Questioning global warming

>>8868802
But humans didn't exist back then, so going back to those climates will bring back those good old days.

“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” - June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor

“It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” - 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist
“In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.” - March 29, 2001, CNN

“The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.” - October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan

“Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.” - July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post

“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.” - April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet

1) https://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html
>The IPCC: A View From the Inside," by John W. Zillman, August 1997
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change

2) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html
>Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
>June 10, 1997

3) https://worldhistoryproject.org/topics/global-warming/page/1
>United Nations
>2009

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0707.1161

>Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-runaway-greenhouse/

>“We’ve estimated how much carbon dioxide would be required to get this steamy atmosphere, and the answer is about 30,000 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is actually good news in terms of anthropogenic climate change,” Goldblatt says. Thirty thousand ppm is about 10 times more carbon dioxide than most experts estimate could be released from burning all available fossil fuels, he notes, although such high values could in theory be reached by releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s vast deposits of limestone and other carbonate rocks.

File: 1493419390769.jpg (58KB, 448x319px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 448x319px

Ice melting started much before industrial pollutants reached considerable levels all around the globe, as the main industries were located in some european capitals in mid XIX century and human efforts continued being the main resource

Source: 'International industrialization levels from 1750 to 1980', The Journal of European Economic History, nº 11, 2 (1982)

>List of climate-skeptic people disappeared in very strange circumstances

>John Daly
>Michael Crichton (whom also attacked genetic studies in his book "Next" and "Fear State")
https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/michael-crichton-dies/?_r=1
>Thomas Landscheidt

>List of people who believes in global warming that got killed to not letting your suspect about the death of above people and whom Peter Wadhams says they died in 'strange circumstances because they know too much too' (lol)

>Seymour Laxon (died by stairs)
>Katherine Giles (died by truck)
>Tim Boyd (died by lighting ray)

>List of people that left IPCC due to alleged inside-fraud and malpractising

>Zbgniew Jawaroski
>Hal Lewis
>Vicent Gray
>Mohaf Latif

there was also no life on land, very little physiologically complex life even in the oceans, and a near-total absence of herbivory, with almost all animals being predators or detritivores.
it's almost as if past ecosystems were different from modern ones.

>>8868818
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-runaway-greenhouse/
>it would be really hard to turn Earth into Venus, but we could maybe do it if we really wanted to for some autismal reason
surely this proves your """"point"""" that CO2 emissions are grossly maligned! nothing bad could possibly happen!

File: OP.jpg (246KB, 1500x943px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1500x943px

Ignore this thread. Someone with Autism is having a bit of a tantrum after everyone ignored his stupidity in the other climate change thread, so he made his own. Literally copy-pasting the same shitposts you made there too, how pathetic.

>>8868802
rate of change

File: Bitch please.gif (3MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x169px

>>8868823
nothing about glaciers is in the listed source.
and for that matter, how is it that the figure displays data through ~2005, when the paper you claim to have gotten it from was only published in 1982?

why must deniers always lie about where their copy-pasted, unsourced, poorly labeled, and misleadingly scaled figures come from?

>>8868829

>nothing bad could possibly happen!

>Nothing bad could possibly happend from oxygen. Oh wait it was the cause of one of the biggest massive extinctions on earth nvm lololo

>but this doesn't answer a fuck about the carbon thingy!

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TIV65IJHHHB4NC37C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzYfJP-HWcQ

>“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues.“Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

---------------------------

P.S.:
1) CFC were forbidden in 1996 but the climate continues being at risk (according to experts lol).

2) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf

>>8868802
>Although diverse life forms prospered in the oceans, the land was comparatively barren—with nothing more complex than a microbial soil crust
Yup, sounds great. #MakeAmericaBarrenAgain!

>>8868802
sun's output was lower

File: didn't read.gif (1MB, 720x412px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x412px

>>8868818
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0707.1161
>invokes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in order to claim that the planetary greenhouse effect can't possibly be real
>implying the Earth and its atmosphere are a closed system
stoppedreadingthere.bmp

this is pretty autismal even for a denier meme

File: In2017.png (7KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 640x480px

>>8868809
I'm sure C3 updated their graph and posted it again, right?

>>8868847

dunno, maybe because both the graphic and the research belong to two different sources that you can google research?

Just saying.

>>8868881
"Woodfortrees.org" sounds legit

This is why this shit cannot be taken seriously, the constant cooking the books and shitty models - the whole CO2 meme is just to push the carbon tax Jew. Now obviously I don't want shitty air like China to the point I'm wearing a SARS mask but the muh co2 shit people are waking up to

File: Back to pol.png (322KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 546x700px

>>8868937
>>>/pol/
take your middle school-tier funposting elsewhere

>>8868937
The source is irrelevant, what is plotted is the data that is sourced directly from RSS / NOAA ESRL

Let me guess, NOAA / RSS isn't a legitimate either to you in your moronic conspiracy mindset, no?

This is why arguing with you loons isn't worth the time or effort. It's all conjecture and conspiracy without the slightest sign of critical thinking. I don't know why I waste my time.

>>8868889
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

>>8868937
the carbon tax jew

>>8868814
>but earned a lot of money meanwhile
hahahahahhahahah

>>8868937
>shitty models
I would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

I'm especially interested in the circumstances under which you consider a model to be shitty.

>>8868978

>the onset of glacier recession and the output of significant industrial carbon dioxide coincide closely. Putting a divide at the start of hydrocarbon production is a bit of sleight of hand, a subterfuge to distract from an actual close correlation. Why don't the slopes match more closely? There could be many causes, but the list would certainly include the 19th century clearing of farmland and deforestation of North America. Those both would contribute significantly to carbon dioxide output.

No, and my arguments are the following:

1) The figure assumes an increasing in coal and wood usage since the exact beggining of 1800 and doesn't make any difference according to the few places where it took place (very differently with the vehicle and industrial usage that we do nowadays, where cars and factories are in every single city OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, and not only Germany, France and England as in their beginnings... I doubt that the pollution was so high to contaminate THE WHOLE WORLD so much from 1800-1870 from such few contaminating points as these three cities were, the trend doesn't make any difference and the growing is literally the same). Besides, coal and wood had to wait until 1860-70 to be notorious or the main reason for the glaciers to shorten.

2) The graphic data doesn't count with the Great Depression from late XIX century. There it should be a decreasing in the glacier shortening since coal and wood weren't so used as in decades before.

>>8869493

[math]Yeah[/math][math]but[/math][math]where[/math][math]are[/math][math]the[/math][math]spectrums[/math][math]here?[/math]

>>8869493

Your arguments are wrong because Jews. It's as simple as that. How do you feel that I can negate every single sentence you write by summoning the Jew hatred?

>>8869289
cuz it says what I don't like and global warming is a hoax therefore it's bad!

>>8868870

What is that which makes a system closed?

>>8869493

you are wrong anon, your data doesn't fit with the conclussions

File: rebuttal.jpg (216KB, 758x997px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 758x997px

>>8869852
a system is closed if there is no exchange of energy, matter, or force with its surroundings. the only truly closed system is the universe itself.


>>8869493
>I doubt that the pollution was so high to contaminate THE WHOLE WORLD
nice argument from incredulity. just because it doesn't sound right to you doesn't mean it's not true.

>>8870193

I'm pretty sure that a single active vulcan like Paricutin or Krakatoa emits 10 times more CO2 that any industry from the XIX century you can give as example; needless to say a whole vulcan pacific belt

>>8868802
You're quite right OP, why don't you prove all of science wrong and go breathe in some Cambrian atmosphere. About ten minutes worth should do it.

File: volcano-v-fossilfuels-1750-2013-lrg_0.png (49KB, 3437x1550px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 3437x1550px

>>8870246
No, you're dead wrong. You could have prevented making yourself look like a retard, shame you lack the basic skills to do a simple amount of research. The funny thing is, your Krakatoa anecdote is so old, and is a complete myth. It really goes to show how plain ignorant lies and deception spread through climate change denial circles continue to circulate despite being disproven.

This is why climate change denial exists, people like yourself rely on anecdotes and hearsay to form their opinions on empirical science, instead of searching for the facts, which begs the question, why is someone like you even posting on a science board?

First off, when we're talking about Volcanism and climate, volcanos can actually drastically reduce global temperatures after a massive eruption, causing a volcanic winter in which global average temperatures drop a few degrees C. This last occurred in 1991 with the eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines, which dropped global temperatures 0.5°C from 1991-1993. This is due to the amount of stratospheric ash and SO2 that gets ejected high into the stratosphere during a massive eruption like this.


Volcanoes emit CO2, yes, but the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is absolutely dwarfed by the cumulative emissions of CO2 every year by industry, transportation and energy generation.

Let's do a comparison. Last year, human civilization emitted ~38.2 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This number has generally increased every year for decades due to increased energy usage in developing countries.

On average, volcanoes emit <1 billion tons annually in CO2 emissions. That's but a tiny fraction of what humans emit each year. Even an absolutely massive volcanic eruption like Krakatoa wouldn't emit as much as humans emit each year through industry, though it would likely cause a brief global cooling event like Pinatubo.

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

49KB, 740x419px

>>8870246
in addition to what >>8870304 posted, a few threads ago someone argued that a single supervolcano eruption would dwarf human CO2 emissions.
I did the math, and it turns out that even if a HUGE eruption (comparable to the one that created the Fish Canyon Tuff) happened, and the magma feeding it was quite gas-rich, the total CO2 emitted would still be only 1/3rd of what human activity produces in a year.

It's absolutely insane that people like you are still parroting that meritless claim about volcanoes. The correct answer to your conjecture is easy to find, but you lot aren't actually interested in facts of any sort.

Why are global warming """"skeptics"""" so stupid?

File: CO2.jpg (36KB, 432x307px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 432x307px

>>8869493
>The figure assumes an increasing in coal and wood usage since the exact beggining of 1800 and doesn't make any difference according to the few places where it took place
What the fuck? This reads like gibberish to me.

If we look at the actual greenhouse gas concentrations, and not just a few conveniently picked sources, we see that the exponential increase correlates very well with glacier shortening at 1800.

>2) The graphic data doesn't count with the Great Depression from late XIX century. There it should be a decreasing in the glacier shortening since coal and wood weren't so used as in decades before.
There was no slowdown in GHGs during the Great Depression.

File: 1.1.png (140KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x486px

>>8868802

>>8870321
Not to mention that large volcano eruptions cause much more cooling by blocking out sunlight than by the greenhouse effect of the CO2 it releases...

File: CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png (111KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1440x1080px

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas that retains more of the sun's heat? Yes.

Is human activity putting more CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes.

Will this cause of the end of the world or at the very lease human civilization? If you answer 'yes', you're just one step above a manic street preacher claiming Armageddon is just around the corner. Yes, excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could be the end of us all, but past predictions as >>8868813 pointed out has been wrong. The issue with AGW how much an effect will CO2 will have on the climate. Climate models are just that-models. If they aren't accurately predicting changes to the climate, then go back and fix the models before announcing the end of the world.

>>8869493
>1) The figure assumes an increasing in coal and wood usage since the exact beggining of 1800 and doesn't make any difference according to the few places where it took place (very differently with the vehicle and industrial usage that we do nowadays, where cars and factories are in every single city OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, and not only Germany, France and England as in their beginnings... I doubt that the pollution was so high to contaminate THE WHOLE WORLD so much from 1800-1870 from such few contaminating points as these three cities were, the trend doesn't make any difference and the growing is literally the same).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/05/26/year-without-a-summer-1816-mount-tambora/84855694/

Some of this warming in the 1800's, if not most of it, is probably the climate returning to normal after a massive eruption ejected 19 cubic miles of volcanic ash into the atmosphere.

>>8870362
>Will this cause of the end of the world or at the very lease human civilization?
Strawman.

>but past predictions as >>8868813 pointed out has been wrong.
None of those predictions were made by scientists, except for the fake quote attributed to Carl Sagan who was incorrectly paraphrased, and the fake quote Lubos Motl who didn't even *exist* in 1969 and is a climate change denier.

>The issue with AGW how much an effect will CO2 will have on the climate. Climate models are just that-models. If they aren't accurately predicting changes to the climate
But they are. You're in the last stage of denial, time to accept the scientific evidence instead of listening to bloggers who need to lie and misquote.

>>8870304

>"This is due to the amount of stratospheric ash and SO2 that gets ejected high into the stratosphere during a massive eruption like this. "

>No CO2 involved at all, CO2 doesn't contribute
>ohwait

https://scienceblog.com/8318/clean-skiesfaster-global-warming/

It's even possible that CO2 has no direct relation with any increasing in temperatures as its hypothetical originator:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264003309_Phanerozoic_Climatic_Zones_and_Paleogeography_with_a_Consideration_of_Atmospheric_CO2_Levels

Reminder: 65,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs lived in a climate with 3,300 ppm. Not a single one died because of that

----------------------
>"the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is absolutely dwarfed by the cumulative emissions of CO2 every year by industry, transportation and energy generation. "

Agriculture emmits THE MOST AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE CO2 and nobody talks about it:

1)http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Salinger%202007.pdf

2)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000503/full

3)https://szie.hu//file/tti/archivum/Algaidi_Dissertation.pdf
http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf

File: Christy deception.gif (193KB, 1396x919px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1396x919px

>>8870362
Oh wow, another denier myth that refuses to die. Funny how people like yourself can never admit when they're wrong.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

<<[...]First, let me point out that some warming is not such a bad thing. IT IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED THAT INCREASED CARBON DIOXIDE IS GOOD FOR PLANTS. THEY GROW FASTER AND REQUIRE LESS WATER. A slightly longer growing season is not a negative either. It is simply not factual to suggest that global warming is responsible for increases in severe weather, including hurricanes, tornados, floods, and droughts. Storms, in particular, have not shown any real increase in frequency or intensity.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and one of the lead authors of the IPCC report, said, “Hurricanes are not increasing. Tornados are not increasing. Storms and droughts do not show any pattern of increasing or decreasing . . . . Variations of climate have always occurred, even when humans could not have had any impact.”>>*

Source: James K. Glassman, in “Administration in the Balance,” March 8, 2001, Wall Street Journal.

Extracted from: https://www.probe.org/global-warming/?print=print

Beck (2007) showed that data about CO2 levels extracted from ice bubbles from pre-industrial stages were wrong, as clathrates distort the results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_compound

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

At first, the levels found were about 350 ppm. Further researchs that beared in mind these processes showed higher levels of about 500 ppm.

https://books.google.es/books?id=aObzJfC5D4IC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=Neftel+1982+500+ppm&source=bl&ots=YPGQrXfmOp&sig=cuNjHlCFEejDuWtBYzaQNb9BMcQ&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic5tOnwMrTAhWBvBQKHYZQBEYQ6AEIOTAG#v=onepage&q=Neftel%201982%20500%20ppm&f=false

File: co2-stationary-source-by-category.jpg (71KB, 800x451px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x451px

>>8870375
>This is due to the amount of stratospheric ash and SO2 that gets ejected high into the stratosphere during a massive eruption like this.
How exactly does that respond to the fact that volcanoes do not emit 10 times more CO2 than any industry, which you claimed?

>It's even possible that CO2 has no direct relation with any increasing in temperatures as its hypothetical originator:
It's possible, just like unicorns are possible. Your source doesn't say that by the way.

>Reminder: 65,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs lived in a climate with 3,300 ppm. Not a single one died because of that
Yes, because the dinosaurs and the ecosystem they relied evolved for that climate. You are not a dinosaur, you know that right?

>Agriculture emmits THE MOST AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE CO2 and nobody talks about it:
Nobody talks about it because IT'S DEAD WRONG. And none of your sources come even close to saying agriculture is the largest source of CO2.

>>8870412

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf

>>8870414
>And none of your sources come even close to saying agriculture is the largest source of CO2.

>Agriculture
>Since 8.000 b.c.

>Industries
>Since 1900

>how is it possible that a man can be this autistic

>>8868802
Also, the sun has been heating up at a slow but constant rate since then. I wonder if that has anything to do with this.

>>8870414
>Nobody talks about it because IT'S DEAD WRONG. And none of your sources come even close to saying agriculture is the largest source of CO2.
Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the air shows that the change is due primarily to fossil fuels. Therefore your point here is wrong.

>>8870412
>Beck (2007)
Long debunked pathological science.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

Deniers just can't stop themselves from getting BTFO.

>>8870434
Agriculture since 8000 BC has had a negligible impact on CO2 concentrations compared to industry you utter moron. None of your sources claim otherwise. Stop lying you piece of shit.

>>8870550
What are you talking about? Read what I wrote again.

>>8870644
Sorry about that.

>Scientific article
>you piece of shit
>ARTICLE DEBUNKED

Now I see how /sci/ works

>>8870631
>debunked pathological
OK, I looked at the site.
>In Dashiell Hammett’s story The Golden Horseshoe, much of the action takes place in a bar of that name in Tijuana.

Are we talking about a serious scientific study here, anon? Why not provide a direct link to an authoritative peer reviewed article?

>>8870700
Failure to respond to the argument. You lose.

>>8870683
>Posts article from Energy and Environment, headed by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is quoted as stating the purpose of the journal is to "[follow] my political agenda -- a bit, anyway"
Another quote from this person.
>I'm not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change

Here's a good read on why E&E is such a awful journal:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat

>The journal also published a much-maligned analysis suggesting that levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could go up and down by 100 parts per million in a year or two, prompting marine biologist Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California to write a response to the journal, in which he asked: "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"

This is the paper you're referring too by the way.

Yeah, sure sounds like a credible source to get your academic articles on climate science from, right?

There's also this critique of the methods of Beck here:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635

Also a good read on the paper from RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

tl;dr - Beck's methods are trash, and if he submitted this paper to any other scientific journal that doesn't cater to sceptics, it would not pass peer review.

>>8870700
So basically, instead of reading the critique, you decided to cave into your cognitive bias at literally the second paragraph of the article, because oh no, we can't dare be skeptical of bogus claims published in a low impact, non-respectable journal edited by a climate change contrarian. Pathetic. Maybe take the time to read the criticisms of the article and then respond to them with your own evidence and critique, what are you so afraid of?

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

33KB, 746x691px

>>8870382
>Agriculture emmits THE MOST AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE CO2
land use changes only account for 10-30% of CO2, according to Salinger (2007)
why must deniers cite sources that BTFO their own claims? could it be that they haven't actually read the papers and are merely repeating claims they heard from some other idiot?
>and nobody talks about it:
the IPCC devotes big chunks of their reports to agriculture and the effects of deforestation, you nitwit
>https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
>https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/srl-en.pdf

>>8870412
>http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
Oh look, another graph showing higher CO2 levels pre-1855, back when they didn't have a way to accurately measure CO2 levels and everything was open-system and therefore contaminated by the lab environment (urban).
>At first, the levels found were about 350 ppm. Further researchs that beared in mind these processes showed higher levels of about 500 ppm.
Your link references Neftel et al. (1982), but you're badly distorting their results.
>http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/neftel82-85.pdf
As you can see in Figure 1, the samples in which high (>350 ppm) CO2 concentrations were recorded are all prone to enormous experimental uncertainties (error bars with spans of 100-250 ppm), and all but one were observed to be contaminated with drill fluid, casting doubt on the accuracy of those readings. Additionally, though the overall trend in CO2 content closely matched that of the d18O signal (proxy for size of icecaps), there are no excursions in the isotopic signal that correspond to the observed spikes in CO2 concentration.
All this just goes to show that you should read the papers you cite instead of just claiming they prove your point. Because actual geoscientists like me WILL read them, and we'll quickly realize whether you're serious or just full of shit.

>>8868802
>not a single living being seemed to die
obvious bait is obvious

>>8870787
The sad part is that it's not bait, and there are genuinely people this gullible / stupid posting among us on /sci/.

>>8870768

Here you have it, Geoscientist guy. Meet Bill Nye and his point of view about man-made CO2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m14s

“In other words, humans have altered the climate so drastically we’ve almost certainly avoided another ice age.”

So you can disagree and accept human CO2 wasn't so important, or accept that human CO2 has saved us from global ice age.

Because, you know, spectrums. :^)

>>8870768

I'm with you, man! I truly believe CO2 is the originator of global warming, as Bill Nye showed in his Climate 101 experiment which I reproduced... but... well... I guess I'm a brainlet so... I couldn't get the same results so... BUT BILL NYE DID IT SO ANYWAY

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

>>8870798
Oh, I see, so you've been BTFO by multiple people in multiple posts, so you're again deflecting and trying to change the subject because you've lost the argument.

Can you sink any lower?

File: 0 out of 10.jpg (52KB, 600x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x509px

>>8870798
the coming ice age is scheduled for ~8300 years in the future.
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900567
assuming human civilization is still around, we'll be able to adapt to the gradual cooling (especially given the kinds of technology we'll likely have at our disposal then). the sudden (century-scale) disruption currently caused by climate change is far more threatening, and the (uncertain) prospect of tipping over to a hothouse condition (no ice caps, no precessional ice ages) is even more so. ice ages aren't nearly as scary as you want to believe.

nice false dichotomy though, have a smuganimeface.jpg

>>8870809
>MUH WHATABOUTISM
Oh look, he continues to fail to respond to a single point made here
>>8870764

here
>>8870768

or here
>>8870392

Or, when you got BTFO earlier here
>>8870304
>>8870321

and once again quickly tried to change the subject once you realized that you were wrong.

So let's see, how many times have you been incorrect / wrong in this thread so far? That's at least 3 times from just those posts, and 0 times have you refuted a single contradiction to your """arguments."""

Keep on going kid, bring up Bill Nye, someone who isn't a climate scientist and has nothing to do with this thread because you have to deflect so hard.

I honestly feel sorry for you.

I've found a rather interesting page, what do you guys think? :D

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-d/

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-q/

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-r/

>>8870838

I think that your sources are shit because they are not published in a SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC RESPECTAB...

>>8870631

ok nvm

File: card.jpg (77KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 512x512px

>>8870838
>CO2 can't possibly make a difference because there's comparatively little of it in the atmosphere!
again, argument from incredulity. just because you don't THINK a minor constituent can't have a big effect doesn't mean it actually can't; a (sufficiently sensitive) balance with ten tons on each side will tip if you add ten grams to one side.

>le 1998-to-present graph
this cherry-picked interval has been so thoroughly debunked already it's hardly even worth addressing

File: Untitled.png (73KB, 731x411px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 731x411px

>>8870412
>Beck (2007) showed that data about CO2 levels extracted from ice bubbles from pre-industrial stages were wrong, as clathrates distort the results

Ice core scientist here, this claim is absolute dogshit. The occurrences of clathrate/brittle ice in ice cores are well known from the beginning days of ice coring. Clathrate can only form under very high overburden pressure. The clathrate in conventional ice core usually form beyond 200m

See
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268687179_A_review_of_the_brittle_ice_zone_in_polar_ice_cores

and pic related is a table from said paper. The start and end of clathrate ice phase is well documented in every single ice core we have drilled. Now I want you to focus on Law dome, because Law dome is a very high snow accumulation and hence high resolution ice core that is traditionally used to splice the Mauna Loa Keeling curve into preindustrial data like they did here
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/faq_cat-3.html

Now let's go to the real law dome data that has been made available publicly
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt

Say for the sake of argument you're right (for the record, you're not), that clathrate interferes with gas measurement from ice cores. You can see that in Law Dome at ~100m depth CO2 already plunges down to preindustrial value of 300ppm. This is nowhere near the brittle ice zone of ~500-1200m in the ice where the overburden pressure is enough to generate clathrates. So even if you're right, that clathrates interferes with CO2 measurements in ice core, the ice core CO2 measurements from Law Dome is nowhere near the brittle clathrate zones.

How can someone be so dumb, misinformed, and BTFO so hard Jesus Christ

>>8871612
Just to clarify further in case anyone is interested, theoretically YES CO2 and other gas measurements from clathrate zone in ice cores is indeed affected slightly.

However, we can correct for the alteration very precisely. Overburden pressure in clathrate ice causes the ice matrix to lose its integrity and allows for gas diffusion. 80% of air is N2, and 20% is O2. N2 and O2 gas have different diameter and diffuses at different rate. From the ratio of O2/N2 in the ice core bubbles, we can calculate the degree of diffusive alteration and hence correct the CO2 values of said ice.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036737/full

>>8870700
>Are we talking about a serious scientific study here, anon? Why not provide a direct link to an authoritative peer reviewed article?
There you go
>>8871612
>>8871619

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/

"Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to what was predicted by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists to predict how much carbon dioxide emissions will warm the planet.

What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred."

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

NO ONE CAN SAY THAT, ALMOST TWENTY YEARS LATER, EARTH IS WARMER THAN IN 1998.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

File: 1.jpg (1MB, 2170x1430px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2170x1430px

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/the-gore-a-thon-on-wuwt/

>>8868961
>RSS isn't a legitimate
you got that right, RSS was admitted to be faulty in march 2016

>>8868802
The issue is that our society is built around current temperatures rather than higher ones with higher water levels.

>>8872039
But the climate changes regardless of our actions. It has in the past, and it will in the future. Nothing is static, so we have to adapt.

Trying to control the climate to keep it in a pseudo static condition so humans can keep up their current population numbers, isn't going to do any good.

The best solution is to allow things to continue like they are. The crash will come, and with it, countless human death. Things will balance out and the societies that emerge will be better off for it.

Every global warming thread
bunch of graphs
graphs graphs graphs graphs graphs graphs
going insane boys
cant take it anymore

File: catosurfacetemps-e1451330094752.png (39KB, 561x342px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 561x342px

>>8871886
>What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.
Wrong. What the data shows is that the models agree very well with observation. Their false interpretation of that data was a foregone conclusion.

>>8871891
>NO ONE CAN SAY THAT, ALMOST TWENTY YEARS LATER, EARTH IS WARMER THAN IN 1998.
This really illustrates how dishonest and deranged you people are. 1998 was a huge El Nino spike. The Earth has been warming at the rate predicted by climatologists since then and has not yet reached that spike (except for the 2016 El Nino). Funny how the statement is not "NO ONE CAN SAY THAT, ALMOST 1 YEAR LATER, EARTH IS WARMER THAN IN 2016"

You really are lying dishonest scum, and your namefagging is highly accurate.

>>8871943
>MUH AL GORE
Fuck off retard.

>>8872056
>But the climate changes regardless of our actions. It has in the past, and it will in the future.
The climate has never warmed this fast. Such fast warming is very harmful for humans and the ecosystem.

>Nothing is static, so we have to adapt.
If you actually want to fix the problem then mitigation is just as important as adaption to it.

>Trying to control the climate to keep it in a pseudo static condition so humans can keep up their current population numbers, isn't going to do any good.
Why not? It sounds much better than the alternative to me.

>>8872277

>Why not? It sounds much better than the alternative to me.

Science, you bunch nasty ugly utterly faggotry nonsenseless branch of pile of dicks put in a pile and burnt into ashes in front of all your dead family members, is not what sounds much better to you.

>>8871886
>>8871891
>>8871925
>>8871943
>OP gets BTFO over and over again, doesn't respond to a single post refuting anything he posts
>Shitposts even more bullshit links to WUWT

I thought you couldn't sink any lower, but you keep proving me wrong.

>>8872385
What kind of autistic babbling is this? You can't even string together a coherent sentence.

File: climatecycles.png (2MB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1891x4901px

Alarmists BTFO

How will they ever recover?

>>8870743
I posed two very simple questions. You failed both. Well done, anon, are you a warmer?

>>8870764
>So basically, instead of reading the critique
Oh I read the critique. That is exactly why I asked the two questions you somehow failed to understand.

I prefer to get my information closer to te source than someone who brings in noir fiction into what allegedly is serious science.

Speak like a clown, be treated like a clown. Just don't get surprised.

>>8872416

This is nonsense babbling

>>8872408
>I thought you couldn't sink any lower, but you keep proving me wrong.
They don't care about what's correct. Ironically, they only care about what's POLITICALLY correct, what fits the agenda etc.

/pol/ has become a parody.

>>8872544
You firm analysis, clear headed articulation and sheer brilliance dazzle me no end, anon.

Indubitably you are what all warmers aspire to. We submit to your greatness.

>>8872544
His graphs all check out on google and he is talking in a logical and coherent manner. I find that Russian very convincing. Care to explain why you perceive it as "nonsense babbling"?

File: 1486052986035.gif (859KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 500x281px

>>8872541
Yet you completely ignored the OTHER SOURCES that were provided here: >>8870764
You also failed to respond to a single point either me or the other guy who refuted this bullshit E&E study said.
As well as the debunking of this garbage study posted on RealClimate, a website that is run and contributed to by actual climate scientists.


>>8872544
>>8872416
It really is, it's a shitty cropped image of some garbage posts on /pol/ that you're taking as gospel. How fucking pathetic, that's where you go to get your information on climate science? A random shitposter on /pol/, not the scientific literature? I've been over that shitty image dozens of times and you retards just keep posting it. I'm not going to waste my breath yet again, suffice to say that everything in that image is inaccurate and not based on the evidence, it's just a bunch of nonsense spewed from some random russian shitposter.


>>8872553
>>8872557
>Hs graphs all check out on google

kek, you are one dumb gullible fuck, aren't you? Learn to be skeptical of whatever nonsense you read on /pol/ or your shitty denial blogs.

The fourth graph for example in that image I already went over here in this thread:

Read the sources I posted and understand why it's a garbage graph. Some of the other graphs he uses he ripped from places like Wikipedia, but his interpretation and analysis of the graphs is completely invalid and inaccurate, yet you trust everything this stupid shitposter says because you're that stupid yourself.

It doesn't even matter if I go into extreme detail debunking everything that guy says with sources, it won't change your cognitive biases, so there is no point. You've reached a level of delusion in which there is no coming back from your biases. This is known as Group Polarization. Learn to understand your own cognitive biases and be a true skeptic, not a pseudo-skeptic who laps up whatever contrarian opinion says about something widely accepted.

File: fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1.png (1MB, 2633x1350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2633x1350px

Here's also an updated image (From January 2017) showing various climate models compared to the current observations.

File: LawDomeMLO-1.png (47KB, 799x547px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 799x547px

>>8872416
>Figure 1,2 and 6 pertains to geologic scale estimated temperature change as you see the axis is in million of years.
What's concerning about AGW is the rate of change, the Earth has never warm faster definitively in the last 800ka of ice core records, the maximum extent of which high res paleoclimate data is available. We're even pumping greenhouse gas/hydrocarbon into the atmosphere at faster rate than PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum), the tip of figure 1 where the earth was at its warmest in the past 65 million years.

>figure 3 is deceptive because it only shows last glacial maximum - current interglacial sea level change
Of course sea level rise as the north american ice sheet melts over the transition between interglacial - glacial state. However we're now moving BEYOND interglacial state. Why don't you plot sea level reconstruction from the last interglacial and show that our current sea level is already beyond the usual quarternary interglacials?

>figure 4
That figure is straight up from WUWT. It cherrypicked balloon and satellite dataset that has been debunked over and over again. Do you really think there's only 4 balloon datasets and 2 satellite datasets available with terrible resolution? Why not plot Berkeley Earth, HadCRUT, or NOAA surface station data against model projection?

>figure 5
The poster claims that the measurement techniques between ice cores and atmospheric monitoring is different. If anything, since releasing gas from ice cores involves an extra step, one should expect that gas measurements from ice cores have higher blanks and biased towards the higher side than atmospheric measurement, which goes counter against the poster's claim.

Also we've shown as in pic related, that in high accumulation site like Law Dome, Antarctica you can splice the CO2 record in the ice core right into Mauna Loa data.

What else do you got bitch? I'll BTFO every pasta you have all day

>>8872605
>>8872585

based

Lol, are there still people that believe in this fake science? After multiple climategates have revealed major manipulation with primary data? Is it not obvious that climate "science" solely consists in models full of unknown parameters without any control in place? It is all used for a political agenda, idiots.
>>8872585
>haha /pol/ memes
>>8872585
No way that the temperature has increased since 1997, cooked numbers you are showing here.
>>8872605
Nothing you are saying here comes even close to attacking Russian's first point: demonstrate modern deviation on the historical trend in a statistical way. Moreover, accusations of cherrypicking and deception from alarmists are hilarious.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

1st archive https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

The reply http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X

And the answer to the reply https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf&embedded=true

>>8872737

"In our falsification paper we have shown that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects as takenfor-granted concepts in global climatology do not fit into the scientific realm of theoretical and applied physics.

Halpern et al. did not refute our conclusions. Rather, they make false statements about the contents of our paper, on which they erect their system of objections. Their main mistakes are:

1. Halpern et al. make false statements about the contents and the rationale of our paper.
2. Halpern et al. do not understand what a physical effect really is.
3. Halpern et al. - adapting Georg Hoffmann’s view - apparently do not know how to apply the second law of thermodynamics.
4. Halpern et al. do not understand our critique on the abuse of diagrams in the context of simplistic radiative balance models.
5. Halpern et al. like many others do not understand that any supposed warming effect (or cooling effect) cannot be derived from spectroscopic analyses or radiative transfer equations.
6. Halpern et al. neither define a greenhouse effect nor offer a mechanism how the concentration change of the trace gas CO2 influences the climates.
7. Halpern et al. do not recognize the fundamental errors of the paper by Bakan and Raschke.

In summary, the paper of Halpern, Colose, Ho-Stuart, Shore, Smith, and Zimmermann is unfounded [9]."

In the 1920-1930 the Arctic melt more than now, but with much less industries

http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/57/203/j10j134.pdf

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-30 at 2.27.59 PM.png (363KB, 2145x1702px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 2145x1702px

>>8872717
>No way that the temperature has increased since 1997, cooked numbers you are showing here.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

M-MASAKA!! The data doesn't actually conform into my beliefs! The data must be cooked

You're really just embarrassing yourself now /pol/kin

>>8872758
>In the 1920-1930 the Arctic melt more than now, but with much less industries
First off, the study says nothing of the sort, showing that you have no reading comprehension yet again.

You might want to actually read the paper before posting something that doesn't support your own false conclusions. It's almost as if you're, dare I say it, Cherrypicking?

Direct quotes from the study itself:
>We find that 90% of the observed glaciers retreated between 2000 and 2010, approaching 100% in the northwest, with rapid retreat observed in all sectors of the ice sheet. The current retreat is accelerating and likely began between 1992 and 2000, coincident with the onset of warming
So they're talking about global warming causing glacier retreat in the late 20th century, nothing new.

> While it is clear an extensive retreat occurred in the early 20th century, a period of increasing air temperatures, a comparison of our results with historical observations provides evidence that the current retreat is more widespread
So they're saying there was a retreat in the Early 20th century due to rising temperatures, but that the current retreat is much more widespread than the earlier 20th century retreat, nothing we didn't already know.

>The past decade of retreat is the most widespread in the past half-century and possibly since the Little Ice Age. On average, glaciers are retreating quickly in all sectors of the ice sheet. The onset of the current retreat followed a general advance between 1985 and 1992, which occurred at the end of a 60 year cooling period. The slow and relatively limited advance during a period of mid-century cooling suggests a lag of several decades between declining temperatures and marine terminus advance

>This work was funded by grants NNX08AQ83G and
NNX08AL98A from NASA
OH NOES, EVIL NASA GOVERNMENT FUNDING! THE RESULTS ARE SKEWED!
I get it though, actually bothering to read the very things you yourself post is hard for such a brainlet.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-30 at 2.36.03 PM.png (509KB, 1342x885px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1342x885px

>>8872717
>demonstrate modern deviation on the historical trend in a statistical way.

He made a strawman of an argument. He's saying that as long as the temperature average is within climate variability for the last 65 million years it is okay. That's not statistics. Just because he spouted a bunch of statistical buzzwords about baseline, variability and trends doesn't mean he actually knows what he's talking about

As everyone have pointed out and you keep ignoring, what matters is the rate of temperature change. Let's take the maximum extent of warming ever recorded in geological time, the PETM maximum. The Earth warms up by 4 degrees in 10 million years, according to the graph you just posted. That amount of warming during the PETM causes a lot of extinctions.

Under the "good" emission scenario, we're expected to warm up by 2C by 2100. That's 2C in 200 years, which is 25,000x faster rate of warming than the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

I don't know why you bother to argue without having an open mind and concede in any point of discussions. You've got BTFO so many times and keep moving the goalpost and posting unrelated pastas for other people to debunk, it's getting embarrassing.

Go take some earth science class, we're not your personal tutors

>>8868818
>the runaway greenhouse effect is impossible
No shit, moron. No scientist claims it is.

>>8872823
You are only supporting my position by bringing data to the fore after the "tweaks", "adjustments", and "corrections" have been applied.
http://motls.blogspot.nl/2013/11/molecule-painter-doubles-warming-trend.html
In other words, the data is indeed cooked.
>>8872859
Moving goalposts? Are you daft? It was warmies that chnaged their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change". The nineties were full of doom and gloom about imminent floods in all coastal zones on the planet. Now its all about vague unfalsifiable phenomeno such as climate refugees and more frequent extreme weather as the end of times dont seem in a rush. Furhtermore, as you can see from the spikes in the record, heavy temperature chnages appear to be the norm.

>>8870392
>Funny how people like yourself can never admit when they're wrong.
That's not what they're paid for, anon.

>>8872960
>Moving goalposts? Are you daft? It was warmies that chnaged their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change".

See how you're moving the goalpost just now and projecting? You were absolutely BTFO in your claim that the warming rate is not unprecedented throughout geologic time. It is absolutely unprecedented, see
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2681.html
>We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.

Again show me a paleoclimate record where the RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE is as fast as 2 degrees over 200 years (under good emission cut projection) or 4 degrees over 200 years (under business as usual). You literally can't.

You're BTFO on each of the specific subject that you brought up, and then keep making other unrelated claim and get BTFO again.

Would you at least admit that the rate of AGW temperature change is unprecedented in the last 65 million years, hence undermining the claim from figure 1,2,and 6 from >>8872416?

I'll happily address the change between 'global warming' and 'climate change' term, but we have to agree on the facts first and with regards to previous discussion, your claim was invalid because the rate of temperature change we're seeing is unprecedented in geological time.

>Again show me a paleoclimate record where the RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE is as fast as 2 degrees over 200 years (under good emission cut projection) or 4 degrees over 200 years (under business as usual). You literally can't.
Younger Dryas

>>We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years.
We were discussing global mean temperature,, not CO2.

File: Uncerstanding Climate Change.jpg (84KB, 788x1129px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 788x1129px

>>8872960
>It was warmies that chnaged their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change".

This is a false narrative that people like you have been pushing in the past few decades. Climate Change as a term has been used for as long as Global Warming has, they are two different phrases that describe different processes. Global warming is the increase in average temperatures on the Earth's climate system due to anthropogenic activity. Climate change describes the changes in the Earth's climate over time, both anthropogenic and natural changes throughout geological history.

Here, for example is a commonly cited example showing the phrase "climate change' being used in the 1970s, from the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report on anthropogenic climate change:
http://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt

A simple search in google scholar using the terms "climate change" and setting a custom year range from the 1950 to 1980 will lead you to thousands upon thousands of scientific papers using the phrase "climate change" to describe the current trend long before your so called "politicization" of the science.

So yet again, you're proven wrong in this thread, and you still continue to hold onto your stupid climate change denial mindset instead of examining your own arguments' credibility. So sad and pitiful.

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

39KB, 570x358px

>>8873005
>Younger Dryas
Not even close. Global temperature rises by 1C over 1000 years.

You might be thinking of Greenland temperature reconstruction in ice cores during the younger dryas where LOCAL temperature increases by 8 degrees in 100 years. If you want to talk about Arctic temperature, then compare apples to apples, since 1980s the Arctic has risen 3 degrees C by itself, on track following the abrupt change during the Younger Dryas.

The difference is that Younger Dryas warming was a seesaw effect, where northern hemisphere warm and southern hemisphere cools (coinciding with Antarctic Cold Reversal (ACR) - Google it) while the current AGW warming is a global warming.

Okay next, what else do you got?

I love watching /pol/ and conservatards get BTFO on here.

File: 1389399799301.jpg (143KB, 833x696px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 833x696px

>kek denier getting BTFO so hard
At this point Akarin had to intervene

Stefan Molyneux also debunks global warming frequently. I don't really think there's much room to argue for it anymore.

>>8873032
>Stefan Molyneux
Molyneux attended the Glendon College of York University, where he was an actor at Theatre Glendon[5] and a member of the Debating Society.[6] He then attended the National Theatre School of Canada in Montreal.[4][7] Molyneux received a B.A. in History from McGill University in 1991 and an M.A. in History from University of Toronto in 1993

>actor
>podcaster
>right wing ideologue
not/sci/

>>8873041

Arguments from authority are not arguments. Why don't you debunk him on his actual channel comments?

>>8873032
>Taking Molymeme seriously

Even /pol/ as moronic as the majority of posters there are, can see through Molymeme's bullshit.

Google Defooing to see just how batshit insane he is.

Also, he got BTFO here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

Deniers so BTFO that they cited Molymemer

Are you gonna cite Alex Jones next?

>>8873050

OK, I believe you, I like Potholer54.

>>8873017
You did not specify it to global. Greenland temperatures rose by 10 degrees C. This demosntrates that there indeed is paleocliamte records indicate an extreme rate of temperature chnage which was the entire point.

>>8873012
So becuase there are instances of "climate chnage" before the 90s, I am supposed to believe "climate chnage" was a key term at that time? Is that what you are tryingh to convey? You dont realize that climate change as a term is so broad that it is meaningless. Furthermore, distancing of the term global warming only after the record warm years 1997 and 98 is kind of obvious, isnt it?

>>8873066
10 degrees C in 10 years*
You have my apology for the numerous typo's.

>>8873066
You didn't finish reading my 2nd point. Greenland warms as Antarctica cools, showing well studied the bipolar seesaw phenomena,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw

In current warming, global temperature is warming at a rate unprecedented compared to other geologic records.

Also Greenland warms 10 degrees C in 100 years, not 10 years.

Currently the Arctic is warming at fairly close rate, about 7 degrees over 100 years

>>8873066
>>8873070
Holy fuck you are retarded. Your entire claim is a moronic conspiracy that
>PEOPLE DON'T USE GLOBAL WARMING ANYMORE THEY CHANGED IT TO CLIMATE CHANGE TO MAKE IT MORE PC!

Which, again, is total and complete nonsense. If you had any actual education or understanding of the scientific literature, you would see that scientists today use Global Warming all the fucking time to describe the anthropogenic impacts on climate, and use climate change all the time to describe the changes in the Earth's climate system over time.

I gave you a source, from 1975, from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. Do you not know what that is, are you that ignorant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences

Again, I told you to go into google scholar, set your custom time range and search the terms Climate Change and see how many results there are that specifically use that phrase in the scientific literature. It's absolutely nothing new, and your delusional conspiracies have no merit or evidence to support them.

The only "distancing" of the terms is all in your retarded infantile conspiracy-nut mindset. You get corrected on your retardation yet again, but instead of saying "Well, maybe I'm wrong on this topic, I should admit I'm wrong and move on," instead you concoct even more mental gymnastics to preserve your cognitive biases yet again.

Think of it this way, since I have to explain this shit to you like you're an infant. GLOBAL WARMING is the most recent, anthropogenic-influences changes to climate. Hence, global warming is Anthropogenic climate change. Climate Change can refer to global warming, and when most people hear the phrase that's what they think, but the term could also be used to describe changes in entire phanerozoic excluding the anthropocene.

>>8873050
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M
that's a very nice youtube channel btw
the guy seems interested in the topic of global warming

thanks bro

>>8872585
>Yet you completely ignored the OTHER SOURCES that were provided here: >>8870764
Of course I did. I addressed ONE posting, not the entire thread. I am under no obligation to comment every single post.

Please stay focussed, OK?

We should be past the argument on whether AGW is real, because it is. If or when there is, yet to come up, evidence of the contrary, then they (the scientific community) will have to adjust the model, create new hypothesis, etc. just like we've been doing for all of history ever since the science method was conceived.

For now, it's the best explanation we have, and we should go past it so the next argument can arise: To what degree does human activity/carbon emissions affect the climate? Can it be stopped? How do we stop it without maiming western industrial capabilities, or affecting it the least possible?

Science must move on, but it can't when these topics are highly politicized and every retard and their mothers think they can opinionate on it. Scientists should be left the fuck alone, they have work to do.

>>8873652

The point is not if there is any climate change.

Because there always was.

The correct points according to literally any HONEST climatologist / geoscientist are:

POINT A) -CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2, NOR BACKWARDS. CO2 CURRENT LEVELS ARE THE EXACTLY SAME WE HAD AT THE CARBONIPHEROUS. AT 65 MILLION YEARS, DINOSAURS LIVED IN A TROPICAL CLIMATE WITH 3,300 PPM OF CO2. VERY RECENT REGISTRIES FROM ICE GOT 500 PPM LEVELS, FROM AGES WHERE FACTORIES WEREN'T BUILT YET SO ANY ISOTOPICAL CO2 ANALYSIS AS SOME NITWITS PRETEND TO HAIL ARE NOTHING BUT USELESS INSTRUMENTS TO DETERMINE THAT ALL CO2 COMES FROM FACTORIES, IGNORING THE CO2 THAT COMES FROM OCEANS, METABOLISM (millions of tons comes from simply human breath)

POINT B) -CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEPENDANT OF SUN HEAT. THE PROPER ORDER WOULD BE: 1) SUN ACTIVITY (HEAT) ---> 2) WATER VAPOR INCREASES TEMPERATURE ----> 3) WATER VAPOR CONTRIBUTES TO INCREASE TEMPERATURES.

POINT C) -CO2 HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE GOOD FOR PLANTS TO GROW HEALTHY. THE AMOUNT OF VEGETABLES AROUND THE ARCTIC HAS INCREASED MUCH MORE NOW THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO, FOLLOWING A MINIMUM INCREASE OF 20 PPM OF CO2. THIS COULD BE BECAUSE SURPRISE! PLANTS ARE EXCELLENTS CO2 LIVING STORES.

POINT D) -MAN-MADE CO2 HAS LITTLE TO NO EFFECT OVER GLOBAL WEATHER AND WILL NEVER HAVE.

POINT E) -STATISTICAL MATHEMATICAL MODELS ABOUT CLIMATE WERE INVENTED BY A CRAZY QUAKER WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO BUT USING DATA IN A TRY TO PREDICT SOMETHING COMPLETELY OUT OF HIS POSSIBILITIES. ALMOST ALL THE MATHEMATICAL MODELS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY RUNNING HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE WRONG AND TO EXAGGERATE THE TEMPERATURES WE WOULD REACH.

>>8872737
>>8872747

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

"Hubert Horace Lamb (22 September 1913 in Bedford – 28 June 1997 in Holt, Norfolk) was an English climatologist who founded the Climatic Research Unit in 1972 in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia."

He numbered a total of eight points to bear in mind in case of another following glaciation, which are as following:

1.- Advancing of internal ice and permafrost (Grennland permanent ice) and glaciars from Island, Norway and Alpes glaciars, which was proven by Johanessen (2005). Check.

2.- Advancing of ice of Arctic sea in North Atlantic around Greenland, blocking navigation paths. Check, even some Greenpeace expeditions had to be rescued by helicopters because of this, which wasn't shown on TV to not getting dishonoured.

3. Decreasing of deforestated zones in european plains, extension of dwamps in Europe and north Russia, increase of rivers and earthslides. Check.

4. Increase of frozen rivers and lakes. Check.

5.- Increase of marine floods and storm severity. Check.

6.- Bad harvest production, increase of bread and wheat prizes all around the world. Check.

7.- Desertion from farms and vineyards. Check.

8.- Increase of incidence of deaths in human and animal populations. Whales, bees, amphibious, etc., that got lost because magnetic changes, which are typical in glaciations. Fucking check.

File: B0EuXuFIcAETnJV.jpg (56KB, 600x305px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x305px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Eddy

https://twitter.com/eddyminimum

http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7yfmrxxlYk

https://books.google.es/books?id=h7Nyq8lV8R4C&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=Eddy+Minimum&source=bl&ots=sxOWknT_rB&sig=mxxMpZk7HC6KJZqBA9w8ohzF_sc&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4L2Jus3TAhXG7hoKHdwsCDsQ6AEIpgEwEQ#v=onepage&q=Eddy%20Minimum&f=false

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282739505_Minimum-dissipation_models_for_large-eddy_simulation

>>8873748
>>8873782

BOOOOM. In da face, mathematical modellers. .i.

File: EPICA_with_current.png (167KB, 894x644px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 894x644px

>>8873680
>VERY RECENT REGISTRIES FROM ICE GOT 500 PPM LEVELS
Specific source on that? I'm an ice core scientist and I don't think in the past 800ka CO2 has passed 300 ppm.

Here's the deal, if you can provide me with a legitimate source of CO2 from ice cores being 500 ppm I'll admit that you're right.

If you can't then you have to admit that you got goofed and your other claims is likely to be wrong too.

>>8873680
Here's some project name of ice core drilling project to help you search.

All peer reviewed ice core data from the Europeans, Russian and the US are kept here
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

I'll be waiting anon, don't let me down

File: TALDICE-site-on-map-of-Antartica.jpg (28KB, 462x352px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 462x352px

>>8873801
Forgot pic

File: Gotta go fast.jpg (98KB, 710x819px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 710x819px

>>8871891
>le 1998 meme
only literal retards are convinced by that argument.

>>8872717
>multiple climategates have revealed major manipulation with primary data?
>multiple climategates
gotta be pretty autismal to think there was more than one "climategate". and you seem to be forgetting that several thorough investigations found no actual manipulation of data.
of course, /pol/luters still think there's a kiddie sex dungeon in the nonexistent basement of a D.C. pizza parlor, so there's no convincing them of anything that disagrees with their opinions.

>>8872960
>bringing data to the fore after the "tweaks", "adjustments", and "corrections" have been applied
>THESE DATA PROVE ME WRONG THEREFORE IS MUST ALL BE FAKE
oddly enough, deniers can never actually show evidence of tampering. they just insist that is MUST have happened. but then when you show them a warming trend in unadjusted data, they cry about the UHI effect and demand that the data be adjusted to account for it.
but apparently adjustments are only valid if they reduce the observed cooling trend, because otherwise you're hurting their fee-fees.
>molecule-painter-doubles-warming-trend.html
Motls never actually rebuts any of the analysis; his entire argument is an ad hominem, claiming that because one of the authors is a computer scientist, not a climatologist, he can't possibly know anything about how to fill in gaps using advanced statistics.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23226792_Global_warming_and_carbon_Dioxide_through_sciences

"[...] Through a further review of related studies and facts from disciplines like biology and geology, where CO(2)-change is viewed from a different perspective, it is suggested that CO(2)-change is not necessarily always a negative factor for the environment. In fact it is shown that CO(2)-increase has stimulated the growth of plants, while the CO(2)-change history has altered the physiology of plants. Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO(2)-content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon. [...]"

File: excuse me.jpg (44KB, 480x451px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x451px

>>8873680
A) Global temperature tracks very nicely with CO2 concentration, no matter which metrics (ice core, stable isotope, etc.) you use. Also, the Carboniferous had CO2 levels 3x the pre-industrial level, except during a glacial epoch at the end of the period.
B) We can measure solar output directly. It's been trending neutral/decreasing for the past several decades, and yet the temperature continues to rise.
C) Increasing CO2 only benefits plants if they're in rich soils that don't limit their growth by the scarcity of iron, nitrate, or phosphate. Soils in the Arctic, which have benefited from warmer temperatures, are extremely poor.
D) At this point you're just denying some fairly basic facts.
E) And at this point you're just autistically bullshitting.

File: Fuck-you.gif (5KB, 316x240px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 316x240px

>>8873801
>>8873804

Here you have it, sir.

Also, chemical measurements “ranging up to 550ppmv” were arbitrarily rejected “by the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and Keeling 1986)”* who "selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values — all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280ppmv as the basis for all further climatic speculations. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950’s (Fonselius et al 1956, Jaworowski et al 1992, Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007”.

*Source: Jaworowski (2007): The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/downloads/scientific_paper_on_global_warming.pdf
---------------------------------------


Another research: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787

(Full paper here: http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/25/blockbuster-paper-finds-just-15-of-co2-growth-since-industrialization-is-due-to-human-emissions/#sthash.KS9ARcnb.dpbs )

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com.es/2017/01/an-argument-why-co2-increase-could-be.html

>>8873833

About point D): read "Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere" from >>8873851

File: Capture8.jpg (46KB, 746x329px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 746x329px

>>8873833
>Global temperature tracks very nicely with CO2 concentration, no matter which metrics (ice core, stable isotope, etc.) you use.

I'm on your side anon but be careful about your claim. In these day and age we have to be very scrupulous in making claims or otherwise our claim will backfire. Just as I can easily debunk many denier claims here, there are equal amount of misinformation on the warmists side, especially in the activism community (so the march organizers, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, etc).

Your claim that CO2 and T were closely interlinked is absolutely correct in the past 800ka where we have high quality ice core records. Beyond 3Ma we started to see some decoupling between global temperature vs. CO2. Without ice cores, CO2 estimates come from plant fossil stomata density index, paleosols etc and granted these are lower quality proxies, but they do converge on a number that is decoupled from temperature estimates. People think that this is probably because the plate tectonics and volcanism were more active back then. At beyond 500ppm, we hit this thing called "band saturation." CO2 can only absorb and reflect infrared within certain wavelength band. As you saturate this CO2, you're getting diminishing return on the more CO2 you added. This is why CO2 during the Cretaceous was ~1000-2000ppm but you don't see temperature being scaled to CO2.

CO2 can only control climate when it is between 200-500ppm, aligned with the forcing throughout the Quarternary period. If CO2 is maxed out at beyond 500ppm like in the Pliestocene, then other driver takes over (like plate tectonics).

>>8873870

>CO2 can only control climate when it is between 200-500ppm, aligned with the forcing throughout the Quarternary period. If CO2 is maxed out at beyond 500ppm like in the Pliestocene, then other driver takes over (like plate tectonics).

The same as saying that getting hurt 'controls' the falling from a bicycle.

>>8872541
>I posed two very simple questions.
Which completely ignored the argument made in the post. You lose, fuckhead.

File: Untitled.png (60KB, 823x569px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 823x569px

>>8873851
Neither of your paper contain the figure that you posted.

To addres your claim that >550 ppm CO2 measurements were rejected by NOAA ESRL GMD, then yeah they had very specific criteria for rejection laid out here
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

For example, when I was working in Summit Greenland, one of NOAA monitoring networks we had daily flask collection to be sent back into NOAA headquarter in Boulder, CO. However we flagged the flasks that were collected during "flight days" e.g. when we have military resupply planes coming in. CO2 would've spiked to beyond 1000 ppm on those days, due to the runway being fairly close to the weather station.

Same deal with Mauna Loa data. They're trying to get background CO2 measurements, in the middle of the Pacific ocean. They have criteria of rejection when they have wind coming downslope while the volcanoes were fairly active.

If you measure CO2 inside your apartment indoor when you had a party, it is probably around 800-1000 ppm, but that doesn't mean that those value reflect CO2 concentration of background air where you live.

CO2 is a well mixed gas, because of its >100yr atmospheric lifetime compared to 1yr mixing of atmosphere. What the NOAA ESRL program wanted is that background, well mixed CO2 concentration measurements, not CO2 measurements when a plane/helicopter whizz by their monitoring station.

This is just simple, good scrupulous science. It would be bad science to not reject those high CO2 measurements that are beyond the natural variability.

>>8873870
>CO2 measured in air
>1800s

Yeah those measurements are dogshit. People in the 1800s barely know about electricity and magnetism, I doubt whatever sources you have these people don't know shit about measuring CO2 in background ambient air.

Beyond the 1950's NOAA measurements, you have to go for ice core data

File: Opinion Discarded.jpg (222KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 500x500px

>>8873851
>Jaworowski (2007): The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time
>chemical measurements “ranging up to 550ppmv” were arbitrarily rejected “by the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and Keeling 1986)”* who "selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values
note how the high concentrations and extremely broad range DISAPPEAR in the late 1800s, replaced by a much lower, much more consistent set of readings. this coincides nicely with adoption of more reliable, closed-system methods. the exclusion of those older results isn't arbitrary; it's based on the accuracy of their methodology. this was discussed to death in the last thread (which you abandoned after getting BTFO to start this thread).
there is of course the exception of a few readings around 1940, but those are from ONE AUTHOR who took his measurements near an industrial site and whose measured results correlate strongly with wind direction, suggesting contamination.
>Full paper here:
That is not a full paper. That is literally an abstract followed by a conclusion. Since neither contains anything about their methodology or data, it's pretty much worthless to people who don't blindly believe what other people say.

>>8873877
this is actually not far off. falling off a bicycle can cause injury, and being injured can also cause you to fall off a bicycle. either can drive the other.

>>8872737
Already debunked in the first thread you posted that turd

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/die-fachbegutachtung-below-is-elis.html

Gerlich is a complete loon that not even other deniers take seriously.

>>8873927
Whoops wrong post, meant to reply to >>8873851

>>8873877
My point is that your claim about global temperature tracks CO2 concentration stopped beyond ~2.5-3Ma once CO2 hits saturation point.

You need to phrase it more carefully (for example "in the past 800ka from EDC ice core reconstruction global T tracks CO2 very closely with R^2 close to 0.8), otherwise people can easily proof how wrong you are

>>8873228
I'm still waiting for you to address the actual argument in that one post. Coward.

>>8873748
>Starving is bad, therefore being fat is good
Deniertards, everybody

>>8873031
>>8873939
Warmist shitters have shit taste and like YRYR, not surprising

File: 03 - AR4 Fig 10-26.png (40KB, 560x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 560x480px

>>8870392
>>>8870362
>Oh wow, another denier myth that refuses to die. Funny how people like yourself can never admit when they're wrong.

Oh wow, SimpletonScience made up a diagram to hide their utterly failed predictions. That rewrite of UN IPCC failed predictions has been debunked
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/


And unfortunately, they did publish a prediction in UN IPCC AR4, pic related. Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
Graph In the lower left hand corner of the page, enlarged with updated data.hide that. Pic related. The actual predictions from the IPCC AR4, with added instrumental data (and enlarged). Notice how this diagram is congruent with Christy's diagram but contradicts this one >>8870392

Rewriting the past to hide failed predictions is one of the strongest indicators of a pseudo-science.

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

88KB, 444x320px

>>8870764
>>>8870683
>>Posts article from Energy and Environment, headed by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is quoted as stating the purpose of the journal is to "[follow] my political agenda -- a bit, anyway"
>Another quote from this person.
>>I'm not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change
>Here's a good read on why E&E is such a awful journal:
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat
>>The journal also published a much-maligned analysis suggesting that levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could go up and down by 100 parts per million in a year or two, prompting marine biologist Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California to write a response to the journal, in which he asked: "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"

Hurr durr Keeling deleted data he didn't like, pic related. Therefore E&E is evil because it doesn't tow the Keeling curve line! Funny how warmists control almost every single journal and then if there's one journal that they don't control. ITS EVIL. What a bunch of crybabies.

>>8874046
See >>8873900
The criteria for deletion is absolutely reasonable. It would be bad science to not delete your CO2 monitoring data when a helicopter whizzes by

File: 9. 180 Years of Atomosphere CO2 Analysis2.png (89KB, 960x535px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x535px

>>8870764
>>>8870683
>>Posts article from Energy and Environment, headed by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is quoted as stating the purpose of the journal is to "[follow] my political agenda -- a bit, anyway"
>Another quote from this person.
>>I'm not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change
>Here's a good read on why E&E is such a awful journal:
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat
>>The journal also published a much-maligned analysis suggesting that levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could go up and down by 100 parts per million in a year or two,

No, not that fast. More importantly, Keeling dogmatically assumed his background hypothesis of CO2 levels and deleted data that didn't fit. >>8874046
The actual data showed large variance. Beck didn't claim those levels were the same all over the globe. That's just a projection of the Keeling dogma. In fact, Beck insisted that there was no global "background level."
Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>>8874056
>See >>8873900
>The criteria for deletion is absolutely reasonable. It would be bad science to not delete your CO2 monitoring data when a helicopter whizzes by
> Look I just made up an excuse

False, read Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.
as well as "CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our TIme":
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

>nb4 evil denier articles
Try facts and logic buddy.

>>8874070
So how does Beck get around the fact that old measuring techniques were open to the air and contaminated? Oh, he doesn't...

You still have failed to respond to the post debunking Beck >>8870631 yet you demand others read it. Hypocrite.

File: angery.jpg (20KB, 413x320px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 413x320px

>>8873996
that guy's not me, but point taken. I'll phrase things more rigorously.

>>8874017
your waifu a shit


>>8874058
>>8874046
We've been over this in EVERY SINGLE THREAD. The only readings showing those kinds of high CO2 levels are ones with serious methodological flaws, particularly the pre-1890 ones using open-system measuring techniques.
You just keep babbling that inconvenient readings were thrown out for no reason, despite the very real and well-supported rationale for excluding them.

>>8874046
>Funny how warmists control almost every single journal and then if there's one journal that they don't control. ITS EVIL.
E&E literally accepted and published a manuscript claiming that the Sun is a giant ball of iron, despite every reviewer they sent it out to (correctly) calling the paper a hot load of shit. It's become a clearinghouse for pseudoscience.
Also, the head editor openly admits to using the journal to push her political agenda, but you think there's nothing wrong with that?
>What a bunch of crybabies.
this from the guy who insists that it's the fault of a giant conspiracy every time people he like can't get their papers published in respectable journals, rather than those papers just being shit.

File: 7. NASA Fraud.png (153KB, 770x523px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 770x523px

>>8874073
>So how does Beck get around the fact that old measuring techniques were open to the air and contaminated? Oh, he doesn't...

He discusses potential error levels in his article. Oh, you just skated past that didn't you? And see Jaworowski et al. (1992a, 1992b). Jaworowski reviewed published CO2 measurements from ice cores, and emphasized that the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration, according to early accurate analyses, were many times larger (measurements up to 2450 ppmv).

Funny how those early ice core measurements got magically ignored by future work. Its almost as if they tried to rewrite the past. Again. >>8870392

If the data doesn't fit the hypothesis so much the worse for the data. That Ladies and Gentlemen is Climate "Science" in a nutshell.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.achgut.com%2Fartikel%2Fsind_die_klimadaten_manipuliert%23When%3A15%3A45%3A00Z&edit-text=&act=url

>nb4 Hurr durr, I"m going to call you a conspiracy theorist therefore you're crazy, therefore climate change is true!
The cognitive dissonance is painful, isn't it?

File: Neat.png (242KB, 492x478px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 492x478px

>>8874070
I like how people are posting detailed critiques of why Beck (2007) is wrong (TL;DR: old measurement techniques are unreliable)...and your response is just to post the same citation to Beck (2007) and tell people to read it.
OVER >>8870412
AND OVER >>8874058
AGAIN >>8874070

could it be you don't have the intelligence or knowledge to make your own arguments instead of just bleating out whatever you've heard from other people?

File: IPCC for Socialism.png (415KB, 907x587px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 907x587px

>>8874082
>>Funny how warmists control almost every single journal and then if there's one journal that they don't control. ITS EVIL.
>E&E literally accepted and published a manuscript claiming that the Sun is a giant ball of iron, despite every reviewer they sent it out to (correctly) calling the paper a hot load of shit. It's become a clearinghouse for pseudoscience.

Provide the citation and a link to this alleged paper. In E&E professional format. Captain ad hominem.
Meanwhile climate change shills are all about the money aren't they?

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO),“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

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

420KB, 473x540px

>>8874087
>He discusses potential error levels in his article. Oh, you just skated past that didn't you?
he straight-up admits (on p. 264) that pre-1900 (and especially pre-1857) readings were done using open systems, and were therefore unreliable.
why are you basing your argument on data points that your own source admits are practically worthless?

>>8874089
>I like how people are posting detailed critiques of why Beck (2007) is wrong (TL;DR: old measurement techniques are unreliable)...and your response is just to post the same citation to Beck (2007) and tell people to read it.

Because you simply take their word for it, instead of checking the actual data/paper. And did you search for rebuttals from Beck? Of course not.
http://www.biomind.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf

>>8874091
>Provide the citation and a link to this alleged paper. In E&E professional format.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf

By the way, you can post the same copy pasted replies that you post in every single thread, you're never going to convince someone with your nonsense.

>>8874087
>He discusses potential error levels in his article. Oh, you just skated past that didn't you?
He does discuss error but not error levels. He then proceeds to use the measurements that he knows are in error in his data.

>And see Jaworowski et al. (1992a, 1992b). Jaworowski reviewed published CO2 measurements from ice cores, and emphasized that the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration, according to early accurate analyses, were many times larger (measurements up to 2450 ppmv).
Which is of course more utter nonsense that was debunked years ago.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090104033735/http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

File: really.gif (725KB, 229x264px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 229x264px

>>8868802
> Cambrian CO2 levels were about 7000 ppm according to this study... and not a single living being seemed to die
You have no idea how evolution works, do you?

Um, the reason that CO2 levels were so high was that there was no plant life and only a microbial film outside of the oceans. The land looked a lot like the moon. That's what the Republicans find ideal?

>>8874073
>You still have failed to respond to the post debunking Beck >>8870631 yet you demand others read it. Hypocrite.
Hypocrite, see here:
http://www.biomind.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf

File: DAMAGE CONTROL.jpg (79KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 650x650px

>>8874091
>Provide the citation and a link to this alleged paper. In E&E professional format. Captain ad hominem.
Right here, big boy:
>Manuel, Oliver K. "Earth's heat source-the Sun." Energy & environment 20, no. 1 (2009): 131-144.
>https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf
And how the hell is it argumentum ad hominem? You claimed that E&E is being unfairly maligned, that its reputation has little to do with its substance and everything to do with ~~~politics~~~ and I simply pointed out just how lacking in substance it is. Is it also an ad hom to say that the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology is trash just because they accepted for publication the infamous Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List manuscript?

Nice damage control though. As soon as it's pointed out just how much of a joke your famous journal is, you go posting a bunch of doctored quotes to try and distract from it...
(and yes, I mean doctored. the Edenhofer quote in particular has been heavily altered.)

>>8874099
>https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf
You idiot. He didn't say the sun was made of iron! He said there was a presence of iron isotopes in the sun. Considering that thing called fusion, its not impossible.

Ad hominem, as always. Meanwhile your warmist editors control almost every journal and then you have the temerity to say, "why aren't you published?" Profound hypocrisy. That's your favorite word, right?

File: consider the following.jpg (112KB, 786x514px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 786x514px

>>8874096
>Because you simply take their word for it, instead of checking the actual data/paper.
I've read through Beck (2007) when you posted it here in the past, which is clearly more than you've done. (Remember, Beck himself admits that earlier measurements are flawed and unreliable, yet you still think it unreasonable to exclude them from analyses.)

>>8874113
Beck's response hinges on his assertion that there is no such thing as a background CO2 level, that CO2 varies drastically across the atmosphere and changes constantly. This is an assertion, those of us following at home may note, that he has brought no evidence at all to support. Ironically enough, this is the same argument-by-assertion that he accuses R.F. Keeling of.

File: ILLUMINATI.jpg (52KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x500px

>>8874128
>He didn't say the sun was made of iron! He said there was a presence of iron isotopes in the sun.
Except he DID say the sun was made of iron. His whole claim is that the photosphere isn't representative of the sun's bulk composition and that its density necessitates that it's made mostly of iron. It's well known that the sun has SOME iron in it; this can be determined from spectroscopy. But what Manuel is claiming goes against all the evidence.
Right there in the abstract, he explicitly rejects "the consensus opinion of a hydrogen-filled Sun".
Think I'm exaggerating? Check out the author's website:
>http://www.thesunisiron.com/

>>8874113
>But there is no evidence of such a “background”
What a load of bullshit. The background level has been proven by CO2 stations all over the world EVERY DAY since Keeling discovered it. Beck is a proven liar.

>It has recently be shown that the alleged impossibility of correctly measuring global CO2 levels in non-ideally situated land locations can be solved by combining CO2 and
wind speed measurements
And here Beck once again invalidates his own paper by admitting that there are non-ideal locations to measure CO2 and that a methodology is needed to correctly measure it. I look forward to Beck correcting his paper using this method.

One dataset, from NOAA ESRL GMD (Ralph Keeling's lab) has hourly resolution, hundreds of thousands of datapoint from stations around the world measured with state of the art laser spectroscopy with robust statistics, and the dataset can be spliced right into paleorecord ice core data >>8872605.

The CRDS (cavity ring down spestroscopy) measurements that NOAA did can be easily replicated and confirmed by other people with CRDS/ Gas chromatography measurements. For example NIWA which is the New Zealand version of NOAA did similar measurements to NOAA
https://www.niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/our-data/trace-gas-datasets and found that their data is agreeable

The other dataset has ~200 datapoints over 100 years, with widely criticized measurement using outdated techniques from the 17th century that cannot replicate CO2 concentration in standard air to save their life.

Quote from
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf
>This Scandinavian program, started by Rossby in 1954, had been a major factor in triggering interest in measuring CO2 during the IGY. Nevertheless it was quietly abandoned after the meeting, when the reported range in concentrations, 150–450 ppm, was seen to reflect large errors.
>At two stations in Finland, samples collected by station personnel had been sent to Scripps. These samples yielded nearly the same concentrations as those measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, proving that the errors in the Scandinavian program were mainly analytical rather than due to variable CO2 in the air being sampled.

Hmm.. I wonder which dataset should I trust

File: u-mad-1.jpg (32KB, 500x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x480px

>>8873748
>>8873782
>>8873830

And

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787

(Full paper here: http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/25/blockbuster-paper-finds-just-15-of-co2-growth-since-industrialization-is-due-to-human-emissions/#sthash.KS9ARcnb.dpbs )

AWAITING ANSWERS FROM WARMISTS.

>>8868802
CO2 isn't the only driver of temperature. The intensity of the sun is another major factor that changes significantly over deep time. There are a number of studies you can find on the subject.

File: FLy8ZTJ.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

Can't we just have /climatechange/ general already?

So much effort went into debunking fallacies from denier, and those effort will be lost when the thread sank, rinse and repeat every fucking time you guys are arguing about the exact goddamn things

File: really makes you think.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>8874185
>Full paper here:
As stated >>8873939
>That is not a full paper. That is literally an abstract followed by a conclusion. Since neither contains anything about their methodology or data, it's pretty much worthless to people who don't blindly believe what other people say.
Why do you insist on posting blatant lies after they've been refuted earlier in the same thread? Do you just reject anything that doesn't support your opinions, or are you actually mentally handicapped?

It quite fits the denier mindset, though, to have a paper with only abstract and conclusion. No background explaining the question at hand, no pesky methodology or results, just a bunch of assertions. Sadly, the denier way of doing things isn't exactly scientific.

>>8874185
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
Confuses residence time with perturbation response time, then uses this is as the basis for an analysis of the long term flux that completely ignores the carbonate chemistry that controls this flux.

See

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.713.6770&rep=rep1&type=pdf

For a refutation of the same amateurish nonsense.

bump because check-mate warmists

File: 2005_02_16lrgb.jpg (28KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x440px

Just wanted to drop in and see how many of you work on climate science related fields.

I'm a grad student working on temperature reconstruction from coral skeletons and I'm helping to develop a new proxy that has so far given unmatched accuracy when compared to the instrumental record. Now we are applying it to Mid-Holocene fossil corals now.

File: IMG_20170501_111536.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>8875205
I do paleoatmospheric greenhouse gas measurements from ice cores

>>8868809
that "simple 36 month moving average" seems to disagree with the arrow

>>8875368
>>8875205
antropomorphic global warning does not real, right

>>8868813
none of those sources are reputable or have any authority on the matter, they're sensationalist news outlets and popsci losers.

>>8875476
>antropomorphic global warning does not real
No anthropomorphic global warning is not a thing. Anthropogenic global warming though is real.

>>8875205
I'm an invert paleofag. Currently doing trilobite morphometrics (2D landmark based, studying shape change during ontogeny), but no idea what my doctorate will be about. Also doing some advanced study in sequence stratigraphy, which relates to sea level changes.

So I'd say my field is distantly related to climatology. I've done a little work related to paleoclimatology (organic carbon content of marine sediments, looking for signs of ocean anoxic events) but that was when I was just a high schooler volunteering at a local university.

Okay guys, I believe you about global warming and it needs to be stopped, but I genuinely believe the you will have more luck convincing the right to accept global warming than convincing the left to stop going insane so I will be remaining conservative. Maybe you think the right can't be convinced, and that's exactly my point, the left is too set in their ways to change.

>>8872823
I know you're arguing against shills, but do better. Unless you can't, being a shill yourself. I left belief of AGW, or at least in its presentation, behind 13 years ago as a science student in college.
I asked questions about things that didn't make sense. Currently, all large corporations fund only research that conforms with catastrophic AGW.
You're the man now. Prove why we need more regulations that strangle everyone but the MegaCORPS shill.

>>8876663
Ice core scientist here, you're not wrong.

Maybe its because I'm super anal about things I know for sure, but I feel like there's quite a bit of misinformation and alarmism on the left with regards to climate change, especially on the activists/TV talking head like Bill Nye and also the pop sci campaign to support climate change policy that is absolutely counter-productive.

The harder we're trying to jam shit down people's throat, the more they're gonna reject it. Just look at the war on drugs. Most people have things to do, and if you're being annoying smug fart sniffer and talk down to people like how most liberals behave themselves.

In all, 90% of US policy is not done from the will of the people, public opinion on climate change matter less than most people think. 90% of people in the US wants money out of politics and ban campaign contributions from corporations, but we cannot get it done. 80% of people want free internet and maintain net neutrality, and back in the days there were legit 50/50 chance that SOPA gonna pass.

What matters is what people in power thinks. Surprisingly there's ~10 republican senator and 40 or so congressman who realize that climate change is real, but cannot come out because of political backlash from their voters
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how-a-professional-climate-change-denier-discovered-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/

Despite the US not ratifying Kyoto Protocol, we're still on track to meet that pledge. Same with NY state and California, two of the biggest economies in the US already enforcing strict environmental law, and cap and trade for carbon tax.

Dumfuck conservatives in flyover states can yell and not believe in climate change all they want, but as long as we have real adults in charge everything will be ok

>>8877300
>Currently, all large corporations fund only research that conforms with catastrophic AGW.
First, most climate research is state funded, not funded by large corporation. Who funded the state? In the US oil and gas companies dwarf the amount of campaign contributions compared to solar and wind renewable companies. If anything, it shows the integrity of the scientific process that not all climate scientists are climate denier shills.

>Prove why we need more regulations that strangle everyone but the MegaCORPS shill.
There are gonna be winners and losers for sure, but in general the argument for more regulation is so that people pay their fair share. For example, if a shoe factory is dumping toxic waste to the river and getting the same amount of tax as say your local bakery who didn't do anything of sort, then the shoe factory is socializing the losses and not paying the fair share of their tax because everyone around them need to buy water filter. Same deal with dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We need people to pay the environmental cost and be responsible that's all.

File: The Feel of Marat.jpg (326KB, 624x650px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 624x650px

>>8877326
>as long as we have real adults in charge everything will be ok
this is exactly why I'm worried. we're seeing a drastic shift away from having real adults in charge. it started out as anti-intellectualism, but now it's a backlash against experts of any sort.

>>8877497
>we're seeing a drastic shift away from having real adults in charge.

All government agencies are run from the mid-low positions, not from the top. The EPA, NOAA, NSF, USGS will still do what they do because we have excellent research bodies on the mid level. Lisa Jackson, the person that Obama picked to run the EPA is just as unqualified as Scott Pruitt is.

>>8868841
Wasn't he banned from /news/ for this shit?

>>8870822
Welcome Home!

>>8870638
wow rude

>>8870638
NB4 Industrial Revolution.

File: van feel.jpg (260KB, 800x609px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 800x609px

>>8878668
>All government agencies are run from the mid-low positions, not from the top. The EPA, NOAA, NSF, USGS will still do what they do because we have excellent research bodies on the mid level.
Yes, but right now the guys at the top, who are POLITICAL APPOINTEES with no background in the actual science, are trying to run those agencies. (As in, everything has to pass political review, not technical review.) And that's causing a lot of institutional memory to be lost as the mid-level people are forced out.
>Lisa Jackson, the person that Obama picked to run the EPA is just as unqualified as Scott Pruitt is.
Lisa Jackson worked for the EPA as a mid-level engineer for 16 years. She's exactly the kind of person you just said actually gets shit done.
Scott Pruitt is a lawyer with no background in environmental policy. The highlights of his career include repeatedly suing the EPA, and getting BTFO in court, trying to get emissions limits lifted.

>>8873833

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/

File: predictions.png (146KB, 1001x1793px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1001x1793px

>>8868813

see website in pic related for more failed predictions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

Discussion here is somewhat relevant to the thread, so I figured I could share for those who are interested.

Just for disclosure Steven Crowder has a pretty strong right/conservative bias, but the conversation is still interesting, especially a lot of what Dr. Patrick Moore has on the topic of climate change.

>>8880460
>Dr. Patrick Moore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

yes it is the same doctor

Can all of the climate change deniers stick to a single thread? Why do we have to deal with their bullshit 10 times a day?

>>8868813
>“It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” - 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist
Lumo is really anti-global warming, he was probably being ironic.

>>8869493
>the Great Depression from late XIX century

>>8874032
Your sources are uneducated denialist blogs.

I don't even need temperature data to prove climate change is happening and dangerous, so either your uneducated denialist blogs are wrong, or literal pictures and video are. Which is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUdd83_pzdE

>>8880831
no, because every time they get blown out they make a new thread, like clockwork

>>8868802
1 meter rise by 2020 is possible. 2 meters by 2023. 68 m by 2025. this is because in sept 2017 we are likely to experience a 'blue ocean event' in which the arctic ocean will be virtually free of sea ice at the end of the summer. without a cooling ice cover, the arctic ocean will heat up enough to release a 200 gigaton methane burst. this methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas will cause global temperature to rise 6 celcius by 2020. the oceans die out and forests burn down at 4 celcius. at 6 celcius, crop failures are expected to be 80% or higher.

>>8868802
all of the feedbacks in the arctic are accelerating feedbacks.

they include wave ice, ice albedo (reflection), snow cover albedo, water vapor, ice-sheet melt, arctic river, black carbon, ocean acidification, and the ninth, the mother of all feedbacks, methaane.

the arctic has been warming 1 degree celcius per decade. the rest of the planet 0.15, a ratio of 7:1!

arctic anomolies at 20 celcius warmer equal 140% more arctic water vapor causing it to rain a lot more. ice has declined at 12% per deade and snow cover over 22% per decade, or even more because freight is faster.

fresh snow and ice albedo is about 90% reflective. with dark sea water, sunlight heats up the water bringing the albedo to 10%. if you compare the radiative forcing to the CO2 in combined ice and snow albedo, both are similar.

as the ice in the arctic centre shrinks, there is more water on the outside of this fetch. waves get higher, and winds get stronger with longer durations. waves pulverizing ice chunks is a huge feedback itself when they lift up and shatter it to pieces with a larger surface area.

methane from permafrost and seafloor algae causees jet stream waviness feedvvack, and the slowing of the ocean currents. warm salty heavier ocean water is sandwiched with colder water below, and 150 meters of colder fresher water overtop causes big waves to mix water, increasing the sea floor temperature, thawing out permafrost, essentially perforating the layer.

the eastern siberia arctic shelf of frozen permafrost is known to cover methane clathrate. now melting, the sediment is 7 degrees celcius warmer with areas of unfrozen ground acting as vents, or talax. for the clathrate there is no longer a layer, membrane, or plug to stop the methane from coming up.

vertical moulins are well-like shafts that melt and drill straight down into glaciers, bringing water underneath, turning the ice into swiss cheese. these moulins in the glaciers are analagous to the talax in permafrost.

>>8881129
the published reports and computer models from the intergovernmental panel on climate change do not represent reality. policy makers are insane. - paul beckwith

>>8881132
the nonsense from Paul Beckwith on climate change does not represent reality. Paul Beckwith is insane. - everyone else

File: Bananas.jpg (67KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 450x600px

>>8880395
The studies listed at the CO2Science page are all of plants grown in fertilized soil. The fact that more CO2 benefits plants IF those plants are supplied with plenty of soil nutrients only reinforces the point I made.
And if CO2 actually was THE limiting factor for plant growth, fertilizing crops wouldn't lead to dramatically improved yields the way it does. How do you explain that?

As for the greening of Europe, that's nothing to do with environmental practices and everything to do with human activity; improved farming techniques have enabled us to produce more food from less land (leaving more land to revert to wilderness and greenspace) and environmental programs have been successful in reforesting deforested areas. This is explicitly stated in the article you yourself posted.

Why do deniers persist in citing sources that directly rebut their claims? Are they really that stupid?

>>8868809
The fuck happen on April 98?

>>8881358
It's an El Nino temperature spike from one of the largest el ninos in recorded history.

The funny thing about that point is that every time you hear climate change deniers state that there "hasn't been any global warming since 1998" it's because they have cherrypicked the starting point to be 1998, so that it starts at a very high temperature anomaly due to the El nino, and then decreases from there, even though the overall trend is still positive.

>>8880902
>Your sources are uneducated denialist blogs.
>Youtube
UN IPCC AR4 is a denialist blog.

File: poots.png (568KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 500x667px

>>8882192
>I took a tiny blurry figure from the IPCC AR4, enlarged it in raster format so the lines became so broad as to be nearly meaningless, and then drew on it, taking care to selectively align the data series I added at a year to ensure maximum discordance, and then tried to pass it off as the IPCC's own work
you're really just proving the point made by the >>8870392 gif, which is that you can make very misleading claims by misaligning different data series.

File: science_origin_cambrian_13.jpg (41KB, 660x350px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 660x350px

>>8868802
This was Earth during the Cambrian Era you stupid shitstain. Almost all life was confined to the sea. There were barely no ice caps. Vulcanism was rampant. Plant life was scarce and the landscape was barren.

Why didn't the thread end right there anf instead people decided to debate with your child-like mind is beyond me.

File: plant-growth-co2-carbon-yield-increase.gif (99KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x440px

>>8868802
i think that we will get much much bigger plants
until these plants have absorbed so much co2 that they will die,
this happened milion years ago and we know these dead plants today as coal or oil.
if someone burns all these dead plants the cycle will repeat

>>8881337
Source 1: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

Source 2: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361

File: tapestry.jpg (396KB, 1570x1536px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1570x1536px

>>8883550
try linking to the actual studies themselves, not media write-ups.

>https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.epdf
This first paper (correctly) points out that CO2 fertilization is only a strong factor in the tropics, where growth is either limited by photosynthesis due to rich soils (in jungles) or by water (in deserts). (Increased CO2 concentration can improve productivity in water-limited ecosystems by allowing plants to keep their stomata open for shorter periods of time.) In temperate and boreal regions, where soils are nutrient-limited, nitrate is more commonly the limiting factor. I encourage you to actually READ THE PAPER.

>https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428
this paper acknowledges the above, and also points out that a big chunk of the increase in the carbon sink is due not to more primary productivity, but less respiration than expected; the slowdown in warming has resulted in slower metabolism of organic carbon. as the "pause" dissipates, that lag between fixation and respiration will as well.

additionally, both studies are restricted to TERRESTRIAL ecosystems. the oceans, which are responsible for a third of total primary productivity, are very strongly iron-limited (with the exception of river deltas and some seeps/upwellings, there aren't really any nutrient-rich areas in the sea) and are extremely vulnerable to acidification.

it's estimated that nitrogen limitation (to say nothing of phosphate or iron) reduces the fertilization effect of CO2 by a whopping 74% globally.
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GB002868/full

what a surprise; the guy who insists CO2 will just be plant food doesn't understand how plants work, and doesn't read the technical papers he cites.

>>8883550
>But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.
>They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.

>The authors of the study say that the pause in the growth of atmospheric carbon will almost certainly be a temporary phenomenon. As temperatures rise, these green sinks could in fact become sources of CO2.

>>8883502
Look literally just a few posts above yours. CO2 isn't usually the limiting factor in plant growth. >>8881337