8671070
>California's population is shrinking because people are fleeing the cesspool that it has become.
Literally a lie.
>http://journal.firsttuesday.us/golden-state-population-trends/9007/
Try again, dickhead.

>>8670965
Embarrassing, just embarrassing.

>>8668752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18

>>8669304
I can hardly grow anything that isn't an orange tree in south Florida during the summer because of the heat, and you suggest it getting hotter is a good thing?

File: Steaks.jpg (65KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 460x460px

>>8670582
>What's wrong with regulating methane emissions from ruminants?
Addresses a make believe problem and fixes nothing while bloating regulatory parasitic government entities.

The most insidious aspect of this new age war on CO2 and branding of it as some sort of pollutant (ironic since it is critical to life on this planet) is the sheer number of potential applications like the article points out - every single human activity down to basic respiratory function and farting - is wide open for politicians to implement draconian regulation. Almost any activity can and eventually will be targeted for 'central control' and this is no different than any religion or cult that wants absolute authority over all aspects of their subjects. AGW is a religion and in my opinion the most terrifying cult yet invented due to the sheer scope of its agenda. Only time will tell how large and powerful this church gets.

File: (You)burger.gif (867KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 480x336px

>>8671214
>methane
>a make believe problem
o I am laffin

>new age war on CO2 and branding of it as some sort of pollutant (ironic since it is critical to life on this planet)
phosphate is also critical to life on this planet and yet it can also be a dangerous pollutant. same with nitrate and ozone, to name a few.

>Almost any activity can and eventually will be targeted for 'central control' and this is no different than any religion or cult that wants absolute authority over all aspects of their subjects. AGW is a religion and in my opinion the most terrifying cult yet invented due to the sheer scope of its agenda.
>being this paranoid and autismal
nothing personnel kid

>>8670965

>says retarded shit
>gets btfo
>"shit, better call him triggered before everyone realizes i'm a faggot"

Have you ever considered committing suicide?

>>8671095
> US Census Bureau
Opinion discarded. I'll trust data gained from personal experience over garbage from an incompetent pack of government bureaucrats, thank you very much.

>>8671224
> methane
> a make believe problem
> o I am laffin
Name a single real problem that methane causes that is worth the starvation that would result from crushing agriculture under the burden of even more government regulation.

File: Removing polack.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>8671247
Okay, enlighten us. What other sources do you have to claim that California is being abandoned that isn't your anecdotal evidence.

>>8671254
There is plenty of data showing it. The fact that you're ignorant of it doesn't make it anecdotal.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/20/californias-skyrocketing-housing-costs-taxes-prompt-exodus-of-residents/
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20160718/whos-leaving-california-not-who-you-think-thomas-elias
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-16/new-study-finds-taxpayers-are-fleeing-new-york
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/pf/people-moving-out-california/

>>8671268
>http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/20/californias-skyrocketing-housing-costs-taxes-prompt-exodus-of-residents/
This source says that people are leaving but it has says nothing about whether population growth matches population loss.
>http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20160718/whos-leaving-california-not-who-you-think-thomas-elias
Doesn't support your claim.
>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-16/new-study-finds-taxpayers-are-fleeing-new-york
Its source is either blogs or government statistics that you yourself claimed is useless.
>http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/pf/people-moving-out-california/
It sources Corelogic, but does not provide a link. It's other source about cost of living increasing is an explanation for population loss but not itself proof, censuses are proof of that. I also thought that /pol/acks consider CNN to be shitty?

>>8671253
> that is worth the starvation that would result
> implying that isn't the point
Leftists have always sought to starve the population into "equality." This happens constantly throughout history. Whenever the left takes power, they seize control of food production in order to kill off millions. Mao did it, Stalin did it, Pol Pot did it, and the left is still doing it right now in both Venezuela and North Korea. Fewer people means it's easier to control the populace, and that's what the left is really all about.

>>8671268
m-muh "alternative facts"

You're just doing it for the (You)'s at this point

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

58KB, 600x600px

>>8671247
>I'll trust data gained from personal experience over garbage from an incompetent pack of government bureaucrats
wait wait, are they incompetent or are they secretly masterminding an enormous hoax on the entire world?
6/10 troll, too obvious. nobody is actually this retarded in real life.

>>8671253
>Name a single real problem that methane causes that is worth the starvation that would result from crushing agriculture under the burden of even more government regulation.
the starvation that would result from crushing agriculture under the stress of even more drought and climatic disruption, for one.
also, nobody's going to starve as a result of regulating methane emissions. worst case scenario is that meat would get more expensive, but vegetable crops wouldn't be affected BECAUSE PLANTS EMIT VERY LITTLE METHANE.
in fact, switching land use from livestock to crops is EXACTLY what you'd want to do to address a food shortage. it takes much less land, water, and energy to produce high-protein crops (like beans) than to produce meat, kcal for kcal. or you could raise pigs or chickens instead of ruminants, since they emit negligible methane.
Pssh, and YOU call US "alarmists"...

Let this thread be a lesson that you shouldn't go to /pol/ kids, it turns you into a brainlet

To the guy that's responding to all the deniers in these threads, just want to say thank you for your autism. At least someone is bothering to respond to these idiots. Thanks based anon.

File: harold.jpg (269KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1000x667px

>>8672318
you're welcome!
t. autist

though it's not all me. at least one or two other angry people yelling at the retards.

File: Climategate Get Rid of that Blip.jpg (235KB, 1152x621px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1152x621px

>>8668794
>>muh carbon control
>This indicates the /pol/tard's inability to respond to scientific facts with anything but conspiracy theories.

Remember scientists never conspire. They certainly would never fudge things.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/#sthash.VTPwJsKh.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/22/veteran-meteorologist-joe-bastardi-on-nasa-november-temperature-a-fraudulent-report-tampering-with-data/#sthash.P3HW7lW2.dpbs
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/nasa-doubling-sea-level-rise-by-data-tampering/
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.achgut.com%2Fartikel%2Fsind_die_klimadaten_manipuliert

>nb4 Only peer reviewed counts. Yeah, that's like asking the police to investigate the police.

>>8670936
not sure if trolling

>>8668777
I have a question.

Why don't we just put the natural sinks on steroids to absorb excess CO2. Plant billions of trees, fertilize algae etc.

>>8673227
Because planting trees and producing fertilizer and whatever else requires energy. The only way to change the net flux is to reduce emissions and develop alternative energy sources.

>>8673148
>dailymail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790238/crabzilla-photo-appears-giant-crab-measuring-50ft-lurking-waters-whitstable.html
Watch out for crabzilla, it'll get ya, the arbiters of truth say it so it must be true!

>>8673246
> The only way to change the net flux is to reduce emissions and develop alternative energy sources.

> alternative energy

Solar and wind both consume more energy than they produce. They're not energy sources, they're a way for governments to give taxpayer money to their friends. It's rent seeking, nothing more.

>>8673257
[citation needed]

>>8673148
>Daily Mail
>Judith Curry
No Trick Zone
>Climatism
>Telegraph.co.uk

You gonna post some links to Breitbart or Infowars too?
By the way, if you even bothered to read Curry's blog, you would see that the entire John Bates story is complete bogus, not to mention the fact that Bates said there was no fraud and no manipulation in the Karl et al. 2015 paper, not that you even know what that paper is about.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
Read up and educate yourself.

>>8673257
Oh boy, where to begin?

>Solar and wind both consume more energy than they produce.
First of all, this is a pathetic lie. A common PV solar panel takes about two years to produce more energy than it took to manufacture. For wind turbines this figure varies, but there is no such thing as a wind turbine which produces less energy than it took to produce.

Second, I didn't say anything about solar or wind.

>>8673264
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/12/21/why-its-the-end-of-the-line-for-wind-power
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/study-wind-farms-even-more-expensive-and-pointless-than-you-thought/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2893708/New-wind-turbine-farce-power-National-Grid-NOT-generating-electricity.html

[citation provided]

>>8673284
>links shitty media when asked for citations

kill yourself you monumental retard

>>8673284
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/flat-earth-proof-just-a-mirage/
http://www.flatearthclues.com
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions
Am I doing science correctly?

>You gonna post some links to Breitbart or Infowars too?
>>8673284

P O T T E R Y

My god you people are so fucking predictable. Maybe, I don't know, find a new source of media that isn't fucking forbes, Breitbart of the fucking Daily Mail or all sources.

>>8673286
> implying your MSM trash isn't even worse
Remind me, who was predicting that brexit and Trump would never win. And who got it right?

>>8673298
>post mainstream media as a citation
>gets called out
>instantly resorts to shit flinging and calling people SJWs
I backed Trump and brexit all the way, colossal stupid faggot. honestly, you might as well be a SJW with all your "HURR MY OPINIONS ARE RIGHT THE MEDIA SAYS SO".

we don't need your kind, kill yourself

>>8673298
Oh, you want to talk about politics, well there is a politics board. >>>/pol/

>>8673311
> breitbart
> mainstream media
kys

>>8673275
> criticizes other people for their sources
> post shit from sciencemag
Pot, kettle.

>>8673316
>bannon literally president
>not mainstream media
wew lad

>>8673316
>I use mainstream media for my sources
>don't call it mainstream! it's just the second biggest and counterculture I'm a hipster >:(

please become a leftist, you're a handicap for the side you're in

>>8673323
> Bannon
> mainstream media
The MSM is the main opposition group to Trump. Bannon is his main advisor. Try learning a thing or two before you start running your mouth off, it will help you not look like an idiot.

>>8673332
>mainstream media means by (my) definition anyone opposed to Trump! so I'm correct!
>educate yourself!
you're fucking embarrassing, literally a right-wing SJW

>>8673313
> implying AGW isn't just politics to begin with

File: climateheretics.jpg (79KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 850x400px

>>8671895
I think the legislation in Cali regarding cow farts is missing the point entirely, it just hamstrings ranchers who will simply move out of state or go out of business but its irrelevant really. For example McDonalds raises most of their beef cattle in South America.

CO2 is the primary target of the AGW religion not methane, water vapor, sun cycles, volcanic activity...etc, because CO2 emissions can be tied to and implicated in every activity mankind does here on this ball of dirt starting with babies first breath to his last.

The very idea of enabling this concept is really just conceding to eventual and complete subjugation by the AGW church - state apparatus.

Even if CO2 levels rising were a real threat to humanity anything short of addressing the root cause of the problem which is apparently too many people or people in the first world with a high standard of living is just farting in the wind.
The plan already underway is not to keep populations in check by restricting mass immigration, distribution of birth control and sex education but a direct attack on the middle class in the first world to bring them down to an ignorant and impoverished standard of living where they will be far easier to subjugate under this new carbon rationing regime.

I've said this before, if anyone here seriously believes the end game of the AGW religion is to save earth and prevent some catastrophic runaway global warming scenario supported by "science", they are naive, ignorant of history and have no idea who and what started us down this path in the first place. Prepare thy anus!

>>8673332
I don't know if you know this or not, but mainstream just means popular.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com
Main advisor is codeword for marionnettiste.

>>8673340
>CO2 is the primary target of the AGW religion not methane, water vapor, sun cycles, volcanic activity...etc, because CO2 emissions can be tied to and implicated in every activity mankind does here on this ball of dirt starting with babies first breath to his last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

File: ΑΥΤΆ ΚΑΡΎΔΙΑ.jpg (71KB, 750x630px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 750x630px

>>8673227
>Plant billions of trees, fertilize algae etc.
there's some work on that, but you have to understand it's not just about fixing carbon; it's about keeping that carbon fixed. it doesn't matter how much CO2 a plant absorbs from the atmosphere if the plant then dies and rots, because all the CO2 just goes right back in. it either has to be locked up in some stable form (such as wood harvested for construction, or organic material buried in sediments) or it has to be processed into a fuel (which still puts the carbon back into the air, but at least reduces the use of fossil fuels). Algal blooms usually lead to massive rot, having little net effect on CO2 and badly damaging marine ecosystems. There have been some attempts at terrestrial fertilization though, such as planting switchgrass etc. in marginal environments that can't support crops.

>>8673322
I hope you're trolling because Science Magazine is the science-reporting publication of literally the most prestigious and respected scientific journal in the world.

>>8673340
>makes stupid claim
>gets BTFO
>tries to change the subject to his autismal delusions
nice damage control

Proof that the oil industry is trying to protect their profits from the truth, just like the tobacco and lead industry did before it.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

Holy shit, up until some of the shit flinging going on at the end of this thread, this has been one of the most based climate threads in a while. I feel like I actually fucking learned useful from 4chan for once.

>>8673440
>I hope you're trolling because Science Magazine is the science-reporting publication of literally the most prestigious and respected scientific journal in the world.
It's "respected" among liberal academics who do nothing but engage in a never ending circlejerk that rejects any dissent as heresy. Anything that could be considered politically incorrect is purged, as evidence by their refusal to acknowledge the fact that intelligence differs widely between the races.

>>8673508
Please explain how the peer reviewed process works. I always love to hear this from someone that is so sure climate change is a massive conspiracy. Gets my gibblets rolling.

>>8673508
>liberal academics who do nothing but engage in a never ending circlejerk that rejects any dissent as heresy. Anything that could be considered politically incorrect is purged
yeah, that's why deniers like Anthony Watts can't get the time of day from those darned LIBRUL ACADUMMICS
oh wait, his surface stations paper was published by the American Geophysical Union, one of the most prominent earth science organizations.

but yeah, I second >>8673514

Consider the following

>climate change deniers are right
>rich get richer, global conspiracy
>renewable resource companies now take the helm as greedy corporations instead of oil and gas
>life goes on in slightly less polluted world

>climate scientists are right
>ignored and the world is fucked forever

Explain why, even if the data was magically not empirically correct, you would ever pick the second option if you're not a complete edgelord faggot

>>8673572
> life goes on in slightly less polluted world
False. "Renewable" resources (a ridiculous term in the first place since fossil fuels are actually renewable) produce tons of pollution too. Solar panels and wind turbines require rare materials that are extremely dirty to produce. There is basically zero benefit, and they're shitty power sources leading to higher energy prices and thus more poverty.

File: CANCER.jpg (223KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x675px

>>8673580
>fossil fuels are actually renewable
pls explain

p.s. I don't want to wait 5 million years for benthic kerogen to be converted into petroleum

>>8673598
http://321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html

Oil doesn't take anywhere near as long to replenish as most people think. Russia has been drilling non-stop based on the idea that oil replenishes quickly, and thus far they've been correct.

>>8673275
>>8673440
The recent Daily Mail piece does reach, but it's pretty clear what's going on. Scientists write punchy papers with cute narratives. Normally nobody cares except for their competitors, who roll their eyes, and funding agencies, who open their wallets. In climate science, however, scientists have motivated very expensive policy changes based on their evidence, and their work is therefore critical for the public interest. One would think that this importance would drive them to extreme rigor and self-discipline, but instead it is business as usual. That's fine for an audience of scientists, but it's counterproductive in the face of a skeptical public.

I don't think the article ever claimed fraud, but it's spot on about data manipulation. There's nothing scientifically wrong with data manipulation as long as you document your procedure, but the public doesn't necessarily know that.

>>8673580
That doesn't address the main point of why take the risk.

Unless you have shares in Exxon or something there's literally zero reason to support them.

>>8673572
>ignored and the world is fucked forever
Non-coastal American here. Unless we get stuck under glaciers again we'll probably come out ahead.

>>8673633
Infrastructures are interdependent whether you're coastal or not. No more rapid advancements in technology and lack of modern amenities you've come to enjoy, not to mention a mass exodus to non-coastal cities (not even talking rapefugees, talking other Americans) will be a future in store. The World Wide Web is not strictly for the internet. Everything is connected anon.

>>8673630
> there's literally zero reason to support them.
False. Oil is a cheap source of energy and provides for easy transportation that every aspect of our civilization relies on. I support civilization, so I oppose attempts by fearmongers to destabilize the very thing that we all rely on to survive.

File: Elizabeth Warren 2017-02-11.png (438KB, 479x587px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 479x587px

>>8673650
> No more rapid advancements in technology and lack of modern amenities you've come to enjoy
> implying the loss of coastal shitholes will effect any of that
Places like LA and NYC produce nothing but nogs who vote for more free stuff. Drowning them will be a net gain.

> not to mention a mass exodus to non-coastal cities (not even talking rapefugees, talking other Americans)
> implying shitlibs aren't rapefugees
It's simple, they try to move inland to leech off of us, we kill them.

>>8673673
Hydrogen fuel cells are an even cheaper source of energy. You just need electricity and water to make hydrogen via electrolysis and you can get a mileage between 300 and 400 miles on a single tank.
http://www.stocktranscript.com/toyota-motor-corporation-nysetms-mirai-reaches-tesla-motors-inc-nasdaqtslas-driving-range-by-providing-312-miles-on-a-single-tank/32872/

>>8673674
> That quote
Holy shit did she actually say that? Why the fuck would anyone vote for that hag?

>>8673674
Cucknifornia is the technological hub of the USA. NYC pretty much runs our economy. It's not all about demographics. By all means let the nogs drown, but at least move the infrastructure first.

>>8673683
Holy shit, you're retarded. Like... holy *shit*.

>>8668752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
Hope this helps.

>>8673683
Yes, and virtue signaling. It's basically the core of the left's whole appeal. People want to show off how "tolerant" and "progressive" they are so they vote for whoever says the most absurdly anti-white thing that they can come up with.

>>8673690
> Cucknifornia is the technological hub of the USA.
Only for sexting apps and the iWhatever. Real technology comes from places that aren't strangled by diversity quotas and salty vaginas bitching about "not being represented"

>>8673702
>Yes, and virtue signaling. It's basically the core of the right's whole appeal. People want to show off how "edgy" and "contrarian" they are so they vote for whoever says the most absurdly pro-white thing that they can come up with.

>>8668969
Kek

>>8673677
Plus the only thing that comes out of the exhaust is water so it goes back into the environment to be gathered later to be reprocessed into hydrogen. The water that comes out of it is so pure you could drink it if it weren't for the contaminants that get into the car's components while driving it.

File: ｎｏｗ ｌｏｏｋ ａｔ ｔｈｉｓ ｎｅｔ.jpg (51KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x360px

>>8673607
>Oil doesn't take anywhere near as long to replenish as most people think.
false
>Russia has been drilling non-stop based on the idea that oil replenishes quickly
also false
the web page you link makes claims without citing any sources or primary material of any sort (including the ludicrous and entirely unsubstantiated claim that human fossils have been found in anthracite). it's not evidence of anything

>>8673677
>hydrogen meme
HYDROGEN IS NOT A FUEL SUPPLY

>>8673707
>Real technology comes from places that aren't strangled by diversity quotas and salty vaginas
rectumravaged Southerner detected

>>8673717
> implying voting for people who support your interests is a bad thing
This is why liberals got BTFO so hard in the election. Turns out running on a platform of "I will fuck over the majority even harder so that Jamal can have free stuff" doesn't appeal to the majority. America is sick of the anti-white garbage that has dominated washington for decades. You're damn right I'm going to vote for someone who finally says he wants to help white people.

>>8669579
But believing in anthropogenic climate change IS a secular religion.

>>8673607
My little /pol/ can't be this retarded

>>8673735
Maybe he's one of those "abiotic oil" people, especially since he mentioned Russian interest in the topic, as they were heavily invested in trying to determine abiotic sources for oil, but failed to find any meaningful evidence. There just isn't any real evidence for petroleum being abiotic though, and oil exploration relies on biotic signatures in the rock record in order to find deposits. That said, it's still an interesting "theory" even if it has little to no evidence backing it.
>>8673736
Just pointing out that your entire cute /pol/-meme buzzword "virtue signalling" doesn't just apply to liberals.

>>8673707
Whatever you say bro.

I live in Kansas and I'm enjoying my google fiber internet made by these "iwhatever" califagnians. Viewing things in such a black and white us vs them left vs right pov isn't helping anyone in the long term.

>>8673677
>>8673730
Also you can make your own electrolysis apparatus in your garage using stuff from a hardware store or junkyard like these guys did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqjn3mup1So

>>8673748
> Just pointing out that your entire cute /pol/-meme buzzword "virtue signalling" doesn't just apply to liberals.
Except you're wrong. When a white person votes for someone who is pro-white, that's not virtue signaling. That's just him behaving rationally by supporting someone who will act to protect his interests. It's only when white liberals vote for anti-white people that it's virtue signaling. They're not voting for their own interests, in fact they're voting for someone who wants to fuck them over. In that case they're not doing it out of self interest, but in an attempt to show off to others how "progressive" they are.

>>8673756
>the only issue that matters in the world is race

>>8673783
When half of the politicians in the country want to fuck you over just because you're white, race is a serious issue.

>>8673792
You have to go back.

>>8673683
After an hour of searching, I couldn't find anything indicating this is a real quote. All I got is social media circulation and whenever I ask for sources, I'm not given any.

>>8668752
just scream "GO BACK TO /POL/" at him, thats how i win arguments

>>8674470
Of course it's not a real quote. Are you actually retarded?

>>8674470
Does it really matter if it's a direct quote? It's basically just what the left says all the time, so there's at least a grain of truth to it even if it's not a direct quote. And on top of that, the left is constantly making shit up, what's wrong with just counterpunching?

>>8674703
I can't tell who's trolling whom anymore

Why is everyone ignoring the leaked corporate documents I posted showing oil companies' efforts to discredit climate scientists to protect their profits? It clearly shows they have been at this for decades now and that anyone who believes denier sources is an unwitting stooge for the oil and coal industry.

>>8674741
Because leaked climate scientist emails have shown for years that they have been doctoring their data to create the illusion of a warming trend. No one has clean hands in this mess.

>>8674747
Link to emails? Not to blogs telling you what the emails say, I mean the emails themselves.

>>8674747
No it doesn't.

https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg

>>8674747
$0.05 have been deposited into your account.

File: 1486314779757.jpg (126KB, 500x678px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x678px

>>8674476
You're fooling no one.

>>8668752
I think there's something telling considering that CO2 always lags temperature changes. In that Temperature changes first, and then CO2 correlates as what appears as a response.

(Look up Milankovitch Cycles)

All climate theories are busted when you consider they rely on "uniformly mixed gas" (known to be false by NASA studies and that CO2 is denser than air), the current predictions rely on a constant (taken from Svante Arrhenius original study) from the 1750s that assumes all CO2 from the 1750s was human produced. Not to mention that his prediction should only work for the temperature of CO2 not all air. CO2 releases energy in 5ms, and is not an insulator. This and that we're in the natural CO2 PPM levels as shown by the antarctic ice cores (Look at the current CO2 levels of Antarctica) in the past. Additionally, compared to 800,000 years of ice core data, the world temperatures have become much more stable.

>tl;dr i'm not saying don't believe in climate change, I'm just saying to question data and all climate science is shit.

>>8675463
>I think there's something telling considering that CO2 always lags temperature changes. In that Temperature changes first, and then CO2 correlates as what appears as a response.
>(Look up Milankovitch Cycles)
This is misleading since it ignores that temperature increase is also following the CO2 increase. You mostly see warming start this feedback loop in the paleoclimate due to orbital eccentricity, but it's not always the case that CO2 lags behind temperature. It's certainly not lagging currently.

>All climate theories are busted when you consider they rely on "uniformly mixed gas"
False. The homosphere is almost uniformly mixed due to convective turbulence. But no modern theory in climatology is based on it being totally uniformly mixed, and in fact the atmosphere is always split into several different layers with different characteristics.

>the current predictions rely on a constant (taken from Svante Arrhenius original study) from the 1750s that assumes all CO2 from the 1750s was human produced.
False. Where are you getting this utter nonsense?

>Not to mention that his prediction should only work for the temperature of CO2 not all air.
False. Arrhenius knew that water vapor also acted as a greenhouse gas.

>CO2 releases energy in 5ms, and is not an insulator.
No idea what you're trying to say here. Denying the greenhouse effect is just stupid. It's been proven countless ways and measured directly.

>This and that we're in the natural CO2 PPM levels as shown by the antarctic ice cores (Look at the current CO2 levels of Antarctica) in the past.
We're not in Antarctica and neither are we adapted to the climate of millions of years ago.

>Additionally, compared to 800,000 years of ice core data, the world temperatures have become much more stable.
Yes, except for the past century of the fastest warming we've ever seen.

It's fine to question the science, but if you are just going to parrot lies without questioning those too, what's the point?

>>8673642
So "gasp" they said that 'uncertainty' needs to be addressed; instead of ignoring it like mainstream Climate 'Science' does. In other words, they were scientific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=3GDBP1gx2f8

File: Government Funding.jpg (14KB, 213x237px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 213x237px

>>8673646
Meanwhile, FedGov, whom will be the major receiver of $Carbon $Tax $Billions funds most of climate 'science.' And yet that's not a conflict of interest?

Your hypocrisy is astonishing.

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

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8673665
Oh NOES! They don't want costly or inappropriate legislation. Meanwhile the U.N. is trying to sucker you out of $100,000,000,000 a year.

Gullible much?

http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/climate-change/Documents/climate-finance-roadmap-to-us100-billion.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/Projecting%20Climate%20Change%202020%20WEB.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/countries-release-100b-climate-finance-roadmap-2020
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf

File: UN IPCC on logarithmic CO2 effect..jpg (76KB, 578x351px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 578x351px

>>8675572
>>CO2 releases energy in 5ms, and is not an insulator.
>No idea what you're trying to say here. Denying the greenhouse effect is just stupid. It's been proven countless ways and measured directly.

Denying the extremely weak effect of added CO2 because of its logarithmic temperature response is extremely stupid.

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

60KB, 402x204px

>>8675572
>>(Look up Milankovitch Cycles)
>This is misleading since it ignores that temperature increase is also following the CO2 increase.

Translation: I can't show you a single graph where CO2 goes up before temperatures.
And the rate of temperature change increases before the rate of CO2 change increases; pic related.


>nb4 here's my deceptive graph which shows a sometimes correlation between CO2 and temps, please pretend it shows CO2 going up first, even though it doesn't.
When you post that graph, as always, I will call you a fraud.

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

119KB, 672x1778px

>>8675572
>>Additionally, compared to 800,000 years of ice core data, the world temperatures have become much more stable.
>Yes, except for the past century of the fastest data tampering we've ever seen.
ftfy

>>8674752
http://junksciencearchive.com/FOIA/
http://di2.nu/foia/foia.pl

>>8675693
You didn't clarify what you mean, which leads me to believe you don't understand it either and are just parroting nonsense.

>Denying the extremely weak effect of added CO2 because of its logarithmic temperature response
How does logarithmic imply weak? The actual measured response is not weak, and is causing the fastest warming trend ever observed.

>>8675699
>Translation: I can't show you a single graph where CO2 goes up before temperatures.
It's like you're incapable of reading. I'll just repeat it until you decide to act like an adult and accurately describe my argument:

CO2 increases warming and warming increases CO2. In the past, warming was initiated by increased solar radiation from changes in orbital eccentricity, per the Milankovich cycle. This warming then caused CO2 to increase from ocean evaporation, which then caused warming to increase, etc. Without this feedback, the rapid interglacial warming cannot be explained, as orbital eccentricity could not cause such rapid warming. Today, however, instead of warming beginning the cycle, it's our addition of CO2 which has begun the warming. If you actually understood the concept of Milankovich cycles, instead of just namedropping it, you would already know this. But instead you deny it, you delusional moron.

>And the rate of temperature change increases before the rate of CO2 change increases; pic related.
What your graph does is detrend the data, removing the long term warming and the long term increase of CO2. So it can't tell us anything about the relationship between global warming and the increase in CO2. The only thing it shows is the random short term variation of AMO and the evaporated CO2 related to it. But you already know this you disingenuous fuck.

You are proven to be a fraud, posting arguments that you know have been debunked and which you never defend.

>>8675709
>muh tampering
You lost the argument.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

File: 578px-EROI_-_Ratio_of_Energy_Returned_on_Energy_Invested_-_USA.svg.png (32KB, 578x434px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 578x434px

>>8673279
Looks like a serious problem loomingy.
Many people think solar and wind trinkets along with some small lifestyle adjustments will easily replace and maintain what the oil age built.

Wew, are they in for a surprise! And are they ever going to be upset when they see the global carbon rationing regime they enabled to "save earth" go all totalitarian on their heads.

>>8675764
Yeah that's right, just lie and keep jabbering on about the Illuminati to cover it up. You're pathetic.

File: ShakunFig2a[1].jpg (39KB, 570x358px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 570x358px

>>8675463
>CO2 always lags temperature changes
not over the past 20 kyr, pic related
>>8675699
>I can't show you a single graph where CO2 goes up before temperatures
pic related

File: 58f[1].png (173KB, 500x471px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x471px

>>8675811
(btw sauce is https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun%20et%20al.,%202012,%20Nature.pdf)

File: earth_temperature_top.png (389KB, 736x7476px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 736x7476px

>>8675463

MUH-

File: earth_temperature_bottom.png (412KB, 740x7481px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 740x7481px

-LANKOVITCH CYCLES

File: three little boards.png (132KB, 1229x581px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1229x581px

>>8675820
>>8675824

>>8673756
/pol/'s mental gymnastics never ceases to amaze me.

>>8675772
Lerminati?
Even they are fucked. Everyone is fucked because the highly organized and hierarchical structure we call civilization is going to crumble and descend into anarchy through the 21st century. It's unavoidable with the impending never ending energy crises, the so called long emergency and all the carnage it spawns. Many people are already looking forward to this, the zombie apocalypse. I myself am indifferent to it but certainly not ignorant of it. Hope for the best, plan for the worst but forget the climate. Think energy, who gets it and who doesn't. Pathetic to me is reality avoidance.

>>8675849
What a waste of electrons. Do you really think anyone reads your babbling beyond the first sentence?

Climate change is not anthropocentric. It is a natural cycle due to the ending of the processional equinox.

>>8673756
>telling people what their interests are
>hurr durr if you don't derive your opinions on political policy from Rebel Media and breitbart you're virtue signalling

Guess what numbnuts, some of us have had more problems with racist losers than minorities.

>>8676113
That process takes 25,700 years. The reason climate scientists don't account for that is because in the timeframe they are measuring (decades), the effect of the processional equinox is insignificant.

>>8669718

The problem is not whether or not people are wrong. Hell, our model of gravity is very probably wrong, but I don't see you jumping out of the window. The model works in predicting how gravity effects things but it may be replaced by a better theory in the future. And that is what you fail to see: no one is claiming that scientific consensus is always correct. Consensus arises from the fact that theories work reasonably well (or often incredibly well) and are only done away with when SOMETHING BETTER comes along.
So you may get off your high horse and stop spouting nonsense and instead do the math. J do the modelling and only come back when you have a better model to offer. Until then, you are just talking out of your ass.

Holy shit, what is going on lately? People on here don't even seem to understand the scientific method any more.

>>8668752

Watch this, professor explains how climate change works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

>>8676932
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

>>8676932
>He think YouTube videos are substitutes for arguments
>He's a total moron

Pick two =-)

>ib4 NOT AN ARGUMENT MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEM

>>8675848
They try awfully hard to conjure up the most intricate of stories that have no basis in reality at all, don't they?

>>8676932
William Happer is also slated to become Trump's top science advisor.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/trump-science-adviser-william-happer-climate-change-cult

> The frontrunner for the role of science adviser to Donald Trump has described climate scientists as “a glassy-eyed cult” in the throes of a form of collective madness.

> William Happer, an eminent physicist at Princeton University, met with Trump last month to discuss the post and says that if he were offered the job he would take it. Happer is highly regarded in the academic community, but many would view his appointment as a further blow to the prospects of concerted international action on climate change.

> “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”

File: sci's queen.png (132KB, 729x600px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 729x600px

>>8676932
>>8676974
reminder, William Happer offered to write a paper in support of CO2 emissions, subject it to a rubber-stamp "expert review" to make it look more legitimate, and obscure the source of the funds, in exchange for a generous donation to his favorite denialist think tank.
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

>>8676932
I'd love to see molyfaggot bring in someone that disagrees with him for once.

>>8676987
The poor guy seems to have gone off the deep end. He argued too hard, too fast, for too long.

>>8676974
> “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”

WARMISTS BTFO

>>8676995
His reference here is telling, he knows his audience. If he can successfully attach religious-status to climate science he's already won the battle. Americans won't have it, they'll see climate science, and science in general, as opposed to their religion. Look at what the GOP did to the ACA. They called it Obamacare. When they speak about the ACA, they never say the ACA. Ever. They chose their words carefully.

>>8677002
Similarly, when health care reform was being created, conservatives were very effective at demonizing the idea of a public option by labeling it a "government option," which they did because of polling data that indicated that the American people would be heavily against it if it was called that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/fox-news-avoid-public-option-046186

They were able to paint what was basically just a fairly standard approach to health care in the rest of the developed world as something tyrannical by changing what people called it.

>>8677015
I recall watching one hearing that went something like this:
Insurance Guy: Well, we can't compete with the government because we don't have the purchasing power.
GOP: Okay, so you're saying your costs are higher because you don't have the strength the government does to negotiate with healthcare providers?
Insurance Guy: Yes, exactly, we'd be put out of business. You'd bankrupt us because of your purchasing power and economies of scale.
GOP: Well, we can't do that.

The whole thing was surreal. Medicare and Medicaid are testament to just how effective purchasing power is in keeping costs low, but in this model there is no room for insurance companies. So, instead of actually trying to keep costs down by expanding government-run care, they just gutted the option. Now, in 2017, they're crying about costs when in fact costs have risen SLOWER under the ACA than previously.

>>8677043
Oh, and death panels.

I seem to recall insurance companies either declining to cover care because of a preexisting condition or, in the event they couldn't find one, raising the price of premiums so high as to make it totally unfavorable for the patient. How is that not a death panel? How is that suit making the final decision not doing the EXACT thing the GOP accused Obama of wanting to do? Is it okay because industry says, ''die?''

>>8676995
Doesn't it strike you as odd how wacko creationists are always calling science a cult and religion as a derogatory.

>>8677043
It's bizarre. One moment the government is incompetent and can't possibly be trusted to provide a service as well as private industry, the next it's suddenly too competent and will overpower and crush private industry.

>>8677060
Creationists insist that Christianity is not a religion, but "a relationship with Christ."

Unless they're trying to use 1st Amendment protections for religion, then it's totally a religion.

File: wealthtrickledown[1].jpg (74KB, 430x289px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 430x289px

>>8668786
This is so incredibly ironic. It's hilarious and sad how the conspiratards realize that they're being manipulated and screwed by billionairs, but they have it completely wrong what their goal is. Billionairs and world leaders are the MOST concerned about carbon limits because it stops them from making money at the expense of literally everybody else on Earth by releasing poison smog into the air by the tons. Carbon limits would not effect normal people in any noticeable way at all.

People like this; and I doubt this person is serious since this is 4chan but there are people like this; are being manipulated by big business interests to oppose the reality of climate change with disinformation from their controlled news sources like Fox and useful idiots like Glen Beck into working against their own interests and to help rich plutocrats keep exploiting themselves. It's like a beaten slave arguing in favor of the slave masters getting more whips.

File: Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif (15KB, 500x221px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x221px

>>8675572
>pic related of graph CO2 has always come after temperature changes.

I'm mentioning Antarctica because the ice core data is from Antarctica, and thus only makes sense to compare the PPM levels in Antarctica to past PPM levels in Antarctica.

>not understanding Climate change models

In the same graph look at the temperature changes, ours has been the most stable in terms of an averaged derivate of ANY past cycle. Climate science relies on this and claims that because it's so slow now, it means that it's going to reach a much greater peak.

The homosphere isn't uniformly distributed look at NASA CO2 distribution level surface maps. If no one claims that gas isn't uniformly mixed, then how can the temperature increase of CO2 cause a global warming effect? Thus it's a necessary condition for the blanket model, which is more or less bunk consider CO2 is more dense than air.

>>8675811
>>8675709

I can't understand how you can claim to be interested in science yet so parsimonious. Going as far to claim that the cycles I mentioned don't exist, which could've been resolved with a quick google search. You've demonstrated that you don't care about truth and have no curiosity. You just care about protecting your old ideas.

You clearly don't think it's fine to question science.

>>8677138
Mate, nearly every proposed solution for reducing carbon emissions specifically targets the middle class. The poor don't care and the rich can just buy easily exploitable carbon credits. Burden gets put on the middle class as with most things.

File: ghge-gases-co2_1[1].png (60KB, 800x853px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x853px

>>8677146
That's the result of the second line of defense of the plutocrats; lobbying. If they can't succeed in having the useful idiots block all attempts to block climate related bills, they then have bad looking bills put forward and work very very hard to make sure no bills that actually would target the main sources of CO2; power plants, trucking, and industry. You're just falling for their tricks again by only looking at the laws that target the middle class.

Also, you shouldn't just look at the VOLUME of new laws; we already have a rather large amount of laws in place that limit emissions for corporations, which is why we don't look like China where it's becoming unlivable due to the smog. Again, though, you need to ask yourself; what side has the most money to gain, or to lose, if these laws are changed? The answer to this question is also the answer to who is manipulating the laws behind the scenes. It's all about the MONEY. And the truth is, it's more profitable to ignore the reality of climate change so power plants can keep burning oil for cheap energy

>>8677142
>In the same graph look at the temperature changes, ours has been the most stable in terms of an averaged derivate of ANY past cycle.
Your graph doesn't show current warming. Again, all the graph shows is that we have been in an interglacial period for several thousand years. This is news to no one and has nothing to do with what your trying to disprove. I already explained this in the post you're replying to.

>Climate science relies on this and claims that because it's so slow now, it means that it's going to reach a much greater peak.
What are you talking about? Please stop parroting some wacko's blog and read a climatology textbook.

>The homosphere isn't uniformly distributed look at NASA CO2 distribution level surface maps.
I didn't say it's uniformly distributed I said it's almost uniformly distributed. If you're just going to repeat your mistakrd then don't bother replying.

>If no one claims that gas isn't uniformly mixed, then how can the temperature increase of CO2 cause a global warming effect?
Uniform mixing is only important to the extent that CO2 is in every part of the atmosphere. The density in one layer vs. another doesn't really matter since the greenhouse effect is happening in all the layers simultaneously. Explain what your argument is because you aren't making sense.

>Going as far to claim that the cycles I mentioned don't exist
No one claimed milankovich cycles don't exist. Can't you read?

Current warming has nothing to do with milankovich cycles. According to the milankovich cycle we are in an interglacial period, meaning the next big temperature change is cooling to a glacial period, not warming. For Gibbs sake, you have a lot of nerve pretending and utterly failing to comprehend climatology while accusing others of arguing in bad faith. You are parroting nonsense to protect your preconceived conclusion that AGW isn't real. Learn about it from a scientific source before you criticize it.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-15 at 3.54.17 PM.png (379KB, 1605x1517px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1605x1517px

>>8675815
'Sup /sci/, real ice core scientist here. This anon seemed to cite a correct paper by Jeremy Shakun, but I'd personally refrain from absolutely doubling down on his result. The "science is not settled" has been a meme mantra by the deniers but simply put, the science has not been settled with regards to the CO2 vs.T lead lag relationship. As you can see >>8675811 Jeremy was very careful with putting error bars on the CO2 concentration vs. composite Antarctic T (red line) and composite global stack (blue line). The reason for this is that he knows he's comparing apple to oranges to grapes. CO2 concentration is recorded in the bubble phase of ice cores, while Antarctic T is recorded in the ice phase (as water isotopes). Even worse the global T stack is mostly from tree rings and ocean sediments, all of which have major uncertainties in the age scale. A more recent study by Parenin et al. (2013) compares the delta N15 (another proxy for T) in the bubble phase with CO2 also in the bubble phase, so there's absolutely no age scale error and found that CO2 leads Antarctic T by 200 yr, so change between CO2 and T is essentially synchronous. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that in some areas the science hasn't been settled.

(contd)

File: IMG_20170215_152502.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>8677310
However the lead lag relationship is a meme non-issue. Why would anyone expect CO2 to rise before T, or vice versa in the past have any bearing on the validity of AGW? You're comparing apple to oranges. The Earth came out of the last glacial bc change in the earth's orbit & tilt changing total solar insolation at high latitude. Rational hypothesis would expect T to lead CO2 during deglaciation. For the past 800ky, however as you can see >>8677142 CO2 and T were essentially coupled, rise and fall together >99% of the time, in phase. If anything it shows a very strong positive correlation and feedback between CO2 and T. The cause and effect of AGW vs. natural ice age cycles are absolutely different. If you were to compare the lead lag relationship between CO2 and T 20ky ago, and current AGW warming you’re simply getting distracted by faulty logic. The ice core records show that T and CO2 changes in phase up and down >99% of the time, suggesting strong coupling and feedback between them. We know for sure that CO2 is rising due to anthropogenic emission. What would you expect T to do?

P.S. pic related is ~52,000 years ice core currently sublimating in my lab

>>8677327
What is it like going to school for 8 years to melt old popsicles?

>>8677391
What's it like being a high-school dropout who attacks people for actually learning things?

>>8677391
Pretty good actually. I got to travel to both Antarctica and Greenland multiple times, do things I love, attend conferences around the world and meet cool people

File: fuck.jpg (159KB, 994x746px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 994x746px

>tfw you think anthropogenic global warming is overblown as a threat to the environment

>but you still wish people would work toward clean, cheap, and reliable renewable energy just for the sake of resource efficiency

>>8677169
It's more profitable not to have any regulations at all.

>>8677399
Nice autism, I was joking around.

>>8677399

This experiment has successfully demonstrated that climate alarmists have no sense of humor.

>>8677431
I don't know about any "climate alarmists" but someone who accepts the scientific evidence on AGW made the joke in the first place.

>>8677439

>but someone who accepts the scientific evidence on AGW made the joke in the first place.

Curious, this one's sense of humor evaporates spontaneously.

>>8677443
Better humorless than braindead, I say.

How can a joke be funny if it is not logical?

>>8677452

But don't you want to farm moisture in the great deserts of Mid-East America? Or repaint your house every time a sandstorm strips it off? Geez people, don't you want to know the joys of going a whole week on five gallons of water, or picking the vulture-pecked remains of a dead dog for meat after it has been left in the sun to ripen for a day?

>>8677456
Ice core scientist here, the joke is logical.

I spent a good part of my young adult life figuring a contraption to sublimate ice under vacuum, away in the most remote place on earth every summer & winter holiday for the last 3-4 years and arguing with shiposters in cambodian drawing forum, mostly about who's the best 2d waifu. Melting old popsicles is not that far off from what I do.

>>8677138
You're such a good goy.

^
|
typical /pol/ brainlet

>>8677714
You better delete this before the mods delete the /pol/tards post and it looks like you called an ice core scientist a /pol/ brainlet. Also, learn how to use the response system.

File: Educated Costanza.jpg (74KB, 960x624px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x624px

>>8677310
>>8677327
nice, good to hear from an actual researcher on the topic.
I'm not one to claim that "the science is settled" in any fine detail; I just referenced Shakun et al. as evidence that warming can and does follow (rather than lead) CO2 rise some of the time. For some reason the deniers have decided that this never happens ever, so I'm just using it as a quick and easy counterexample.

>>8677391
>>8677473
meanwhile I play in the mud and look for old seashells

>>8677327
>suggesting strong coupling and feedback between them

but what if temperature somehow increases CO2 and not the other way around?

File: wintergoes_16_and_goes_13_comparison_from_the_same_day_Jan_15_2017.jpg (2MB, 4572x2252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4572x2252px

case closed

The majority of "climate scientists" are liars.

http://www.noaa.gov/stories/noaa-s-goes-16-satellite-sends-first-images-of-earth

>>8677827
What if unicorns fart rainbows?

>>8677842
Why don't other deniers call these nutjobs out for making them look bad?

>>8669624
all the /leftycucks/

File: 5YVTYh5.jpg (200KB, 1632x1036px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1632x1036px

>>8677399
>Pretty good. I avoided years of liberal indoctrination and make an honest living through physical labor rather than fraud.

Is what I would say if I were smooth-brained like all /pol/tards.

>>8677790
> I just referenced Shakun et al. as evidence that warming can and does follow (rather than lead) CO2 rise some of the time

Yeah, I'm not blaming you or anything, but my point is when you or anyone here start arguing about the phase relationship between T and CO2 then the deniers already won because they already muddied the water. There's no denying that there's some uncertainty in the science. The phase relationship between T and CO2 is a non argument, as I explained, why should we expect the last deglaciation to be in common with AGW warming? We know for sure that the cause and effect relationship were utterly different. Noone should bother to take the bait digging into the nitty gritty of phase relationship between CO2 and T in the past, as the deniers rely on pretty bad logic trying to poke holes where there's none.

Moreover T all over the place is not the same. Parenin et al. (2013) shows that local Antarctic temperature slightly (by 200 yrs) lead CO2 rise. But how about Greenland T? How about global T? If I remember correctly, Greenland was within error due to age scale uncertainty between Greenland cores vs. Antarctic cores so they didn't bother to address that due to character limitation on paper submission. The weak consensus we have on the mechanism of the last deglaciation coming out of the last ice age maximum goes as follows:

More sun over the North > NA ice sheet melts > Greenland T warms > Antarctic T warms due to ocean telleconection > global CO2 rise > global T rise. However the age resolution on these events has not been definitively proven.

A climate denier can easily show that HAHA local Antarctic T or Greenland T might leads CO2 here and there, but as I mentioned before it is a bad non-argument and noone should take that bait.

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

966KB, 1161x1024px

>>8675762
>>>8675699 (You)
>>Translation: I can't show you a single graph where CO2 goes up before temperatures.
>It's like you're incapable of reading. I'll just repeat it until you decide to act like an adult and accurately describe my argument:
>CO2 increases warming and warming increases CO2. In the past, warming was initiated by increased solar radiation from changes in orbital eccentricity, per the Milankovich cycle...
>>BUT And the rate of temperature change increases before the rate of CO2 change increases; pic related.
Repeat: You can't show a graph (with enough resolution) to show CO2 increasing before temperature. Which is why you didn't.

>What your graph does is detrend the data, removing the long term warming and the long term increase of CO2. So it can't tell us anything about the relationship between global warming and the increase in CO2. The only thing it shows is the random short term variation of AMO and the evaporated CO2 related to it. But you already know this you disingenuous fuck.
Idiot boy, This shows a clear causal relation. Namely change in temperature discrete derivative before change in CO2 concentration discrete derivative. If CO2 drove temps, the direction would be the exact opposite. And Idiot Boy, the AMO has a high correlation with global temperatures.

Now if CO2 was driving temperatures, the graph of the discrete derivative of CO2 would be shaped like a graph of CO2 flux. Pic related. BUT ITS NOT. Its nothing but a bit of noise.

PS Where's that graph of CO2 increase prior to temperature increase? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist.

File: 350-vs-388_logarithmic_co2.png (27KB, 899x608px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 899x608px

>>8675762
>>>8675693 (You)
>You didn't clarify what you mean, which leads me to believe you don't understand it either and are just parroting nonsense.
>>Denying the extremely weak effect of added CO2 because of its logarithmic temperature response
>How does logarithmic imply weak? The actual measured response is not weak, and is causing the fastest warming trend ever observed.

Yes, the response is quite weak; a mere 1.2 degrees C for DOUBLING of CO2 concentration. This is why there was the hypothesized water vapor positive feedback. But that prediction failed, didn't it?

>nb4 lower troposphere water vapor.
Doesn't matter, that's just heat transfer from the earth's surface. What counts is upper troposphere water vapor increase, because that would be blocking heat from going back to the stratosphere and thus to outer space.

>>8678066
>>8678074
Dude, I've mentioned here >>8677327 that the phase relationship between T and CO2 in the past has no bearing on the validity of AGW. The Last Deglaciation, and many deglaciations before that occurred because of increased summer insolation at high latitude. Mechanistically we do expect local greenland and antarctic temperature to lead global CO2 concentration, and this is what this >>8677310 paper is showing.

The cause of AGW is utterly different than the cause of last deglaciation, you're comparing apples and oranges.