Anyone else here who has studied mathematics/physics/chemistry

Of course. I doubt anyone on here actually believes that bullshit, only globalist shills.

>>8756962
>math/physics/chem
Why? How about geologists? Or climatologists?

>>8756962
>>8756972
I'm glad you agree that we need to get money out of science by abolishing capitalism but this is not the place for that.
>>>/pol/

>It's another /pol/-crossposting deniers get BTFO in the previous threads, cease responding, and make a new one to shitpost in episode

0/10, leave and never come back.

>>8756976
Many climatologists have training in physics and mathematics.

>>8757003
/thread

>>8757007
And yet it moves

>>8756980
I agree with abolishing capitalism, but we will not fund such a Jewish science as climatology when we get into power

File: Poe.jpg (25KB, 596x104px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 596x104px

>>8757016

>>8757016
Too bad you don't really have a say in that. Knowing how the climate works is essential to planning and it would definitely be funded due to its use value.

>>8756962
i am doing masters in environmental sciences and i know that human is so negligible against nature that he can barely change the climate, if there is anthropogenic climate change, than it is nearly 0

but pollution is real. air, land and water pollution is being done every second all around the world, we should fight against that, but some people have diverted the minds of sheeple towards global warming and climate change.

>>8757034
This

Look at india, the place is over populated and they're deficating in their own drinking water. The Indus river, a once gorgeous river is now a toilet river, its absolutely disgusting. Everyone swuabbles over climate change but pollution is the biggest threat humans are facing at this current moment

>>8757034
>>8757065
Both are caused by excessive fossil fuel use, which in turn is caused by capitalism preventing innovation of new technology. What's the problem here?

File: anthropogenic forcings on climate.jpg (163KB, 887x918px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 887x918px

>>8757034
I can't even imagine what kind of poor education you're receiving that you've come to that conclusion. Is this supposed to be some kind of shitty argument from your own authority?

All of the evidence shows that humans have far more than a "negligible" impact on the Earth's climate system, you would know that if you even bothered to read any published studies on the subject.

>if there is anthropogenic climate change, than it is nearly 0
Hilarious for someone so ignorant on the topic to make such an absolutist statement. Sorry to tell you, but again, you're so wrong it's comical. You clearly have such little knowledge of the subject, it's honestly embarassing to claim you're working towards a masters and have come to this conclusion. Perhaps you should go and read the IPCC report, or some literature focused on climate forcings and atmospheric physics?

Here, I'll help you out:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
First, read AR5 chapter 8 on climate forcings, it's a long read, but if you're an academic with training you should be able to breeze right through it, no?
FAW from ACS on what climate sensitivity is:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

Second, you should read a few studies, as the IPCC is merely a compilation of the knowledge at the time the study is published, the IPCC did not conduct their own research, but many climate scientists, physicists and other earth science professionals contribute to the reports.

>but some people have diverted the minds of sheeple towards global warming and climate change.
Sounds like you're one of them, considering how ignorant you've already proven yourself to be on the subject, especially considering you state you're training for a Ms in environmental science. Truly embarrassing.

Science advances by evidence, you should know this, the body of evidence for anthropogenic climate change is astoundingly large.

>>8757078
>Pooing in a river is caused by fossil fuels

Wew, ok lad

>>8757034
>i know that human is so negligible against nature that he can barely change the climate
Where to people get these retarded ideas from?
Have you never seen an image of an open pit mine, or cites from space?. Humanity’s impact on the Earth is far from negligible, and is measurable almost everywhere.

>>8757102
https://youtu.be/QV9x79_WYbk
Time to learn some shit.

>>8757114
>Vice

Double wew

>>8757116
Sorry I don't have a breitbart or infowars video discussing what happens to your shit and I know you're too lazy to read a book. You give me very little to work with.

>>8757136
Explain in plain English, without a link or a video, how fossil fuels cause people to shit into rivers?

I don't care if it's not a detailed explanation, I just want to see where you're coming from here.

>>8757157
Excessive fossil fuels use allowed India to reach the unsustainable population it's at now. They have insufficient toilets for the population only because the population is too large. If fossil fuels weren't abused to temporarily inflate the population to ridiculous levels this wouldn't have happened.

>>8756976
>climatologists
I respect meteorologists and am grateful for the services they provide but am not religious. The last thing this planet needs is more priests and politicians or their enablers. The last thing I want to pay is some new age carbon tithe to a gang of organized crooks and liars.

>>8757003
>Many climatologists have training in physics and mathematics
Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist. Fuck off please.

>>8757196
Why are you still hating players instead of the game? Head over to leftypol and learn how you can help put an end to capitalism.

>>8757196
> the Pope of Rome is a chemist

what did he mean by this?

>>8757176
I shit into rivers for fun and I think global warming is a globalist conspiracy.

>>8757176
I'm not sure that's really fair.
India isn't shitting in rivers because of overpopulation, it's shitting in rivers because horrifying levels of wealth disparity means that many (most?) people their have no access to basic infrastructure. The high population density means the shit is a problem, but it isn't what's causing people to shit in rivers in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not even sure India's population is even (theoretically) unsustainable. With proper agriculture, distribution and infrastructure they really ought to be able to take care of an immense population. They're not doing that right now, because of the already-mentioned wealth disparity.

India is basically a case study on why a 21st-century caste society is a momentously bad idea. Fossil fuels are a part of that, but they're far from the root of the issue.

File: heh, nothing personnel brainlets.jpg (429KB, 1589x646px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1589x646px

>>8757196
(you) un-ironically think this way.

Sad, how sad. You're the same shitposter from all the previous threads who always whines on about his feelings and emotions and compares a legitimate scientific body of research to religion because it hurts your feelings. Why do you even browse /sci/, and further, why do you continue to make / post in these threads when your argument is literally an appeal to emotion every single time?

>Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist.
Statements such as this show how truly irrational of a person you are, and that you're never going to engage in a rational or reasonable discussion. Why are you so overly emotional? I'm guessing you also believe that your contrarian scientists like Happer, or Singer, or Lindzen, or Spencer / Christy are also "priests?" Keep in mind that the latter three all have training in atmospheric physics, as do many non-contrarian climate scientists.

Do you know what a religious belief is? It's when you reject scientific evidence in favor of an emotional argument, which unsurprisingly is exactly what your entire argument is. It has no basis in evidence, only emotion.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-bias-climate.html
Does this trigger you as well? Let me guess, it too is a part of your imagined conspiracy as well, because, why not?
>The conclusion is that climate researchers do not conceal uncomfortable facts which could potentially disprove climate change.

Essentially, the authors tested for biases in thousands of climate science studies, and found that there was no evidence of publication bias in the science. Basically this means that within the field, both insignificant and significant findings were reported, though the more significant findings tended to have a larger presence in the abstract vs. the less significant ones, which isn't surprising.

>>8757196
>The last thing I want to pay is some new age carbon tithe to a gang of organized crooks and liars.

Either that, or the world is fucked huh?

I guess I'd pick that if it were a matter of belief. But its not.

>>8757231
>I shit into rivers for fun and I think global warming is a globalist conspiracy.

You don't have to admit the former if you admit the latter, friend.

>>8757196
>climatologists
>The last thing this planet needs is more priests and politicians or their enablers.
"Science I don't like is a religion because I say so!"
That's creationist-tier reasoning.

>The last thing I want to pay is some new age carbon tithe to a gang of organized crooks and liars.
Look up "Tragedy of the Commons" some time.

>Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist.
Oh no. You're not the Pope-poster, are you?

Everytime some dipshit come over from /pol/ trying to trigger bunch of /sci/ and you guys fell for the bait everytime and legitimately address the denier as if he/she is arguing in good faith rather than for the sake of arguing spewing buzzwords and doing strawman logic.

It usually takes 1-2 days and community effort until the shitposter is BTFO, the thread dies, then he makes a new thread pretending to be a new anon and the cycle continues.

>>8757259
It's good in a way, I'd rather people be talking about climate change so newcomers can learn than for it to be completely ignored. I appreciate the denier showing up an raising awareness.

>>8757268
Idk. Cancer spreads, and sometimes there's nothing you can do about it.

File: CMIPGisTemp.png (30KB, 983x754px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 983x754px

>>8757259
Which do you think is the easier fight: Getting /pol/raiders to accept evidence, or /sci/ to stop relying on evidence when arguing with people who don't care about it?

>>8757268
If that's the case shouldn't we just make a climate change general, with posted FAQs in pastebin just like bunch of other general thread?

Not sure whether general thread are allowed or not in /sci/ but this is better than just arguing in circles until the thread dies, rinse and repeat

>>8757272
If not for climate change denier threads I never would have heard about potholer54 and learned the importance of proper citations and checking them for accuracy. The climate is a multidisciplinary field of study and I'm always learning something new. They were a net benefit for me personally.

File: 1406685659319.jpg (899KB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 2448x2448px

>>8757279
A question for the ages.

>>8757034
>human is so negligible against nature that he can barely change the climate
this probably b8, but:
this conception of nature as some almighty force is why so many plants and animals, including economically and ecologically important ones, are extinct or endangered. people thought that human influence is so puny that they could never possibly exhaust the resources of the natural world; they had this sense of awe, a powerful belief that this was so. and then we learned what we were capable of.

>>8757281
Yeah I can see your point, we did have climate change thread generals a few times, but denier anon makes them anyways so not really any point.

>>8757281
there's no difference between having an endless general and some faggot just spamming his threads whenever they 404

except with the second option you actually have a hope of the threads eventually dying out

>>8757259
>>8757272
It's called cognitive bias, specifically attitude polarization. The more evidence you present, the more they retreat into their echo chamber, to the point at which evidence presented will not have any effect on the person. Basically, climate change deniers get their information about climate change from very biased sources of media, such as conservative / libertarian websites that are very anti-science, or from climate change denial blogs. Therefore, when you present evidence from a legitimate scientific body, it is automatically dismissed because their way of thinking has devolved into imagined conspiracies involving the scientific establishment and government research and whatnot.

>>8757279
I still post evidence in these threads all the time, and always engage the contrarians regardless, because it's fun, and because it helps me keep myself informed about climate change, gets me to read scientific studies and whatnot, so it's not pointless, though I doubt it will ever convince someone that has reached such a high level of delusion.

>>8757281
Any FAQ you post will be dismissed. If you even post a wikipedia article on global warming, which is a great introductory / faq on the issue, it will be dismissed. The AR from the IPCC are probably the best and most comprehensive resources out there though, but they're literally THOUSANDS of pages long.

>>8757279

You're retarded.

You give them gooble-de-gook that could be read and interpreted in many ways.

Climatology is a difficult science but its results are being mangled for easy political results.

>present evidence from a legitimate scientific body, it is automatically dismissed because their way of thinking has devolved into imagined conspiracies involving the scientific establishment and government research and whatnot.

You do realize we're going through a paper crisis because a number of fields are finding themselves to be unable to replicate the majority of experiments?

People aren't being (exceptionally) retarded. They understand that humans are political animals and understand that things which are "pushed" into the public have a political intent which could be positive or negative to them.

>>8757281
Maybe we could just make a pastebin of copy-pasteble replies to counter /pol/s copy-paste arguments? I know I've typed out the same "The UN isn't the recipient of climate finance money" post maybe a dozen times, and I'm sure others have too.

And then there's the "old RSS data plotted 1998-to-2013" chestnut. Nonsense about how the US government has a vested interest in people believing in AGW (they don't) and are leaning on Climatologists (they aren't). There's that page of 200+ links to claims about Global cooling from the 70's, that actually just links to dipshit newspapers and aerosol forcing research. Every other thread has a post about the "missing" tropospheric hot spot, despite it both actually existing and not really mattering. There's that one flickery animated graph that claims that data's been cooked (you know the one). There's that graph (by Judith Curry, I think?) showing "averaged model runs" against old-RSS and balloon data, but the baseline's way off and Gavin's already shat all over it. And then there's...

Fuck, we could do them all, and ctrl-c ctrl-v the hell out of these threads.

>>8757329
I only know psychology and medicine are, what other fields?

>>8757329
It seems to me like you're just looking for excuses to dismiss anything that doesn't confirm your biases.

>>8757321
>You give them gooble-de-gook that could be read and interpreted in many ways.
Actually I try and be as unambiguous as possible. Given you couldn't be bothered pointing to a specific example, or even clarifying what you mean by "gooble-de-gook", you're really not coming off as sincere here.

>but its results are being mangled for easy political results.
That doesn't make the results wrong, or justify ignoring the science itself.

>>8757329
The "replication crisis" is a concern for people directly involved in actual research, but I'm not sure it's nearly bad enough that outsiders should be getting exited about it. It is DEFINITELY not grounds to completely ignore entire field of research when they say things you don't want to hear.

>People aren't being (exceptionally) retarded.
Of course not. People stick their heads in the sand when they're told about large scale problems, that's normal. And companies with financial interest in doing things that make the problems worse are obviously goign to spread doubt, and push people to keep their heads in the sand. That's also normal behaviour.

"Normal behaviour" here is completely suicidal. THAT'S why people are pushing AGW so hard.

>They understand that humans are political animals and understand that things which are "pushed" into the public have a political intent
That's not a free licence to ignore the opinions of actual experts though.
If you think someone might have ulterior motive for telling you to do something, you should try and find evidence for that. You shout NOT just flat-out ignore them based on a hunch.

>>8757339
>I only know psychology and medicine are, what other fields?
I don't have a link the a paper on me, but IIRC almost all fields have been hit with it. Medicine and Psychology are just the worst offenders.

>>8757365
>That's not a free licence to ignore the opinions of actual experts though.

You don't understand. They're not even qualified enough to evaluate the experts!

There's been a lot of technocratic egregiousness. So to speak.

The notion of calories and the whole fucked up food pyrmaid bullshit they came up with has mangled diets and led to a situation where we have many diseases that wouldn't have to be treated acutely if we had a sane notion of proper diet.

And fucking calorie counting. What a fucking waste of cognitive power.

So you have to understand, "experts" aren't unequivocally respected.

File: CC_trends_anthro.png (422KB, 1520x1230px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1520x1230px

>>8756962
sure buddy

>>8757376
I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

>>8757279
The replies to poltards isn't about them, it's just a convenient place to drop a useful pic or link for lurkers.

>>8757385
I understand the whole "debating for the sake of the audience" idea, but that requires you to actually HAVE an audience. How often do you see posts here from people who are honestly curious about AGW, but don't know much about it?

File: Untitled.png (28KB, 757x416px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 757x416px

>>8757376
Nutritionists are several degrees removed from the fundamental hard sciences, math, physics and chemistry.

Climate science has strong foundation in hard sciences. Climate models for example are simply combination of four very basic, 17th century physics with conservation of energy (thermodynamic equation), conservation of momentum (through Navier Stokes equation of fluid momentum transfer), conservation of mass (mass into grid = mass out grid) and equation of state (based in ideal gas law).

The two big American state of the art climate models, GISS model (from NASA) and CCSM-Community Climate Science Model from NCAR are completely open source (CCSM3 requires email registration). If you have Linux machine and some FORTRAN installed, 16 GB of RAM you can run them.

https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/

For CCSM3 you can sieve through the codes and report any bugs/mistakes here, we'll be happy to address any real concern about the model
https://bb.cgd.ucar.edu/

>>8757428
Correction, I meant 19th century physics not 17th century duh

>>8757034
>i am doing masters in environmental sciences
No you aren't you larping /pol/tard. Go back to your echo chamber and stay there.

>>8757078
>capitalism preventing innovation of new technology

Wew, lad

The reason why anthropogenic climate change is a religion is because for 99.9% of the general population (even those who are literate in science), they are not directly involved with the research and they don't have access to the numerical models that the climate scientists use to make predictions, etc etc

The general principles related to climate change (CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans emit CO2, therefore humans probably influence climate change) are well understood by anyone with a 60+ IQ. But for someone to claim that they are literate in climate change research is ludicrous.

What they really mean, when they say they believe anthropogenic climate change is happening, is that they have FAITH in the scientists who claim that it is. It is nothing more than FAITH, because these claims cannot be verified by anyone other than the people making them.

I'm not necessarily saying that anthropogenic climate change is a myth, it may well be 100% accurate, but it necessarily requires FAITH to believe that it is true. The experiment is not repeatable.

>gut instinct
>/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8757428
At least three of those principles relate directly to nutrition

>Conservation of energy
>Conservation of mass
>Ideal gas law

>>8757378
>Graphs stop in 2000, conveniently ignoring the 20+ year pause that has occurred since around that time

File: current year.jpg (30KB, 367x390px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 367x390px

>>8757688
>posting on a Honduran kirigami imageboard in 2017 to say that a report from 2007 should have included data through ~2020
can I borrow your time machine and give your mother some contraceptives?

>>8757196
>Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist

But he IS a chemist (at least at a high school level).

I want you to remember making this post, and see how you feel about it "in a few decades' time", assuming you live that long.

>>8756962
Yes, I was doing the same and started having a similar feeling about certain things I was learning.

Just kidding, it's everything
youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

youtube.com/watch?v=sULjMjK5lCI

>>8757242
Notice how the disinfo troll spends every sentence condemning OP's motive for questioning then drops a link to an 'authoritative source' without even elaborating on it further, truly sad, believing most people are like themselves and will shudder at being ridiculed.

File: MSS.jpg (462KB, 600x2394px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 600x2394px

>>8757365
>The "replication crisis" is a concern for people directly involved in actual research, but I'm not sure it's nearly bad enough that outsiders should be getting exited about it.

Are shills usually this obvious?
Here's where the 'facts' comes from

>>8757034
Notice how the 'anti-AGW' posts all have the most obvious intentional typos in what's clearly an attempt at ridiculing the opposition, or consensus cracking through sock puppetry.

>>8757688
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#170

>>8757804
>naturalnews.com
>/x/
However, there are also pre-print servers like Rxiv, and some open review journals that publish anything, and some other international journals not included on this list. Just because a few organisations publish most papers doesn't mean they control what's true or not, because if you can't get published in a good journal, you go down the list and you eventually get published in a lower impact factor journal.
Unless your paper is absolute garbage, someone will publish it.

>>8757838
>if you can't get published in a good journal, you go down the list

and cough up $2500

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=5m5s

>>8757678
>The experiment is not repeatable.

CMIP stands for Climate Model Intercomparison Project. The project uses 28 state of the art climate models from various countries, independently built from one another using basic fundamental equations and intercompared with one another. Literally all of these climate models are open source and have unrestricted access to the public.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/availability.html

The result from these climate models mostly converge. This means that the modeling exercise/experiment conducted is very repeatable. There is a whole chapter on the IPCC report that is also freely available to the public solely dedicated to model intercomparison and evaluation (although to be fair a lot of the content of said chapter is just copy paste from CMIP5 results)
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

It really doesn't take FAITH to believe, but the public just need to be willing to educate themselves and find reliable sources. Again I'll reiterate that ALL 28 state of the art climate models used in CMIP5 are open source and freely available to the public to debug.

>>8757176
>Excessive fossil fuels use allowed India to reach the unsustainable population it's at now.

Really it was the green revolution - better crops that make it ridiculously easy to feed people. The same problem is at play in Africa now.

Also any thread that discusses climate that doesn't go into water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas) and the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere really isn't worth reading.

>>8758719
>that doesn't go into water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas) and the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere really isn't worth reading.

Water vapor is indeed the number 1 most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and is the most dominant positive feedback to be concerned about with regard to global warming but there's nothing we can do about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Total water vapor concentration (more commonly known as relative humidity) is strictly a function of temperature, and temperature only following the Clausius Clapeyron equation
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/clausius.html

What can people possibly do to regulate water vapor? 71 percent of Earth's surface is the ocean, you want to fucking put a giant lid over the ocean to prevent evaporation?

I don't know where do you get the misinfo about the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere, the amount of extra surface area of open water from agricultural activities are obviously insignificant compared to the amount of open water in the ocean and lakes.

Hope this helps

Serious question to the supporters of AGW, why do you guys think public opinion matter? At least if you live in the US, India, and China the 3 largest polluters public opinion DOES NOT matter
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

This study shows that shifting public opinion is a moot point. Most public in the US think that US congress need campaign finance reform, increase spending in education (both Rep and Dem voters agree), basic stuff but the policy follows special interest and economic elites rather than public interest.

Climate scientists spend so much time and effort marketing climate change, with fancy paywalled papers that got covered in major newspapers, fancy infographs, fancy youtube videos, TV shows with Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc. You guys come off as snake oil salesman trying too hard to push a certain agenda, and most Americans are just busy trying to pay rent and mortgages.

Just because after spending billions in advertisement, advocacy, etc you managed to shift public opinion into believing climate change is real and manmade doesn't mean that there will be significant policy action about it.

>>8758889
https://youtu.be/AnrBQEAM3rE?t=2h15m

>>8758889
>"supporters" of evidence-based science
>"believe" in climate change
Sounds like you're looking for a religious belief, not an empirical, evidence based science.

>Climate scientists spend so much time and effort marketing climate change
Yes, because presenting evidence to the public is advertisement. What's humorous about this is that the one thing most climate scientists lack is public outreach about their research, as do most scientists in most fields. If anything, there is a severe lack of public outreach as to the evidence of climate change, at least from the people who actually publish studies and analyze the data.

>with fancy paywalled papers that got covered in major newspapers
You can find almost any scientific paper easily, I never have a problem doing so, climate science is probably one of the most open scientific fields out there in terms of ease of access to the literature / research / data. You can test the evidence yourself by downloading the data published by climate researchers.
>fancy infographs, fancy youtube videos
Yes, because climate science deniers never make shitty infographics or youtube videos. Youtube probably has 10 retarded climate change denial videos for every video about climate science, because climate science just doesn't interest a lot of people, and explaining / discussing the evidence isn't that exciting of a subject. However, conspiracies and edgy contrarian opinions about it get millions of views every single time some conservative / libertarian personality decides to make a video.

>TV shows with Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc
Neither of these individuals are climate scientists, nor are they experts on the field. They are popular scientists and of course they get paraded around the media, not just for climate change, but any scientific issue. This is ironic, because the same ~4 denier scientists get paraded around routinely on Fox News and other media organizations.

>>8756976
Geologists and climatologists are brainlets that couldn't get into higher stem, so they chose those non-scientificial fields. Then they read a bad article how someone feels that climate changes becouse last 100 years shows little fluctuation in temperature and starts to parrot it.

>>8757034
Thanks you for enlightening us trustworthy anonymous internet user!

>>8758928
Dude I'm not a denier, I'm just saying that focusing on public opinion is a wrong tactic, because the public are too busy with their lives and climate change happen so slowly (with respect to daily human lives) that it's hard to elevate climate change into an important issue.

A good analogy would be if there's a plane crash killing 100 passengers everyone would freak out. People say to each other "have a safe flight" but not "drive safely to wherever" despite you're way way more likely to get killed in car accident driving and thousands of people each day got killed in car accidents.

If you want to get serious long term climate mitigation policy to pass through congress, a better investment would be to lobby the congress, and join exxon and other oil companies at their own game because again majority public opinion almost has no correlation to the policies and law being passed in congress.

>>8758889
>Just because after spending billions in advertisement, advocacy, etc you doesn't mean that there will be significant policy action about it.
Care to provide some evidence for this claim that "billions" has been spent on "advertisement" for a scientific field? Please be specific and cite your sources.

I can think of quite a few incidents in which millions of dollars have been spent by the petroleum industry in order to advertise fossil fuels, one such notorious recent example was during the last super bowl, in which the API produced an ad about petroleum products:
http://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/news/2017/02/05/api-launches-power-past-impossible-campa
This is just one example of one organization, you can find hundreds of these type of advertisements for the coal, oil and gas industries attempting to paint them in a good light and generate PR.

>managed to shift public opinion into believing climate change is real and manmade doesn't mean that there will be significant policy action about it.
Oh I see, stage 5 yet again. While the US lags behind, instead of being a world leader in this process, the rest of the world is creating sensible policy on reducing fossil fuel emissions. If it wasn't for the actions of climate change deniers, specifically in the US, and the influence of the fossil fuel industry's anti-regulatory stances, we would have been a world leader in the policy process. There is a massive misinformation lobby on climate change in this country, which has a specific goal of misleading the public and casting doubt on the science.

>>8757003
/thread

>>8756962
Have you visited the swiss alps, or any other glaciers?

>>8758807
this 100%
claiming that we should be more worried about water vapor as it relates to climate change is like claiming that we should be more worried about oxygen as it relates to starvation.

>>8758955
See >>8758943

I'm not a denier. I have climate denier old school republican parents, and in my futility trying to convince them I realized that proponent of AGW spent their resources in the wrong avenue. Money wise, it would take a lot of ads, tv shows, movies, to slowly change my parents' opinion over time, but their vote doesn't matter anyway because policy in the US is controlled by special interest and public opinion doesn't matter.

Even if they're convinced that AGW is real, my parents and other people like them cannot be bothered to pester their congressman, rally on the street etc. They might for a day or two if one can sufficiently indoctrinate them, but then they'll get distracted into other pressing issues such as ISIS, illegal immigrations, Russia, and so on.

Just take a concrete example. You spent so much time shitposting in a Cambodian landscaping forum trying to convince other anonymous Cambodian that climate change exist. Is that really the best use of your time? Say you really convince like 1-2 anons. Then what? Not that the 1-2 anons are likely to be US congressman or British MPs. If you're truly concerned about climate change, then a better use of your time would be donating cold hard cash to charity, carbon offsets, etc rather than stubbornly trying to convince other primates about your beliefs

>>8758943
>Dude I'm not a denier, I'm just saying that focusing on public opinion is a wrong tactic
You're implying once again that there is some kind of organization lobbying climate science out there, "dude." That's a fiction that doesn't really exist, most climate scientists are either independent researching at universities, or work for government organizations like NOAA, NASA, GISS, or the EPA. These researchers aren't out there lobbying congress, that's not their job and that would violate a lot of ethical codes.

>because the public are too busy with their lives and climate change happen so slowly
It depends on where you live, look at Miami for example.

>A good analogy would be if there's a plane crash killing 100 passengers everyone would freak out.
This is far from a "good analogy."

>If you want to get serious long term climate mitigation policy to pass through congress, a better investment would be to lobby the congress, and join exxon and other oil companies at their own game because again majority public opinion almost has no correlation to the policies and law being passed in congress.

Who exactly is this directed towards? Do you believe that climate science is one big conglomerate corporation? Science doesn't work like that, individual climate scientists and organizations have no where near the amount of money and power that the fossil fuel lobby has to spend. Climate change denial is a multi-million dollar business, including many organizations that attack scientists / scientific research and mislead the public on the issue through the media. This is the problem. Whenever there is a "debate" on climate change on a news network, such as Fox, they never invite an actual climate scientists to discuss the issue. Instead, they get bill Nye, and he's arguing against some tard from an organization like Heartland for example. It's never an actual, scientific discussion.

>>8757678
Replace AGW with evolution or any other science you want to ignore.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 6.13.44 PM.png (2MB, 1929x1313px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1929x1313px

>>8759001
>You're implying once again that there is some kind of organization lobbying climate science out there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#Founding_of_NextGen_Climate_.282013.29

>In 2013 Steyer founded NextGen Climate, an organization that works on climate change issues. As of November 2014 he had personally supplied over 80% of NextGen's funds.[49] NextGen Climate provided the environmentalist movement with significant capital and political influence.[51] Steyer tried to get other millionaires to donate a total of $50 million to NextGen, but had raised less than $4 million as of 2010.[49] Steyer spent almost $74 million on the 2014 elections. The vast majority of those funds, nearly $67 million, were channeled through NextGen.[49]

>In August 2015, Steyer was the guest of honor at the California Democratic Party headquarters to discuss bills to cut gasoline use in half by 2030, although Steyer did not commit to spending large sums of money to support the bills.[58]

>In July 2015, Steyer called on 2016 candidates to develop strategic plans to provide the United States with at least 50% of its energy from clean sources by 2030. The message was reportedly targeted at Hillary Clinton, who had yet to outline an environmental policy. It was suggested that this was a strategic move to secure a political alliance with Clinton.[59] Steyer has raised money for Hillary Clinton,[60] and hosted a fundraiser on her behalf at his San Francisco home.[61]
Steyer was the single largest contributor during the 2016 election cycle with $87,057,853 in funds contributed exclusively to liberal candidates.[62]

>>8759001
>You're implying once again that there is some kind of organization lobbying climate science out there

Here's one example
http://www.comerfamilyfoundation.org/environment/comer-fellows-the-changelings/
They called themselves "the changelings," funded by billionare Gary Comer. This include some of the biggest name and textbook writers in climate science like Wally Broecker. These people publishes in reputable peer reviewed journals and listed their publications here
http://www.comerfamilyfoundation.org/our-impact/comer-fellows-publications/

>>8758889

Honestly I don't really know or care much about politics, and I've always assumed the best way to get resolve an issue is to get the public educated about. Isn't that how we got rid of the influence of the tobacco industry?

>>8759007

The problem is that evolution is more intuitive than AGW.

The current description of AGW comes from the interaction of models utilizing mathematics that are literally beyond 95% of the population.

A second "problem" is human opportunism and jealously. People don't like overt social engineering (for good reason).

A third reason is that normal people are already being bombarded with religious/moral messages ALL THE FUCKING TIME. They imagine that the face of "AGW" is some spineless asshole and some fucked up bitch laughing at their faces as they stamp them with boots.

Fourthly, you don't convince people with '"rational" evidence. You have to hit them on an intuitive level.

File: water filter man.png (109KB, 500x624px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x624px

>>8759050
>>8759021
Who would've thought that the humble water filter salesman wins again at the end of the day

>>8759068
fall off that horse mr jones

>>8758807
>Water vapor is indeed the number 1 most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,
It's the most important, not potent.
>nothing we can do about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Dumb.
>following the Clausius Clapeyron equation
Not when precipitation must be considered.

>you want to fucking put a giant lid over the ocean to prevent evaporation?
Why? Evaporation is good.

>I don't know where do you get the misinfo about the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere
Umm
>the amount of extra surface area of open water from agricultural activities are obviously insignificant
No, and areas irrigated sees way higher evaporation rates than open water does.
>Hope this helps
Wasting the time of your betters really helps.

Fossil fuels are mostly going to affect the planet via acidification, not warming.

>>8759053
You are making a ton of idiotic generalizations. It really is not that hard to describe climate models to the general populace intuitively. It depends on what technical level you stop at. For example it is easy to understand what climate sensitivity and radiative forcing mean and how they play together. You can find several sources explaining this and other things to laymen. It's not any less intuitive then what had to be explained to debunk creationist arguments.

There are varying degrees of communication from emotional to scientific that are all employed by environmentalists and scientists, and they are all necessary. If you accept the evidence which tells us that AGW is real, damaging, and can be mitigated, then it doesn't really matter how certain people will feel when you tell them this. So I don't see what your point is.

>>8759080
Sources needed for all that bullshit.

>>8759089
>and they are all necessary
>fear mongering is necessary

ok

File: 35506_bear_polar_bear_facepalm.jpg (73KB, 640x450px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x450px

>>8759080
Now you're just embarassing yourself.

First water vapor is the most important, and the most potent, as if you do radiative balance calculation the majority of greenhouse effect and IR reflectance is caused by water vapor. 95% of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere molwise IS water vapor, hence the most potent and the most important.

Second, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is governed by Clausius Clayperon relationship only. Precipitation a function of saturation vapor pressure, which is also governed by Clausius Clayperon equation which only depends on Temperature. As the partial pressure of water vapor in an air parcel reaches the saturation vapor pressure, precipitation will happen

Finally, an open water exposed to the atmosphere doesn't care whether it is part of an irrigation system, or it is the surface ocean. Do you have any fundamental physics and argument to back up your claim that water in irrigated areas behaves differently than water in lakes, rivers, and ocean?

File: image[1].jpg (50KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x300px

>>8759053
>evolution is more intuitive than AGW
people can't conceive of how big the planet is and how long it's been around, so they reject the notion that things could have changed significantly.

>>8759089
>It really is not that hard to describe climate models to the general populace intuitively.

the number one failed course in the US is algebra. even at the "college" level, its algebra. i think you highly underestimate the intellect of the average person.

you are probably one of those people that think bachelors degree's are a dime a dozen nowadays too.

>>8759089
>it is easy to understand what climate sensitivity and radiative forcing mean and how they play together.

Not intuitively. There's a lot of handwaving if someone want to explain radiative forcing and climate sensitivity to the public.

Thermodynamics are the least intuitive process there is. The fundamental equation of thermodynamics in itself requires someone to at least take calculus 1, calculus 2, calculus 3, and ordinary differential equation to grasp.

>>8757034
>masters in environmental science

Sorry this board is only for post docs in pure maths

>>8758935
So what about geochemists or geophysicists or atmospheric physicists or atmospheric chemists?

Nice try, brainlet.

>>8759021
>>8759050
I stand corrected, but what I was hinting at is that the scientists involved in critical research like NOAA for example aren't millionaires capable of lobbying their research and presenting it to the public. There's a difference between a billionaire with a special interest in environmental science, and a climate researcher whos research is of significance, but he can't really present it well to the public.

For every lobby group that the the pro-regulation / policy groups have, there are dozens of anti-regulation groups on the other side, and billionaires with stakes in the fossil fuel industry like the Koch brothers with the capital to lobby themselves.

That's the main issue with climate change, getting sensible policies passed is nearly impossible because the fossil fuel industry has a very powerful lobby itself that is strictly anti-regulation. There are people that want to eliminate organizations like the EPA entirely because of regulations on pollution and wastewater treatment.

It's a tough thing to say, but the scientists and researchers that publish a lot need to be a part of the process, many of them are through organizations like the IPCC which creates reports for policy makers on the topic of climate change, but scientists in general are really shitty at public communication of their research, and because climate change is a relatively complex science, it's tough to communicate the ideas to the public in general. This is why there is so much ignorance out there on climate science, because it's hard, and because you have a side presenting a lot of misinformation and casting doubt on the science.

>>8759190
Yeah I'm not saying these people who lobby for climate change policy is nefarious, I'm just saying that if you know anything about politics, these kind of backdoor lobbying and advocacy is way more important than trying to sway public opinion of the ignorant masses, let alone convincing some anonymous anon in Burmese kickboxing imageboard.

>>8759190
Tom Steyer is a hedgefund manager (who himself still had money invested in fossil fuels) and Gary Comer sells mid-low end middle America clothing at Land's End.

What they do in supporting and pouring money to climate science are literally altruistic charity, as they gain no immediate benefit (unless they're using climate change as charity platform to get connections to politicians, but also lobbying for other policies that benefit them, but then it ceases to be about climate change and more about the other specific policies).

Comparing what they do to the Koch brothers and Exxon, who directly benefit from removing environmental regulation is false equivalency.

File: 1488571892139.jpg (8KB, 258x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 258x200px

>>8759259
>altruistic charity

>>8757196
Is this bait? You sound exactly like a creationist denying evolution.

Would anybody else be more comfortable accepting the views of climate scientists if they were more open about the flaws in their research?

I've seen enough shoddy papers in my field to know how wrong researchers (even well-known ones) can be. I expect climate scientists to be human as well, and the scope for conflict of interest on both sides seems to be considerable on both sides of AGW. Even if they do good science, if they knew exactly what was going on then their field would be trivial. So it really taxes my credibility when people present climate science results as some sort of indisputable truth. I'd like to hear more about the state of the field than the latest iteration of 'consensus' talking points.

>>8759098
>telling the truth is unnecessary
Back to /pol/

>>8757376
>The notion of calories and the whole fucked up food pyrmaid bullshit they came up with has mangled diets and led to a situation where we have many diseases that wouldn't have to be treated acutely if we had a sane notion of proper diet.

You're making too many vague claims. What exactly is wrong with the food pyramid? What is a sane notion of a proper diet? What diseases are you talking about? What's wrong with calories? Are you saying you know more than the nutritionists?

>>8759355
Not him, but for example this story
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

What people know about "good food" and "bad food" and the science is strongly influenced by industry lobby. Fad diet such as paleodiet, etc come and go based on paid nutritionists

>>8759333
>the truth

you mean like how Al Gore said we'd all be underwater by now? or the countless other news articles that prophesized our planets destruction, yet never came to pass?

some truth you got there.

File: Cheetah.jpg (63KB, 768x573px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 768x573px

>>8759330
>Would anybody else be more comfortable accepting the views of climate scientists if they were more open about the flaws in their research?
I think the absence of actual skeptics (as opposed to contrarians calling themselves skeptics) has hurt climatology. arguably, the last real skeptic we had was Judith Curry, and even she kinda went whackadoodle denier towards the end of her career.

>>8759401
>politicians and media distort and sensationalize conclusions made by scientists
>therefore you can't trust those darned librul (((scientists)))
I bet you think scientists actually claimed that farts cure cancer...

File: 01 Feldman Nature.jpg (277KB, 690x546px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 690x546px

>>8757079
That graph is very inaccurate. It completely hides the huge amount of uncertainty in estimating rates of forcing and rates of change in forcing. What is the change in radiative balance according to Climate Scientists? Answer:

Change of radiative balance of 0.2 Watts/m^2 +/- 0.6 Watts/m^2 (for 2000 to 2010 for GHG).

Feldman, Daniel R., et al. "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010." Nature 519.7543 (2015): 339-343.

And what is the total rate of change?

0.6 Watts/m^2 +/- 17.0 Watts/m^2 total energy imbalance (3 times that of anthropogenic GHG; for 2000 to 2010 for GHG). Stephens, Graeme L., et al. (2012).

TWO THIRDS OF THE ENERGY IMBALANCE IS NATURAL! (0.4 out of 0.6 w m^2)

There is also a huge error range in the estimate of the energy imbalance:

Range: -16.4 to 17.6 Watts/m^2 !!!!!

“This small imbalance [0.6 W m-2] is over two orders of magnitude [100 times] smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux.”
“The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 times] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”


Stephens, Graeme L., et al. "An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations." Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 691-696.

File: 02 Stephens Surface Imbalance.jpg (62KB, 748x351px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 748x351px

>>8759562
What does the United Nations IPCC have to say about the uncertainty in their estimates of energy imbalance?

UN IPCC AR4
Uncertainty of 20 Watts/ m^2
3233% error range! (for 0.6 Watts/m^2 flux)
“Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre [20 W m-2] for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-2-1.html

UN IPCC AR5
“The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean for each term is expected to be in the range 10 to 20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2 (Pierce et al., 2006).”

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

File: 03 IPCC Climate Model Uncertainty ingoing.jpg (250KB, 688x610px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 688x610px

>>8759565
>>8759562
>>8757079

UN IPCC hides the uncertainty

Yes, because its embarrassingly large. The UN IPCC hides it in the supplementary material. Its hidden here: http://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8-supp-material.pdf

See Figure S8.5 which shows that GCM errors in ‘mean shortwave radiation reflected to space’ range across 25 Watts/m^2. Pic attached.

Yes, the huge errors ranges are buried where you're not likely to find them.

File: 04 IPCC Uncertainty outgoing.jpg (280KB, 700x596px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 700x596px

>>8759570
>>8759565
>>8759562
>>8757079

Here is the uncertainty for outgoing radiation, 20 Watts/m^2 uncertainty.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 10.06.18 PM.png (418KB, 1488x1378px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 1488x1378px

>>8759570
>>8759573
>notrickzone.com
Another crackpot denier blog who can't get their review / retort to pass a peer reviewed journal

This is a very dumb way to calculate uncertainty, by drawing a photoshopped line over the maximum range of variability

Everyone know from basic statistics class that if you have an ensemble dataset with various values, the way to measure uncertainties is to do 1 sigma (95% confidence interval) and 2 sigma (67% confidence interval) rather than doing maximum range of possible observation

>>8757003
>>It's another /pol/-crossposting deniers get BTFO in the previous threads, cease responding, and make a new one to shitpost in episode
>0/10, leave and never come back.
Keep fantasizing buddy:
>>8759573
>>8759570
>>8759565
>>8759562

>>8759587
Just ignore this guy, he makes the same stupid mistakes every thread and is not worth engaging.

>>8759555
>therefore you can't trust those darned librul (((scientists)))

they are complicit in the fear mongering. its their research and they should take responsibility for how its presented.

>>8759401
All Gore is not a scientist.

File: DwJ3X.png (66KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1000x707px

Reminder.

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

12KB, 275x183px

>>8759587
>>>8759570
>>>8759573
>>notrickzone.com
>Another crackpot denier blog who can't get their review / retort to pass a peer reviewed journal

> Peer reviewed articles says radiative imbalance uncertainty is 10 times the estimated value
> United Nations IPCC says radiative imbalance uncertainty is 10 times the the estimated value
Hurr, Durr, I'll resort to ad hominem.

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

168KB, 792x633px

>>8759603
shit, wrong image.
Reminder right here kids.

>>8759604
Learn how to estimate uncertainty like an adult with half of a functioning brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Drawing MS paint line over maximum range of result as uncertainty is incredibly dumb

>>8759587
>Everyone know from basic statistics class that if you have an ensemble dataset with various values, the way to measure uncertainties is to do 1 sigma (95% confidence interval) and 2 sigma (67% confidence interval) rather than doing maximum range of possible observation
> the atmosphere is an ensemble.
Buddy, there's exactly 1 earth. One has to take a huge amount of data to estimate exactly 1 earth's radiative imbalance. It's not like the radiative imbalance works like i.i.d. all across the surface/troposphere.

But what of the actual error range? That's what exactly what was done here:
>>8759562
>0.6 Watts/m^2 +/- 17.0 Watts/m^2

That error (yup the standard error which is one standard deviation for the distribution of the statistic) is 17.0 Watts/m^2. Somehow you didn't realize that the maximum range, as shown in the graphs is about 45 Watts/m^2. >>8759570 >>8759573

>>8759616
>>>8759604 (You)
>Learn how to estimate uncertainty like an adult with half of a functioning brain
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

God you're stupid. See here >>8759630

You don't know your head from your ass about statistics.

>>8759607
>>>8759603
>shit, wrong image.
>Reminder right here kids
Warmists get scholarly information on the high uncertainty in the estimate of radiative imbalance:
>>8759573
>>8759570
>>8759565
>>8759562
Resort to meme magic instead of careful scientific argument (as well as extremely poor statistics).
Clearly your not posting out of any scientific interest.

File: BOING.gif (2MB, 312x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 312x320px

>>8759562
the problem with comparing Feldman et al. (2015) to Stephens et al. (2012) is that one is looking at changes in the MEASURED intensity of infrared radiation FROM the troposphere TO the surface (a metric for the strength of the greenhouse effect), and one is looking at changes in the total ESTIMATED energy balance of the earth.
you're comparing apples to oranges, using the difficulty of quantifying the total inflow and outflow of energy from the earth to claim that we can't quantify a particular set of changes to the near-equilibrium system.

it's like saying we can't be sure how much sand we've added to a large sandbox, because we can't weigh the whole sandbox itself.

>>8759355

Because high-fat diets are healthier than high-carb based diets.

>What is a sane notion of a proper diet?

Let me illustrate. Someone called David was homeless. He went into a shelter and noticed that everything they served him was crap.

BUT it was greenlighted by a nutritionist. So David scrapped up $70 to buy a decent induction cooker. Now David could at least cook eggs and bacon quick as long as he had an outlet.

David ended up leaving the facility early and in far better health than the starch abominations of the kitchen.

>What's wrong with calories?

https://www.amazon.com/poor-misunderstood-calorie-calories-proper/dp/1453843612/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489891020&sr=8-1

TL;DR = metabolic processes react far differently than the chemistry equipment used to measure "calories"

>Are you saying you know more than the nutritionists?

Yes, because most of them are worthless pigs who are utterly unable to think critically.

>>8756962
Cities run by conservative Republicans are already spending millions on infrastructure improvements to deal with the expected increased flooding and hurricanes.

File: obama-feels-good-man.jpg (45KB, 525x594px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 525x594px

>another /pol/kin spamming figures and keep citing himself for the (You)s
>BTFO instantly

>>8759401
>Al Gore said we'd all be underwater by now
Did this even actually happen? I see you fuckers claiming this all the time.

>>8759726
As a rule of thumb, all "Al Gore" quotes from deniers are completely fictional.

>>8756962
the right winger carefully avoids biology because he didn't come from no monkeys

>>8759679
>the problem with comparing Feldman et al. (2015) to Stephens et al. (2012) is that one is looking at changes in the MEASURED intensity of infrared radiation FROM the troposphere TO the surface (a metric for the strength of the greenhouse effect), and one is looking at changes in the total ESTIMATED energy balance of the earth.
>you're comparing apples to oranges, using the difficulty of quantifying the total inflow and outflow of energy from the earth to claim that we can't quantify a particular set of changes to the near-equilibrium system.
Not really apples to oranges unless you assume significant change in upward radiation from the surface of the Earth.

More importantly you can't really quantify the radiative imbalance because you can't measure with any certainty inflow and outflow. You don't "Know" what will happen, because its a highly non-linear system. Certainly not additive in any simple way. (BTW, the whole "forcing" model is flawed because it assumes that all climate influences are equivalent to radiative flux at the surface. What about effects that only happen in the atmosphere?)

And here's the killer quote, "Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual- mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 +/- 0.19 Watts/m^2."
You're saying that your model' can't be tested against the real world, yet the model is so good that you "know" what the answer is. That ain't science.

>it's like saying we can't be sure how much sand we've added to a large sandbox, because we can't weigh the whole sandbox itself.
Bad analogy. The sandbox is a fixed system. Not a highly non-linear, dynamical stochastic system.

In short, you comments represent bad science. Essentially you assume that you "know" the answer (despite an extremely complex, non-linear system) and then use that as an excuse to not caring about the tremendous uncertainty in the system.

>>8759682
>Because high-fat diets are healthier than high-carb based diets.

You'd first need to define what "high-fat" is. There really isn't an agreement among nutritionists on what the healthiest diet is, or any good evidence for any diet being the healthiest. Only on what is enough for us to function and not die from malnutrition. We know for example all the vitamins we need to survive.

>What is a sane notion of a proper diet?

Sounds like it just an anecdote. How are you not sure it's just a placebo effect?

>Yes, because most of them are worthless pigs who are utterly unable to think critically.

Okay, show me that there's a consensus between nutritionists that high-carb diets are healthier than high-fat diets.

File: eeeee.jpg (51KB, 605x177px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 605x177px

>>8759726

>>8760008
Those seem about accurate.

>>8759737
In his movie Inconvenient Truth he claims sea levels "could" rise 20 feet but did not provide a time frame. He has predicted publicly that the north pole "may" be ice free in 5 years, once in 2007, once in 2009.

He is very refined politician and no doubt very careful with his wording. He has probably been cautioned by his handlers behind the curtains about casting biblical prophecy on the masses. There is huge money already riding on all of this, it's serious business.

File: Gay.jpg (349KB, 781x750px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 781x750px

>>8759954
>Not really apples to oranges unless you assume significant change in upward radiation from the surface of the Earth.
by assuming that changes in downwelling longwave radiation correspond directly to changes in the Earth's energy budget, you completely ignore significant effects such as warming of the oceans at depth, variability in atmospheric contributions to albedo (clouds and volcanic particulates), and solar variability.

your whole argument is that MEASUREMENTS of how much heat is being trapped in the troposphere are unreliable because ESTIMATES of the Earth's TOA energy budget, itemizing all the different contributions individually, have high uncertainty. however, these only directly correspond if change in the optical thickness of the troposphere is the ONLY thing altering the overall energy budget...which is prima facie not the case.

and you have the nerve to accuse ME of engaging in bad science by pointing this out...

Ok guys. I'm a geology student. I graduate in May. I'm getting tired of these threads and all the denialist bullshit. You all amount to little more than carnival barkers trying to hide the fact that your game is a scam by shouting louder things you don't understand.

Shouting more idiotic bullshit like this,
>>8759573
>>8759570
>>8759565

Look friendo, all your figures are absolutely meaningless in the face of reality.

FACT
Animals and plants are migrating to higher altitudes and toward the poles

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140725-climate-change-tropical-fish-animals-ocean-science/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/up-and-up-plants-and-animals-migrating-as-climate-changes/2011/08/18/gIQAzlTxNJ_story.html?utm_term=.6f3fccbb01b1

FACT
Animals are adapting to climate change
http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat.aspx
http://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/climate-change-and-animals.html

FACT
Glaciers worldwide are melting
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7679
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/ClimateChange/GlacierRetreatInAlaska.html
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/gallery/retreating.html

FACT
Sea levels are rising all over the world
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/
https://scienmag.com/louisiana-wetlands-struggling-with-sea-level-rise-4-times-the-global-average/
http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/sea-level-rise

I don't give a rats ass whether you can post charts claiming the IPCC or NOAA or NASA or any other worldwide organization is falsifying temperature data. It is literally irrelevant. You must explain what's going on in the world and why and you can't without concluding humans are causing rapid climate change with CO2

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-19 at 12.36.43 AM.png (1MB, 1416x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1416x1024px

>>8759954
>You're saying that your model' can't be tested against the real world, yet the model is so good that you "know" what the answer is.

Not that anon, but this is what you get from regurgitating things you don't understand straight from denier blog.

You're comparing 3 very different things. Let's start with basic definitions.

Top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance = Measured by satellites on top of atmosphere. Energy from sun coming in = longwave radiation from earth coming out integrated over total Earth surface. Fairly easy measurements to do as the satellite orbits the earth and very precise. This value according to NASA GISS is 0.58 +- 0.15 W/m2 in 2011
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

Surface radiative imbalance = radiative imbalance measured on the surface. This is what Stephens et al. (2012) trying to measure, and it is a very hard measurement to do, because of variables in the surface being very finnicky clouds, changing condition, day/night cycle etc. In theory the number should be the same as TOA radiative imbalance. According to Stephen et al. 2012 and IPCC AR5 supplementary chapter 8 this is where the 0.6 +- 17 W/m2 number comes from.

Change of radiative balance = Change of TOA radiative balance over time, reported to be 0.2 W/m2 +- 0.6 W/m2 over the last decade by Feldman 2015.

An argument that the measurable TOA radiative change over 2000-2010 (0.2 +- 0.6) might be statistically insignificant compared to the TOA radiative imbalance in 2011 (0.58 +- 0.15) might have some merit, but comparing measured TOA radiative change, to SFC radiative imbalance measurements are just straight out dishonest. There's a reason why the IPCC chug the surface radiative imbalance measurements into the supplementary material, because it is an imprecise measurement and less good compared to TOA measurement.

8/10 effort though, a valid try and made me read the paper.

>>8760112
You shouldn't lose your calm, see my explanation here >>8760114

It is a very deceptive figure, preying on people not understanding the difference between measurements made on top of atmosphere and from the surface.

A couple of well intentioned anons >>8759587 and >>8759679 unfortunately gave the wrong answer for the problem he proposed.

File: global_trends.jpg (79KB, 700x581px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 700x581px

>>8760114
Just to add, the TOA radiative imbalance of 0.58 +- 0.15 W/m2 in 2011 is a very clear indication that the Earth system is warming. Simple conservation of energy, you have 0.58W extra energy coming in vs. coming out over the Earth's surface area. This energy has to go somewhere, which mean that the Earth must be warming.

This goes back to my classic 3 "proof" that climate change is real and manmade

1. CO2 and other greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass and absorb/reemit infrared, hence the greenhouse effect. 19th century physics, observable in every experimental lab there is.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, and rising due to fossil fuel consumption. This is again observable through ratio between 13CO2 vs 12CO2 drifting more negative. Hence the "manmade" part of climate change.

3. This hypothesis is observable through TOA radiative imbalance. You increase CO2, you measure where the CO2 is coming from (fossil fuel), and then you measure that total incoming energy from the Earth is higher than total energy leaving the Earth, and hence the Earth must be warming

>>8760165
Correlation =/= causation

File: 403503e928c229c97f929554e1bbc84e.jpg (57KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x360px

>>8760203
>Using meme phrase as last resort.

This is the best you can do now? I am explaining the causation hypothesis, and showing the what I said exactly in the observed data

Let's do an experiment. Do us a favor and throw yourself off the window, the theory of gravity states that you'll fall and break your leg, probably die. You're arguing just because you throw yourself off the window, fall, and broke your leg, doesn't mean that theory of gravity is right because correlation =/= causation

>>8760203
causation can be reasonably inferred from correlation if there is also control of the purported effect by the purported cause, and a plausible mechanism for the observed correlation.

File: hqdefault.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

Dear diary,

Today /pol/ is BTFO once again

/sci/ is an alright board

>>8756962

No shit. It's all New Age crap that replaced christianity as the defining religion/original sin for most people. In fifty years people will still be against pollution (which is much more objectively wrong), but the anal pain about global warming will mostly become a dead issue like the anal pain about degeneracy was.

>>8760254
>when you don't want to learn anything by reading the thread but would like to use /sci/ as your personal soapbox

>>8759604
>Hurr, Durr, I'll resort to ad hominem.

Your argument is so shit it can't even make it to WUWT and got BTFO instantly on Faroe Islands rowing imageboard

>>8760254
Why are these threads always filled with responses to OP deep in the thread that clearly didn't even bother to read said thread?

>>8759112
>First water vapor is the most important, and the most potent, as if you do radiative balance calculation the majority of greenhouse effect and IR reflectance is caused by water vapor. 95% of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere molwise IS water vapor, hence the most potent and the most important.
http://www.livescience.com/6416-potent-greenhouse-gases-revealed.html

Rest, I didn't read cos you're too thick headed to take seriously.

>>8760272
Classic reversal, I'm sure you've watched and personally debunked these videos:
>>8757783

File: march12017GOES.png (1MB, 1390x782px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1390x782px

What bothers me the most is when you post information from sources like NASA/NOAA, that doesn't fit the narrative being preached by "environmentalists". It's dismissed out of hand.
However those sources are considered completely valid if they support the man made "climate change" narrative. The term is hypocrisy.

Oh, and this.>>8757034 let us just keep ignoring the real problems while we laser in on bullshit science.

>>8760816
one, that writeup doesn't address how water stacks up; it just talks about how fluorinated hydrocarbons are often more potent (as greenhouse gases) than chlorinated or unsubstituted ones. you can also read the actual paper it refers to if you want a fuller look. it doesn't make any comparisons to water either.
>http://www.pnas.org/content/107/20/9049.full

two, it depends on how you define "potent". The usual metric is called global warming potential, and it's a function of how strongly a gas absorbs terrestrial radiation, whether its infrared absorption bands coincide with wavelengths that the atmosphere is fairly transparent to, and the lifetime of the gas in the atmosphere. because of this, water vapor can't really be measured in that regard, since its lifetime is effectively infinite.

the claim that water vapor is ~95% of total greenhouse gases, molewise, is correct.

>>8760112
I live just North of the U.S. border. It's March 19 2017, right?
Here's my scientific observation. The birds have just started coming back within the past week or so. If anything, they're a few weeks later than usual.
But why should I trust my eyes, I should be trusting your links and what your neckbeard professor told you.

>>8761098
>confirmation bias the post.
Welcome to science. You should always use peer-reviewed publications as more reliable than personal observations. They typically account for many scenarios and factors beyond a sample size of 1. Do we need to put this in the sticky?

After several decades of collected data and published papers, I'm going to say no.

>>8761098
I also live near the border and you're ignoring the freakishly warm and dry winter we've been having.

>>8761084
>What bothers me the most is when you post information from sources like NASA/NOAA, that doesn't fit the narrative being preached by "environmentalists". It's dismissed out of hand.

Name some of these sources from NASA/NOAA/IPCC. What happens is proponent of AGW uses NASA, NOAA, IPCC and peer reviewed papers while dipshit /pol/ kin uses notrickzone, whatsupwiththat, and other non peer reviewed sources that misrepresented the science, sometimes in sneaky way preying on people not understanding technical definitions, and strawmanning apples and oranges

File: 8D.gif (2MB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 420x315px

>>8761084
>denier posts autismal conspiracy theories
>gets ridiculed
>denier makes anecdotal claim about how it's SUPER COLD where he lives
>gets ignored
>denier misrepresents scientific literature to claim that we just can't be sure we're causing warming
>gets rebutted with arguments backed up by specific references to said literature

I just got a beer from the fridge, and it was way cold. Global warming my arse

>>8757493
Haha. Well said. Why don't these larpers realise how fucking obvious they are?

>>8761135
You must be out east. Wet, really wet. Cold, unbelievably cold for the past six months. Minus 30c a week ago for about two weeks solid.
Canada is a big country. Windsor is hardly the average.

>>8761148
So what's the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere right now? Do you even know without Google?

>>8761176
404 ppm

increases by 3 ppm/year

File: 201702.gif (175KB, 990x765px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 990x765px

Rather than duking out "hey it's cold outside where I live" vs. "hey it's warm outside where we live" here is a good resource when someone brings out anecdotal evidence
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201702

NOAA made report every month on how each month stack compared to history. You can say that "it's been cold since I've remember" but also remember every last decade running has been the warmest decade in recorded history. Human memory doesn't work that well unless you have data going back to the 50's and have been living in the same area for 50 or more years.

Hey look this last February was actually colder than 1981-2010 base period on the tip of eastern Canada, tip of Pacific Northwest, tip of Alaska, inland Australia, Sudan, and the middle East. Dumb people who happen to live in those area would say that "it's colder than average" but if you look at the whole planet is bloodbath red

>inb4 ((((NOAA))))

>>8761179
426ppm, see you don't even know that. I wonder what else you're wrong about?

I digress. Do you really believe that a concentration of 426ppm co2, really makes that big a difference from say 350 ppm?
There have been times in the Earths past when concentrations were in the thousands of ppm. Do you know what happened?
The plants grew bigger, and the world kept spinning. If anything we're at dangerously low levels of co2, not high.

>>8761183
>whole planet
They have problems with the concept of 'global' because they are flat earthers.

And what would a flat world be without a flat temperature?

>>8761193
jesus christ you're dumb
why are you lying on something so easy to look up?

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/01/11/noaa-atmospheric-co2-increased-by-2-77-parts-per-million-during-2016/

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

2MB, 4572x2252px

>>8761183
Here's a picture from January 15 2017.

Also, I find it interesting that both the North and South poles aren't represented by any data in your picture. That's a lot of grey area, no?
I wonder why that is?

File: 1489812762705.jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>8756962
>Braindead individuals arguing about subjects they have no understanding about.

File: 1dxet4.jpg (51KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 670x377px

>>8761193
>426ppm
WRONG
R
O
N
G

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

>>8761201
>I wonder why that is?

Because there's not as good of data coverage up/down there. Newsflash people don't live in Antarctica/Arctic

>>8761200
Holy Crap! You're right! It's gone down by 20ppm! Why isn't anyone talking about that?

I stand corrected. Thank you Anon.

File: 1489041896822.jpg (8KB, 229x221px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 229x221px

>Can't even reliably predict the weather next week and he's gonna predict the weather 100 years from now.

Okay.

>>8761210
Climate=average.
Weather is like one spin of roulette,
climate is the essential probabilities of the game.
And now the game is changing.

File: mlo_record.png (77KB, 650x503px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 650x503px

>>8761208
>It's gone down by 20ppm!
Because spring is coming in Northern Hemisphere, there's more landmass in Northtern hemisphere, and more trees hence the trees are absorbing atmospheric CO2.

Global CO2 concentration is always the highest during Northern Hemisphere winter, and the lowest during Northern Hemisphere summer superimposed on steady rise due to anthropogenic emission

File: Untitled.png (156KB, 1039x563px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1039x563px

>>8761210
Because we're modeling different things. Daily weather are very stochastic and depends on initial conditions.

ENSO prediction however is near perfect. We can predict a year out whether it is gonna be a rainy season or dry season in the tropics, and good year for fisheries vs. bad year for fisheries off the coast of Chile with close to 100% accuracy because of ENSO phase.

>>8761210
It's much easier to predict what the climate will be like in 100 years than to predict short term weather patterns. This is because on longer timescales, the averages / trends are easier to identify.

File: really makes you think.png (420KB, 473x540px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 473x540px

>>8761176
>>8761193
>thinks that science is about austistic memorization of random facts instead of knowing how to interpret data
look, I autistically memorize random facts for my own amusement, so I understand the appeal, but knowing random figures off the top of your head doesn't make you an expert. it's all about knowing what those facts mean in the real world.

>>8761201
>le graph of clouds
>NO IT'S NOT CLOUDS IT'S SNOW
>IT'S DEFINITELY ALL SNOW AND THIS PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOWX

>>8761208
>It's gone down by 20ppm!
MLO CO2 readings have never hit 426. you made up a bullshit number off the top of your head.

>>8761210
>can't reliably predict one flip of a coin and he's gonna predict the totals of 1000 coin flips

>>8756962
What exactly are you trying to accomplish by creating these threads everyday? Do you really think humans can burn so much fossil fuel, cut down so many forests, and pollute so many waters without changing something?

Who pays you to go around spreading confusion about such an obvious problem?

>all these circlejerk safe space samefagging
Let's take it to a board where there's ID, you can't samefag and see how do you guys fare
>>>/pol/117339150

>>8761251
Actually no, I've been arguing from the other side for quite some time, and I'm absolutely certain that the most up to date figure was 426ppm. I'm really wish I would have documented that, because that figure seems to have been scrubbed clean from the internet.

Do you really think I would have chosen to use a higher value to make my argument? That would be very counter productive.

File: ccgg.BRW.co2.4.none.monthly.all.png (97KB, 650x500px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 650x500px

>>8761282
Are you sure you're grabbing Mauna Loa data rather than Barrow Alaska station?

MLO is in the middle of nowhere, in the ocean and it is thought to be representative of global CO2.

Barrow Alaska in the height of northern hemisphere winter 2017 might've gone up to 420

>>8761279
Not the Anon you're responding to. I also sit on the other side of the fence on this issue.

I also fully agree that /sci/ should have ID's. Is there anyway to make that happen, and why isn't there in the first place?
I don't want this taken to /pol/. It would be invaded by flat Earther's within seconds. I think we can both agree that they don't add anything useful.

>>8761296
I'm sure that I'm very confused at the moment, and that I'm starting to believe in the Mandela effect! lol
I obviously have some things to figure out, thank you for your understanding and patience. I'm removing myself from this for now.
Good day all.

File: Pure Autism.jpg (564KB, 1172x1530px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1172x1530px

>>8761201
I was wondering when this autist would show up again. You realize no matter how many times you post a picture of snow / clouds in winter, it doesn't change that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by anthropogenic activity, right?

>>8761279
First off, you have these threads on /pol/ and 95% of the thread is shitposting, whereas here most of the thread is discussion with the occasional /pol/ shitter. Second, this is a /sci/ related topic, not /pol/. Third, /pol/ moves way too fast to have these types of threads there. Finally, most of your samefagging shit is in your head, though I wouldn't have an issue with having IDs on /sci/ either, since this isn't a board designated for shitposting it would make sense as >>8761297 said.

File: winterrockies.jpg (130KB, 1041x694px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1041x694px

>>8761319
Wrap your brain around this...

>Your "autist" posted >>8761297

File: winterbarentssea_amo_2017066_lg.jpg (220KB, 1041x810px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1041x810px

>>8761319
No snappy comeback? Maybe just take another screen shot and get back to me when you've got something. I'll check in later, thanks.

>>8761319
>why is it green

>>8757003
>Many climatologists have training in physics and mathematics.
And many physics and mathematicians do not have training in climatology

Your point is retarded

File: Füssli_-_Der_Wechselbalg_-_1780.jpeg.jpg (726KB, 1920x1735px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 1920x1735px

>>8759050
Why are AGW alarmist in this thread ignoring this? This is as close to climate Illuminati open conspiracy as possible.

Big name leading scientists from major research institutions got together in a secret meeting hosted by billionare, call themselves insidious names like the "changelings"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling
>A changeling is a creature found in folklore and folk religion. A changeling child was believed to be a fairy child that had been left in place of a human child stolen by the fairies. The theme of the swapped child is common in medieval literature and reflects concern over infants thought to be afflicted with unexplained diseases, disorders, or developmental disabilities.

This is a pagan cult through and through if I ever see one

>>8761210
>climate = weather
Found the retard

>>8761379

They're from the archive. He spent fuck knows how much time ripping through every post I made, and documented them. Then calls me the "autist"

Kettle, meet black...

>>8757196
>The last thing I want to pay is some new age carbon tithe to a gang of organized crooks and liars.

>he doesn't understand economics

confirmed brainlet

>>8761920
Why do you pick and choose, but never post the full context >In your precious green text?

I'll give you one thing. You're fucking consistent.

>>8761915
So you're also retarded along with autism?

File: 1489716899729.png (64KB, 250x224px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 250x224px

>>8761923
>You're fucking consistent.

This is the first post I've made on this thread, for real

>>8761959
Running out of ammo? Lame

File: JPL-20161110-OCOs-0045-OCO2_XCO2_Krig_20160920_to_20162005_s.jpg (53KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x540px

Isn't that funny.

>>8761915
It probably ony took two minutes to search for that.

File: Sableye.jpg (48KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 562x437px

>>8761915
>>8762011
>doesn't think climatology is real
>doesn't think archive searches are real

>>8762021
literally just copy paste filename into filename search, it takes less than 30 seconds.
https://warosu.org/sci/

>>8762034
and now justifying it, like it even matters.

Kettle, black, "autist"

File: Snow in winter, checkmate warmists!.jpg (7KB, 318x159px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 318x159px

>>8762043
Says the asshat who posts the same image over and over again in every single thread. I think you have some serious mental defects to sort through, especially considering how flawed and irrational your brainlet-tier "wow, it snowed in winter! stop the presses!" argument is. If you can even call your shitposts an "argument."

You're essentially an Inhofe-tier brainlet.

You have contributed nothing of value with any of your garbage posts, please leave the thread and let us get back to actually discussing the evidence please.

File: Full Smug Jacket.jpg (81KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 499x499px

>>8762043
>what kind of autist spends hours and hours looking through the archive just to make a point?
>>actually, it takes less than a minute, you retard
>LOL AUTIST

it's like deniers are looking for more and more creatively mind-numbing ways to get BTFO in these threads

File: winterstormgoes31317.jpg (119KB, 985x821px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 985x821px

>>8762062
>>8762050
Sad, desperate, angry, "autist"

again, LAME.

>>8762162
>LAME
Even your insults suck. Why do you even come to /sci/?

File: chill man.png (135KB, 500x530px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 500x530px

>>8762162
you may be interested in knowing that you're bitching at (at least) two different people.
I dunno about the other guy, but I actually am a high-functioning autist, so I'm not feeling terribly insulted :^)

face it, you're getting all worked up about something stupid you said because you don't know how keyword searches work. and now you're doing damage control.

>>8761384
Yes it's a fairly obvious open conspiracy to unite and motivate people for the common good. Look at everything religion has done for humanity so far! (sarcasm off). So long as it doesn't appear like a religion, looks like "science" all is good. sooner or later though people will recognize prophecy as just that, computer generated or not.

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

>>8762207
Actually, I've been careful to say "autist" using quotations, because they're the ones who choose to use that as an insult. I'm just quoting them >>8761319
I'm sorry if you took offence to that, I certainly didn't intend it.

Could you please define the "stupid" thing I said, so that I may clarify it to you? Thanks.

>>8760114
>Surface radiative imbalance = radiative imbalance measured on the surface. This is what Stephens et al. (2012) trying to measure, and it is a very hard measurement to do, because of variables in the surface being very finnicky clouds, changing condition, day/night cycle etc. In theory the number should be the same as TOA radiative imbalance.
THE SURFACE IS EXACTLY WHERE RADIATIVE FORCING (or equivalents) IS SUPPOSED TO BE MEASURED. "It's hard, so we'll ignore it" ain't an answer.

According to Stephen et al. 2012 and IPCC AR5 supplementary chapter 8 this is where the 0.6 +- 17 W/m2 number comes from.
>Change of radiative balance = Change of TOA radiative balance over time, reported to be 0.2 W/m2 +- 0.6 W/m2 over the last decade by Feldman 2015.
>An argument that the measurable TOA radiative change over 2000-2010 (0.2 +- 0.6) might be statistically insignificant compared to the TOA radiative imbalance in 2011 (0.58 +- 0.15) might have some merit, but comparing measured TOA radiative change, to SFC radiative imbalance measurements are just straight out dishonest.

Nice try buddy. As the Feldman paper it self says, "Surface forcing represents a complementary, underutilized resource with which to quantify the effects of rising CO2 concentrations on downwelling longwave radiation. This quantity is distinct from stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing at the tropopause, but both are fundamental measures of energy imbalance caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases. The former is less than, BUT PROPORTIONATE TO"

>>8762289
>>8760165
>>8760114
>Just to add, the TOA radiative imbalance of 0.58 +- 0.15 W/m2 in 2011 is a very clear indication that the Earth system is warming. Simple conservation of energy, you have 0.58W extra energy coming in vs. coming out over the Earth's surface area. This energy has to go somewhere, which mean that the Earth must be warming.

Nice strawman. Nobody is saying the earth hasn't warmed. The question is how much is anthropogenic. As shown earlier, the answer is a mere one-third.
>>8759562
That's the answer that Bill Nye couldn't come up with.

>This goes back to my classic 3 "proof" that climate change is real and manmade
>1. CO2 and other greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass and absorb/reemit infrared, hence the greenhouse effect. 19th century physics, observable in every experimental lab there is.
You conveniently ignore the fact that 99% of wavelengths that CO2 can absorb have already been absorbed at 200 ppm. And remember quantum mechanics? THERE ARE NO NEW WAVELENGTHS THAT CO2 CAN ABSORB.

>3. This hypothesis is observable through TOA radiative imbalance. You increase CO2, you measure where the CO2 is coming from (fossil fuel), and then you measure that total incoming energy from the Earth is higher than total energy leaving the Earth, and hence the Earth must be warming
Except CO2 is doing almost as much as it possibly can. That's why most of the warming is natural.

Your "scientific" explanation is an over-simplification to the point of being dishonest or simple-minded. You're like a kid who explains gravity by saying "it pull things down!" And then concludes that airplanes can't fly. An absurd over-simplification.

Start being honest with yourself. CO2 can only absorb electromagnetic energy in certain (fairly small), wavelength regions. Almost all of that is already being absorbed, so an increase in CO2 will have a negligible effect.

>>8762293
>>8760074
>ignore significant effects such as warming of the oceans at depth, variability in atmospheric contributions to albedo (clouds and volcanic particulates), and solar variability.

Oceans have warmed a few hundredths of a degree well within measurement error; notice a theme here? (No, the ocean is not homogeneous, nor is there adequate instrumentations of the millions of cubic kilometers involved.)

Solar variability? That would be more an effect of down-welling radiation.

On the other hand, the interaction of clouds and their creation via (solar activity mediated) cosmic rays is something that most Climate "Scientists" ignore. Because its not anthropogenic.

Some Refs:
Tsonis AA, et al. (2015) Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(11):3253–3256

Ye, Hao, et al. "Reply to Luo et al.: Robustness of causal effects of galactic cosmic rays on interannual variation in global temperature." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.34 (2015): E4640-E4641.
E. M. Dunne et al., Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements, (2016), DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2649
J. R. Pierce, P. J. Adams, Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L09820 (2009).
H. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, and J. O. P. Pedersen, Response of Cloud Con¬densation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation, Physics Letters A, 377, 2343–2347, (2012).
J. Svensmark,M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, and H. Svensmark, The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases, J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 121, 8152–8181, (2016), doi:10.1002/2016JA022689.

>>8762300
>>8760247
>Dear diary,
>Today /pol/ is BTFO once again
>/sci/ is an alright board

>>8759573
>>8759570
>>8759565
>>8759562
>>8759630
>>8759954

Only in your dreams. That cognitive dissonance must be awfully painful.

File: 05 Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays.jpg (32KB, 450x301px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x301px

>>8762300
The influence of cosmic rays.

>>8762289
>>8762304
You're out of your league anon, your answer is not very coherent, you can't even greentext properly and keep citing yourself for more (You)s and dumb debunked figures for no reason despite getting BTFO as if getting more replies proof that your assessment is more valid.

It's clear that you still don't understand the difference between TOA radiative imbalance, rate of change of TOA radiative imbalance, and surface radiative imbalance. Please try again and explain in more coherent manner.

>THE SURFACE IS EXACTLY WHERE RADIATIVE FORCING (or equivalents) IS SUPPOSED TO BE MEASURED. "It's hard, so we'll ignore it" ain't an answer.
Posting in capslock doesn't mean that it's true. Surface radiative imbalance measurement is hard because you need to have measurement stations all across the surface instantaneously. The ocean are severely undersampled, not to mention local clouds etc have a lot of effect. TOA radiative imbalance measurement from satellites is just as effective as surface radiative imbalance measurement.

I'm not saying that SFC radiative imbalance measurement is not useful. Just like any scientific theory, you need to test the hypothesis from various avenues. However, with +- 17W/m2 uncertainty, SFC radiative imbalance measurements are currently not accurate enough.

In the end, you are erroneously comparing small change in TOA radiative balance observed in the last decade onto SFC radiative balance measurement, not TOA radiative balance measurement. Before pushing your strawman further the least you can do is admit that mistake.

>>8762305
>Cosmic rays

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. It's amazing how many times you've been wrong yet still won't admit it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253
>Here we use newly available methods to examine the dynamical association between cosmic rays (CR) and global temperature (GT) in the 20th-century observational record. We find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend; however, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect of CR on short-term, year-to-year variability in GT.
>Thus, although CR clearly do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales, providing another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability.

>>8762305
Oh and by the way, I got this >>8762347 by literally googling the first paper you posted here
>>8762300
It's directly from the abstract of the paper saying that cosmic rays aren't linked to the current temperature trend. Learn to read your sources before you post them.

>>8762300
>>8762304
Now let's look at the second paper you linked to:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
>They found that nearly all nucleation involves either ammonia or biogenic organic compounds. Furthermore, in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation.
>COSMIC RAY INTENSITY CANNOT MEANINGFULLY AFFECT CLIMATE VIA NUCLEATION

>The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.
>VARIATIONS IN COSMIC RAY INTENSITY DO NOT APPRECIABLY AFFECT CLIMATE THROUGH NUCLEATION IN THE PRESENT-DAY ATMOSPHERE

Blown the fuck out AGAIN by your own source. Should I keep going?

File: Hurricane Peep.jpg (103KB, 944x719px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 944x719px

>>8762300
>>8762305
Let's move on to the third paper, shall we?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037946/abstract
>Although controversial, many observations have suggested that low-level cloud cover correlates with the cosmic ray flux. Because galactic cosmic rays have likely decreased in intensity over the last century, this hypothesis, if true, could partly explain 20th century warming, thereby upsetting the consensus view that greenhouse-gas forcing has caused most of the warming.
>In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.

>WE CONCLUDE THAT THE HYPOTHESIZED EFFECT IS TOO SMALL TO PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

File: something's vuggy.png (2MB, 1008x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1008x768px

>>8762243
>>8761915
>He spent fuck knows how much time ripping through every post I made,
did you really not know archive searches are a thing?
also, thanks for confirming that the same sad tosser did indeed make all those posts.

>>8762289
>Surface forcing represents a complementary, underutilized resource with which to quantify the effects of rising CO2 concentrations on downwelling longwave radiation. This quantity is distinct from stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing at the tropopause, but both are fundamental measures of energy imbalance caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases. The former is less than, but proportional to, the latter
Your whole argument is based on the increase in downwelling radiation being smaller than the top-of-atmosphere imbalance, allegedly because natural forcings are filling the gap, and yet you post this quote? If one quantity is smaller than but proportional to another, an increase by the same factor will result in an arithmetically larger increase of the latter than of the former. (Put in a less convoluted manner, 5% more of 500 is bigger than 5% more of 100, even though they increase by the same factor.) Do you understand simple arithmetic?

>>8762293
>As shown earlier, the answer is a mere one-third.
as shown earlier, you're comparing two different quantities to get this figure.
>99% of wavelengths that CO2 can absorb have already been absorbed at 200 ppm.
>CO2 is doing almost as much as it possibly can. That's why most of the warming is natural.
[citation needed] on that. but more importantly, you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how greenhouse gases work. it's not about what fraction of CO2 gets absorbed at some point in the atmosphere; it's about how many times the average photon is absorbed and reemitted. because every time it's reemitted, it travels in a random direction; each "absorption thickness" effectively sends half the CO2 back down to the surface.

File: welcome to sci.png (304KB, 527x308px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 527x308px

>>8762300
>Oceans have warmed a few hundredths of a degree well within measurement error
um, citation fucking needed? the shallow oceans have warmed significantly more than that.
also, the point I'm making is not that the oceans have warmed, but rather that your interpretation completely discounts all possibility of oceanic warming.
>Solar variability? That would be more an effect of down-welling radiation.
Um, exactly how do you propose that solar variability is an effect of changes in down-welling radiation here on Earth?
Assuming you simply mistyped and meant to say that solar variability can AFFECT down-welling radiation, that is perfectly true but misses the point I made. Because other things can also affect down-welling radiation, it's irresponsible to ignore solar variability. if you see a decrease in down-welling radiation, for example, is that indicative of a decrease in greenhouse gases or of a decrease in solar output?

>muh (solar activity mediated) cosmic rays
first off, most of your cited references DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your claim that the purported effect is driving the observed warming. BTFO as usual.
secondly, solar activity is trending slightly downward, not upward, which (under the logic you're pushing) would cause cooling, not warming.

>>8762304
iwin.bmp

Whether or not we are causing climate change is very hard to determine, but a huge issue that we can directly link to human industrial activity is rising CO2.
Aside from suspected greenhouse gas effects, we have caused acidification in ocean ecosystems, which cannot be reversed, and this has resulted in dropping species diversity and huge changes in the food web and biological oxygen production.

>>8762401
>Whether or not we are causing climate change is very hard to determine
It's literally not and we've known for decades.

>>8762300
>Oceans have warmed a few hundredths of a degree well within measurement error; notice a theme here?
That you're full of shit?

>the interaction of clouds and their creation via (solar activity mediated) cosmic rays is something that most Climate "Scientists" ignore. Because its not anthropogenic.
Why the fuck can't you stop lying?

>>8762368
>(((simulations)))

>>8762459
Are you seriously going to start trying to cast doubt via buzzwords on your own sources after someone pointed out they disagree with you?

Stop.