Prove global warming is real. Not trolling, genuinely curious.

>>8952972
Science doesn't prove anything.

its a trend where summers get longer and animals migrate to different places. best way to measure it is by looking at sea level or ice

we can't prove its man made because it would require extremely complex simulation that will factor in so many different things, it would take probably hundreds of years to build that model

Climate change is real.

Man-made climate change is not.

We do not affect the temperature of the planet in any meaningful way.

We have absolutely ZERO evidence that climate change is man-made. We have correlation going in both directions, but no actual EVIDENCE.

People who push this agenda usually are shilling some sort of product/have a vested interest in you reducing your carbon footprint, but if you will notice, the same people preaching this shit show, also have the biggest carbon footprints.

If you can show me one piece of actual evidence that can show that man is responsible for the within MARGIN OF ERROR slight increase in climate, i'll send you $50 on paypal.

If you can even show me evidence that the temperatures recorded are accurate and empirical, i'll throw you a tenner.

>protip, you can't.

These people get a fancy degree, write a hypothesis, and then do an experiment that just furthers their own conclusion. They refuse to look at any other variable because they don't care to do actual science, they just want to shill their products onto the consumers.

>>8953060
i think sustainable energy is far more important than global warming at the moment.

we won't have consumable fuels forever, so why not make the change now

>>8953060

If CO2 doesn't affect the Earth's temperature, then please explain why Venus is so hot

>>8953067
Closer to the sun.
CO2 is not the responsible greenhouse gas.
Rise in temperature PRECEDES CO2 rises.

If I fart and let an astronomer look at it with a telescope, will he be able to tell me the exact gas composition?

If not, then why do you believe he can accurately assume an entire planets atmospheric properties.

>>8953060
You know the greenhouse effect is a thing right? And we've known about it for almost two centuries?

>>8953070
Okay, cool.
Show me one study where a rise in CO2 directly affects a rise in temperature.
Just spouting off bullshit off the top of your head isn't helpful.

Now show me the study where the rise of CO2 levels is irrefutably manmade.

Not possible.

so, tell me if i get it right, but co2 raise or global warming is one of the smaller problems, if we look at the destruction of nature like the great barrier reef, the plastic in the ocean, the overfishing, the general pollution (actual dumping of trash in nature, not just gas), the overuse of fossil fuels without looking for alternatives, the overuse of phosphorus, which will definitly cause big troubles once its gone, the rapid death of species(loss of biodiversity).....


so after all, fuck co2, this is just a distraction from the real problems/ the bigger picture, isnt it?

>>8953077
You do realize that greater concentration of Co2 in the oceans will cause the barrier reef to dissolve quicker?

>>8953077
isnt it total hypocrisy to make a big deal out of this climate shit, while ignoring all the other (maybe even bigger) problems

>>8953079
ofc its all related, but if the ocean will colapse because of the trash in it and the reckles overfishing, the reef will be gone anyway???

>>8953083
its all a problem. You can't really ignore any part of it.

>>8953075
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

>>8953085
but arent we ignoring most of the picture, by focussing this hard on co2; when was the last time you read about the killing of the rain forest for palm oil plantations or that stuff....

>>8953060
/thread

>>8953088
Totally. I only really care about the facts being right or wrong. How the governments/population use the information is up to them

I live in one of the most poluted cities
I can take a bus and be in a full blown jungle in a hour
Nature can take good care of itself, we will kill ouselves before killing her

the earth is getting warmer because of greenhouse gas emissions

>>8953091
ok then, fuck the population, its time for a technocrat government^^

>>8953096
i really hope so too, if not so, we will luckily not be alive to witness it;

>>8953086
A decent read but still suffers the same fate as all the studies.

A quote from your link

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

No conclusive empirical evidence.

>>8953096
biodiversity loss though
sure were not going to wipe out every last organism on earth, but we're changing the environment too rapidly for many species/ecosystems to cope
it's bad for us considering all the things we need from nature

>>8953102
yep, thats my fear too, a complete ecological collapse could easily set back evolution right to the age where the highest living creatures are microorganisms

>>8953101
You can never get it to 100% There are always going to be uncertainty in the figures in all measurements in science.

>>8953102
Survival of the fittest
Why do humans think they are above nature

>>8953107
You can't set back evolution, brainlet
Have you ever seen a cladogram before

>>8953113
if we can ensure the survival of our species I would recommend it
climate isn't threat to the survival of homo sapiens anyway, it's just a threat to civilization and the modern world

>>8953121
climate change****

>>8953121
Billions anx billions of species have come and vone
It is their faith, the immense rat, pigeon, roach population will give us a brand new fauna in a couple of million years
It is just nature and she is a cruel mother, yes it is sad but pandas are irrelevant and they are long overdue in this world

>>8953069
Nope.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

>Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

>>8952972
The globe is getting warmer

>>8952972
These dubs are all the proof you need

>>8953064
This
It would also decrease our reliance on dictatorships that want to kill us

File: CC_1850-2016 agt.gif (3MB, 720x775px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x775px

>>8952972

>>8953069
>Closer to the sun

Is this some high level meta trolling? Do you know how hot Venus is? Why is night on Venus so hot?

>>8953064
Renewables are never going to satisfy our energy needs. Nuclear and fusion is the only viable solution.

>>8953101
>Quotes evidence
>Claims there are none

What did he mean by this?

>>8953069
If I fart and let an astronomer look at it with a telescope, will he be able to tell me the exact gas composition?
Why would identifying CO2 with spectroscopy or such not work?

>>8953483
because it's flat. duh

>>8953069
Venus is hotter than Mercury bro lol

>>8952972
Who cares nothing you can do to stop it.

>>8953811
This is incorrect.
We can reduce CO2 emissions.

because heat does not travel through vacuum.

>>8953060
>Thinking the incentive to lie about climate change is stronger then the incentive fir big oil companies to fund fake science to obfuscate the narrative on climate change.

Either you're a big oil shill or an idiot.

>>8953904
>... and is why the Sun provides no warmth to the Earth.

It's settled.

>>8953904
hey is anyone else suddenly really cold?

>>8953096
It's not about nature. Ofc life will pull through. Its about us.

>>8953060
Dumbasses like you can't even read the evidence

I may as well try to explain evolution to someone who believes the planet is 6,000 years old or electromagnetism to Insane Clown Posse

>>8953821
He said STOP, it is you who is incorrect.

ok... here it goes

sometimes it gets colder
sometimetimes it gets warmer

global warming proved by ice age cycles
and city thermal factor

File: varvito.jpg (568KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1200x1600px

>/sci/ says biology is easy
>don't know shit about climate change
uhhh really makes you think

File: 1465258440156.jpg (101KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 768x1024px

>>8953480
>1860
>takes the temperature in a rual area full of trees, grass and humidity
>2016
>takes the temperature in the same area, now it is a city without trees, surprised it is hotter
HMMMMMMMMM
REALLY
MAKES
YOU
THINK

>>8954238
Youre a real fucking idiot you know that

>>8954247
Nigga we are heading to AN ICE AGE, shut the FUCK up, also 100 years in the planet's time isn't even half of the blink of an eye

>>8953064
It's on these grounds that I don't see why us exiting out of the Paris Climate treaty is such a huge deal. Private research and development and green energy is not going to slow down as a result, and I questioned the treaty's effectiveness to curb our emissions anyways.

There shouldn't be room for confusion, it's such a simple concept. There's shit in the ground from when the earth's atmosphere was different, and we're returning that old atmosphere through combusting said shit.
Trees take the air around them and turn it into more tree. We cut down the tree and burn it, releasing the material back into the air that the tree took.

We're drastically changing the make up of the planet through upsetting the normal balance because we're releasing all the stores of underground material into the air that was trapped there millions of years, and on a huge global scale.

The disconnect in the minds of deniers seems to me to be that they don't understand the significance of the industrial revolution. The last century has changed the planet in literally every way, such as it's never before seen.

>>8954255
And yet we've warmed the planet by a degree, changed the pH of the ocean, increased CO2 by 40% and so forth.

huh really gets the noggin joggin wtf

File: 14352343167.png (974KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 1440x2560px

>>8954302
>we
have you ever heard of the world humility

>>8952972
Global warming isn't real,
climate change is real.

>>8954305
>have you ever heard of the world humility
Like, global abjectivity? Actually, no.

>>8953697
This is the go to strategy for idiot conservatives. Dismiss all evidence because it isn't absolute proof. They want facts to mean nothing.

>>8954305
We ripped a huge hole in the ozone decades ago it's not like it's ridiculous that we can change the climate by a couple degrees.

File: amish_day_2_160.jpg (428KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1600x1066px

Pic related, superior way of life. No obesety, no whoring, nuclear families, fearful towards god and the law. Maybe allow for electricity and medication.

Too bad I'm a city rat and could probably not adapt...

>>8954255
We're in an ice age, moron.

And why the duck would you care about the"planet's time? How about human's time?

Wow you people are idiotic.

https://youtu.be/0CnR8sJ61iQ

Proof

>>8954737
I sincerely believe these people deny MAN MADE global warming purely because they dont like someone disagreeing with them.

>>8954723

I seriously think this is the long term fate of humanity. After Oil runs, rare earths, easily exploited minerals ect. run out.

Small rural towns utilizing limited electricity from renewable sources and taking advantage of low tech medical science.

>>8954737
I don't give a shit about humans

>>8954771
Or MAYBE they went on CAMP, to find EVIDENCE, by THEMSELVES instead of watching a crappy ass youtube video or a post on 4chan

you fucking moron

>>8953038
fpbp

>>8954820
>>>/pol/

>>8954814
>I don't give a shit about humans
>dey took muh coal jobs

>>8954896
I didn't even say anything racist
But now I will say, go study geology, nigger

>>8953661
nuclear and fusion are renewables, moron

>>8953038
Oh really? OH REALLY NIGGA?

>>8954908
ignore spam posts

>>8954937
No u

>>8954908
>t. /pol/tard angry for being caught

>>8952972
97% of scientists agree. I can't prove to you that it is real, but if you're willing to discredit academia when it suits you then have at it.

Fuck off, you fraudulent "scientists" bent on nothing but making America poor.

>>8954984
>discredit academia
So you agree with everything that scientists say, just because they are what you refer to as "academia"? Oh, please. Appealing to authority is still bias, no matter whether that authority is a scientist or not.

>>8954946
>>8954971
t. greenpeace popsci niggers

File: 291.png (389KB, 713x401px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 713x401px

>never been on camp once on his miserable lifetime
>SAVE NATURE GUISE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL I SWEAR

>>8955007
I'm pretty sure "appeal to authority" as a fallacy was made up just so dunning-krugerites could feel better about themselves. There's nothing wrong with appealing to authority when something is very complex.

>>8955007
Appeal to authority is when you use someone's opinion that has no authority on that subject. It would be like agreeing with mathematician's opinion on philosophy just because he has a PhD. When you listen to your doctor's advice on how to treat a cold you are not appealing to authority you mouthbreather.

File: leaf.jpg (23KB, 682x98px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 682x98px

>>8955007

>/pol/ isn't killing /sc-

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/tripcode/%21Z1RXlrpe4E/

>actually doesn't understand what an appeal to authority is

>>8953064
I agree nuclear energy is the future right?

>>8955016
There is. In physics, it would be absurd that one makes a claim and it couldn't be prooven by others. Quantum effects may seem to be really exotic stuff that only best professors in the planet can comprehend. But one can make a diffraction pattern by simply guiding a pen laser light through a hair comb.

I wouldnt want to see the white race disappear either. I think its a distinct possibility and allowing it to happen would be a huge mistake with unforeseeable consequences. But i still cant help hating the 'trash' variety of our race. Maybe there would be fewer of them if there were fewer of us. Just look at jews. Theyre doing great.

>>8955263
I think more accurately put, Appeal to Authority isn't necessarily a logical fallacy.

If you say "I believe scientists because they probably know their shit", it's not an invalid argument. We have this whole sector of higher learning and jobs where people apply complex methods to solve problems that the universe is not obligated to make digestible for laypeople. If we want to pretend Scientists are bullshit artists, we're going into crazyland.

If you say "This guy is correct because he is a scientist" then it's a problem. If "This guy" has contributed peer reviewed papers that hold up under scrutiny, however, then we're getting somewhere.

You absolutely need to be able to prove things in the field, but that isn't on the person who cites a scientist. That's for peer review.

>>8952972
It's an inductive claim.

File: x.jpg (32KB, 960x641px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 960x641px

>>8955250
Solar panels are the future

All we have to do is to breed less. Less people = less waste of all resources.

>>8953060
Fuck off, oil shill.

>>8953077
Why is the barrier reef dying a bad thing in general? Is it like the ice caps melting and releasing more CO2 or just proof of a symptom of changes in the ocean?

Basically is the death of the Great Barrier Reef going to directly make a significant change or is it a symptom of a significant change? I'm just asking because I always seen it brought up but never see why it's inherently bad.

>>8957739
It is the kinder garden for huge fish populations which then live their adult life in the Pacific. Fish populations will dwindle.

>>8957739
Even if you don't given a damn about the environment, the Great Barrier Reef makes a pretty good canary.

>>8957385
Considering that CO2 buildup got to where it is today on the emissions of basically only a few hundred million people, simply having fewer children isn't going to solve the issue. There are billions of people already here. Even if no one were to have any more children at all, it would take decades for the population to come down to under a billion.

>>8957766
>it would take decades for the population to come down
This is the scariest part of the AGW cult, they deny natural law and much scientific history regrading overshoot and population crashes. For all intensive purposes we are high functioning apes exploiting huge natural reserves of oil and gas among other things. When those deplete so will much of humanity, the AGW meme is being forced to synthesize who will be the steaks on the table and who gets the cutlery and it will be an enormous mess any way you slice it.

File: Untitled.png (50KB, 586x467px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 586x467px

>>8953060
>If you can show me one piece of actual evidence that can show that man is responsible for the within MARGIN OF ERROR slight increase in climate, i'll send you $50 on paypal.

Layman article from union of concerned scientist website
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html

Independent and peer reviewed studies on the attribution of manmade CO2 emission to observed temperature increase since the preindustrial: (look up the links in Google scholar, 4chan think that some of these links are spam)

Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind, 2008: How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L18701, doi:10.1029/2008GL034864.
>https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/le08200o.html

Huber, Markus, and Reto Knutti. "Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth/'s energy balance." Nature Geoscience 5.1 (2012): 31-36.
>http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

Gillett, N. P., et al. "Improved constraints on 21st‐century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations." Geophysical Research Letters 39.1 (2012). (PIC RELATED)
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/abstract

Meehl, Gerald A., et al. "Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth-century climate." Journal of Climate 17.19 (2004): 3721-3727.

Stone, DáithíA, et al. "The detection and attribution of climate change using an ensemble of opportunity." Journal of Climate 20.3 (2007): 504-516.

Wigley, T. M. L., and B. D. Santer. "A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming." Climate Dynamics 40.5-6 (2013): 1087-1102.

Ribes, Aurélien, et al. "A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution." Climate Dynamics 48.1-2 (2017): 367-386.

>>8953090
/moron

>>8957777
So how much money did I win? That was 7 studies out of many.

Please donate the $350 to
https://carbonfund.org/individuals/
which is a carbon offset charity. Thanks for your donation anon, what a gentleman!

>>8957773
>For all intensive purposes
>intensive

This pretty much sums up the "intellect" of your average denier.

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

79KB, 700x581px

>>8953060
>We have absolutely ZERO evidence that climate change is man-made. We have correlation going in both directions, but no actual EVIDENCE.


1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it absorb and reemit in the infrared while allow visible light to pass. Please watch the following simple experiment done by a highschool teacher
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

2. CO2 in the atmosphere have risen because of fossil fuel combustion.
>https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html

1+2 = CO2 exhibit greenhouse properties. Anthropogenic fossil CO2 emission leads to increase in atmospheric CO2. Peer reviewed studies as quads >>8957777 pointed out support this hypothesis.

Where's my 50 bucks? I need to buy that Revoltech Wolverine

File: MyKindOfParty.png (291KB, 504x473px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 504x473px

Da sun is hawt. It warm da earf. Da earf is hawt tu

File: eloncuck.png (216KB, 868x389px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 868x389px

>>8953997
This works both ways, there are shills on both sides. Oil will try to downplay it, while "climate cientists" and "green-companies" like Telsa will overplay climate change.

We used to have winters from Nov to feb-march generally but for the past 2-3 years it's only happening between Dec -feb .

It's also getting ridiculously hot now , in peak summers we used to get 42-43 degrees Celsius 2-3 years back, now we get 45 degrees. Like it's getting ridiculouse here . Of course the western world won't notice it much since they don't really live near the equator .
But for us poor fags here this shit is real .
Of course all this anecdotal but still the ones who are gonna be affected by global warming are the poor people since they can't just relocate to better areas .

>>8953101
>What is Statistics 101

>>8953060
t. 80 IQ brainlet """skeptic"""

>>8958298
It's almost like you're saying that true dialog between individuals can't happen, and that all argumentation is just a ploy to push an specific agenda

>>8954984
>97% of scientists agree.
70 people.

>>8956688
Solar panels generator around 0.0001% of the USA power. They are also kinda shit but I heard they are working on more effective ones.

Climate Change is real, the climate changes all the time. Man mand climate change is basically nothing they think that in 100 years the world temperature will go up about 1.5 degrees, THE HORROR. The wolrd has always addated to this shit, solar flare activity is fucking with us more than CO2. I'm more worried about pollution and renewable energy than sucking off Bill Nye and giving money to China for no reason.

>>8957739
The barrier reef is dying because mining companies keep dumping shit into the Ocean for some dumb fucking reason. People attribute things like terrorism and racism to climate change. I mean for fucks sake people you aren't doing anyone, especially yourselves any favors

>>8958643
Where'd you learn all that nonsense?

Because science tells us exactly how much humans contributed, exactly how much that affects temperature, how much it deviates from the natural cycle, and the effects it will have on the climate. Protip: 2°C is a big deal.

Climate change is real. Anthropogenically caused to a significant degree is questionable. It's alarmist and our hysterical response to it could be a LOT worse and more costly than climate change itself whether it's natural or man made.

>>8958662
We know how much CO2 is man-made and how that correlates temperature. We also made obtainable projections of where we can lower our emissions so that we can slow the effects. Obtainable projections take economic impacts into account.

>>8958662
>Anthropogenically caused to a significant degree is questionable
See >>8957777
The effect of anthropogenic GHG is quantifiable and with 95% confidence interval range between 90-120% of observed temperature change

>>8958674
Why is it then that all the models, alarmist or deniers, are wrong? Alarmists just spam new models whenever the error gets too large by retrofitting data. Deniers at least try to come up with models that actually predict something. They're both a joke tbqh.

>>8958703
That's just how science works my man. There are multiple ways of doing modeling that are going to have different predictions. Scientists determine which models are most true to natural phenomena and generally average them out. No model will ever be 100% perfect in its prediction. All the best models generally point toward global warming though.

>>8958724
Data-fitting isn't science. Strings, QM, GR, even Newton didn't come up by data-fitting. For proper climate science, see Milanković cycles. Data-fitting models don't predict shit, they fit the data good, that's why they're more accurate than models built on theories (that are wrong). There's no theory behind alarmist models. You can do the same thing for any sufficiently complex system.

File: Reanalysis-2 - 19790701-10_isoT_isoSpd_Flow.gif (2MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x300px

>>8958741
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datasets/reanalysis

Kalman filter and inverse model is science. Reanalysis is science.

>>8958758
Lousy science at best if you're interested in laws. If all you need is ~5 years of somewhat accurate "predictions", then i guess these random theories from computer models are sufficient.

>it's another /sci/ argues about climate change and both sides become more extreme and angry at each other
>>8954984
>97% of scientists
Ok, now you're just fucking lying

there are two options,
A. use non-renewable resources
B. develop renewable resources

it doesnt matter if global warming is real or not, sooner or later we will run out of A, for the sake of not paying astronomical prices for these nonrenewable resources in the future, we should develop cheap renewable energy ASAP!!

>>8959279
except that won't work because humans will fill all available niches opened when renewable resources become available and still use the non-renewable resources.

>>8954944
Name one thing science has proven.

>>8959279
only a change in values will avert disaster

128 answers and not a single proof for man made climate change, other than some data fits and feeling based arguments

>>8959357
>A proof
>in science
You're a moron.

>>8958703
>Why is it then that all the models, alarmist or deniers, are wrong?
They're not. Models projecting surface temps have been accurate for decades. Why do deniers have to lie every time they post?

>>8953480
Cool! were fucked.

>>8959357
You're refusing to see the evidence. >>8957777
provided you with half a dozen of studies of model comparison when you turn the GHG forcing off, that is not data fit. You refused to acknowledge even their methodology because you're too dumb to bother to read the papers

>>8957789 gave you the simple step by step logical argument. 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming. 2. Human is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. 1+2 = Human is causing warming.

>ask for proof
>given proof
>close ear and scream there is no proof lolololo I won

>>8959357
You know, it's okay to come here from /pol/ to ask about actual science instead of "hurr why are niggers so violent", but it's not okay to come in and not understand what science is.

>>8952972
about 20 yrs ago i was a skeptic about climate change. i thought it was based on computer models, i thought it was a hyperbole turning this into activist cause. but most importantly i ddint think humans were capable of changing the basic physics and chemisty of this entire huge planet. it idnt seem probably, didnt seem possible. then i learned about the record that's in the ice cores. the history of the ancient climate that was embedded in those cores and the stories that those glaciers were telling. - james balog

>>8959438
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/abs/nclimate2938.html
They haven't ever been successful, even alarmists admit that their models are wrong. They always start to differ more and more from reality as time goes on. Data-fitting won't give you an answer.

File: 0217_ZH_Fig2.jpg (57KB, 552x442px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 552x442px

>>8959777
The slowdown of warming was due to internal variability of ENSO (El Nino La Nina) phase. During 2000-2014 period following peak El Nino in 1998 we had a prolonged and persistent La Nina state. Notice that paper was published in early 2016 and probably had been in works since 2015.

Following 2014, 2015 and 2016 were all 3 of the hottest year back to back in a row ever in recorded history. Robust statistical analysis beyond 95% confidence interval show that on average the period 2000-2016 is within natural variability. Both the "slowdown" and the 3 straight hottest temperature on record were not statistically significant
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6825/meta
> We show that this recent streak of record heat does not in itself provide statistical evidence for an acceleration of global warming, nor was it preceded by a ‘slowdown period’ with a significantly reduced rate of warming. Rather, the data are fully consistent with a steady global warming trend since the 1970s, superimposed with random, stationary, short-term variability. All recent variations in short-term trends are well within what was to be expected, based on the observed warming trend and the observed variability from the 1970s up to the year 2000.

This is just the latest among several other statistical tests that concludes the same result.

A lot of climate models, due to stochastic nature of internal climate variability like ENSO do not take into account ENSO variability. Due to computational limit, even on some of the US's biggest and fastest supercomputer on the planet. NASA GISS Discover cluster that run the GISS model used to be top 100 supercomputer until it got kicked off the list last year. Anyway the statistical study show the asinine nature of year to year jousting between climate alarmist and deniers.

CONT'D

File: 400px-Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png (58KB, 400x269px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x269px

>>8959844
What matter is the long term trend. One quantitative measure of such dataset is the ocean heat content. Sheer volume and heat capacity of the ocean dampens this noise of decadal variability in climate. What we see is that despite the "so called" statistically non significant pause, followed by out of control warming following El Nino peak of 2016, what matter is that the ocean heat content is steadily increasing following linear trend starting in the 70's, agreeing with statistical analysis of the surface temperature trends.

TLDR; the CMIP models did underestimate the prolonged La Nina phase, but that's because we don't model stochastic ENSO variability into the model. The main goal of "IPCC ready" state of the art GCMs like the NASA GISS E2 and NCAR's CCSM3 are supposed to forecast first order, climate trends through to 2100, not decadal climate variabilty like what we saw during the non statistically significant pause of 2000-2014. Robust statistical analysis show that the pause was not statistically significant, as it was followed by major rump back into hot years during 2016 El Nino.

In layman's term, if you think about a shorter scale weather forecast might not be incorrect in predicting tomorrow's rain or the weekend's weather, but that doesn't mean that the prediction on how it's gonna be hot in the summer and cold in the winter invalid. Climate models had to forecast to 2100, so we cannot afford computationally to build in this added white noise of decadal variability. In the classic NDT analogy during Cosmos show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k
keep your eye on the man, not the dog

>>8959858
tl;dr
Climate=average.
Weather is like one spin of roulette,
climate is the essential probabilities of the game.
And now the game is changing.

>>8958643
>Solar panels generator around 0.0001% of the USA power
[citation needed]

In Uk, 45% is renewables.
In Germany, 85%.

so I'm guessing your 0.0001% is bullshit

https://www.ecowatch.com/germany-renewable-energy-record-2392212868.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/28/record-46-of-uks-electricity-generated-by-clean-energy-sources-in-2015

>>8953060
euphoric

>>8959899
>In Germany, 85%.
On one day.

In winter, close to 0. That is why Germany is building seven (7) new coal powered power stations.

Renewables are bullshit

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/01/30/the-wind-and-solar-will-save-us-delusion/

>>8959968
>they is building a coal plant
>renewables debunked
>here's a tabloid

If they can get off emissions for 6 months out of the year that's pretty good too ya dingus.

>>8959972
>ya dingus
kill yourself faggot.

>>8959968
it's most of the energy most of the time, so you can shove your 0.0001% up your ass

File: 29489827489.jpg (28KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 601x508px

>>8953060

here's your (You)

>>8959968
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef

>>8953706

LOL. Spectroscopy is how we know the composition of most things not on earth.

Not saying the guy was wrong, just that that example was poor.

>>8958389

I think argumentation is the resistance of specific agendas and disinformation is the ploy to push said agenda.

>>8953060
Yeah and the Earth is flat and we are all robots that were programmed to think we have human organs.

kys and so it soon because you're dumb af.

>CO2 absorbs IR
>When anything absorbs IR it heats up
>Human activity since the industrial revolution has dramatically increased the amount composition of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>Temperatures have gone up, and continue to go up accordingly.

Pretty open and shut. It's no surprise there's a flat earth movement that coincides with global warming denialism.

Climate change is real and is being increasingly affected by man made products. A change needs to happen but its not as critical as we're being told.

Along with that we have different entities pushing different agendas.

The US government: Looking to push renewable sources for its own gain, it either wants to horde oil for a specific use (think plastics) or it is trying to urge the private sector to come up with ways to increase the governmental longevity in the event of disaster.

Elon Musk: Owns a company based on renewable energy sources and is positioning himself and his company to provide for the demand of renewable energy (e.g.his new-ish roofing product). This is a gamble on a future power-grab.

Russians: Much like their long term plan of slowly eroding American morals and family, their infiltration of academic sciences has allowed them to slowly push an anti-capitalist agenda in which they funnel money out of America and into other countries; the easiest way to do this is to limit the efficiency of the US as a whole (regulations while China has zero).

Bill Nye: A serious need for relevance, this Mech. E with a simple bach degree got famous teaching children the most basic drive-by's of science. He fades into irrelevance. When those children are grown, they view him as an expert of science (to which he's proven only a basic mastery of) and he's trotted back out to do an adult version of his show and give talks about how God & Science don't mix (even though its entirely possible) and that climate change is heavily man made.

>>8960652
>Climate change is real and is being increasingly affected by man made products.
It's not "increasingly being affected," manmade emissions are the dominant forcing in the current warming trend.

I love how you give two sentences begrudgingly admitting that AGW is real and then the rest is impotent ranting about bogeymen. What exactly is your point? We shouldn't do anything because BILL NYE BRBRBRBRBR

>>8958658
Blatant lie. "Scince" does not understand the dynamic processes behind climatic changes.

>>8960677
Just because you doesn't understand climate dynamics doesn't mean science also doesn't understand

>>8958643

The temperature change across the entire surface of the Earth will be 3 to 4 deg C. Across land it will generally be 7 deg C by 2100.