It doesn't matter, because even if we do you're just going to quote one obscure article you found on the dregs of the internet and attack our sources instead of producing direct counters. We've seen this thread a million times and every time it happens it just turns into a shitposting festival.
>>7172995 But not all arguments in science can be logically true or untrue. Often, it becomes necessary to evaluate the trustworthiness of gathered evidence, as this can't be logically proven one way or another. This is where the credentials of an author come into the picture.
Having billions of cars and smoke stacks producing CO2 will cause levels of CO2 to increase. I don't think there is any arguing this. The argument I often here from deniers is that nothing bad is going to come from levels of CO2 rising.
>>7172538 Global warming isn't a human construct but the acceleration of global warming. Imagine that you have a blanket which absorb's infrared radiation while I run a microwave in front of you. The infrared radiation which is being produced at a constant will continue to be absorbed by the blanket and then released back on to body at a constant rate where it will be deflected or absorbed at a constant rate.. If we increase the density of the blanket we will absorb a higher proportion of the infrared radiation which in turn will release a greater quantity of radiation towards your body. As infrared radiation is heat you will continue to warm. Now if we changed the blanket for greenhouse gases (i.e. CO2 methane). which is great at absorbing radiation and which is also being produced now more then ever in recorded history global warming seems to be accelerating due to human interference.
>>7173117 my favorite is how they claim it's water vapour that causes global warming, not CO2, and therefore we shouldn't care about any sort of environmentalism because global warming is just part of the earth's hydrologic cycle,
because water vapour isn't a product of hydrocarbon combustion amirite?
Climate Change has been falsified. There has been no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval). "Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."
Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105
The NOAA said 15 years is enough: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt
>nb4 Santer said "30 years" NO he said 17. Show the exact quote from his 2011 paper that says you MUST wait 30 years. The confidence intervals are such that the measured RSS temperatures are outside the 95% window. Since a confidence interval is symmetric, this means will probability p < 0.025
Oops. Just proved that Climate Change is false. Sorry OP.
what if you calculated the increase in temperatures caused by the human body? I've yet to find a paper that accounts for this, considering that there are billions of spaceheaters all over this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing.
the world was warmer during dinosaur times and everything was just fine. I don't see the problem with global warning thing. Just stop building cities at sea level on flood planes. Or just say "don't polute because it bad" not this doomsaying fanaticism.
>>7173618 Ah yes, the prediction failed so we try to worm are way out of it.
You certainly have demonstrated that Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable. Suppose the models had worked just as advertised. Would you be saying "doesn't count because of 30 year cycle?" Of course not.
Model's prediction works => Climate Change is TRUE!! Model's prediction fails => hurr durr 30 year cycle, so Climate Change is TRUE!!
If you look at the contact info for geocraft, it is Monte Hieb, and guess what? surprise surprise, he works in the .... wait for it.... mining industry. He's a friggin mining engineer, not a climate scientist.
>>7173638 >uses simplistic model that doesn't explain measured trends >MODEL IS WRONG, WARMING IS A HOAX >shown more complex model that explains what's actually going on >LOL UNFALSIFIABLE, YOU GUYS ARE SHIFTING THE GOALPOSTS this is what climate science deniers actually think
Let's recap the list of real-world indicators these people are ignoring: -extreme drought in the western US -shrinking antarctic ice -global disappearance of glaciers -melting permafrost in Siberia causing massive methane explosions -rising sea levels contaminating Florida's water supply with saltwater
>b-but there are no effects of global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >fox news told me so!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's stay reasonable here. I don't want to be accused of being /pol/-like again. The idiological part of debate is widely spread in the US and in their shitty media, and that's bad.
>>7174403 >extreme drought in the western US Their own fault. They have enough of water and money, but they use it for swimming pools instead of planning cafefully. It's a local effect that could be circumvented most easily if people there wasted less resources.
>shrinking antarctic ice Every time I read the news there's another story, sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less ice.
>global disappearance of glaciers I only heard about the Alps and Himalaya. That's not global. It's multi-local. Some glaciers melt naturally, some because of tourism. Stop the Himalaya tourism. It's retarded.
>melting permafrost in Siberia causing massive methane explosions lel
>rising sea levels contaminating Florida's water supply with saltwater Coastal towns are never safe. Just look at how the coastlines of the North Sea changed in the last 1000, 2000 years. Florida has major settlements and recorded history since like 100 years or so. People there didn't find a balanced way of settlement yet.
I admit that there are lots of antropogenic influences on the local environment. This was the case in many many places through history. But they simply don't add up to a global effect. It's only multi-local. I don't like the global temperature average graphs (they use many different methods combined and that's not reliable), and those warnings of 'more hurricanes, more extreme weather situations', and the media hype. It's retarded. I don't like how the media try to create a 'we' situation as in 'we are threatened' and the threat is not specific. Climate changes. That's intrinsic in the definition of climate. Climate researchers all use cars, electrical energy, computers, and fly with airplanes to their congresses. Destruction and pollution of the environment is very bad. But panic does not adress the problem.
>>7173117 lol wut. when will faggots ever learn to read data?
for example, the infograph you posted has a nice relatively flat area at about 0 degrees temperature change, which extends for the last 10,000 years. It is noticeably "warmer" here than almost any other period in the chart, except for the last interglacial over 125,000 years ago.
So. If anthropogenic global warming is so fucking dangerous, why is it that your own data show a natural and stable high period starting millenia before human industrial activities on any scale?
Could it be... gasp... that the data support the conclusion that there are so-called natural causes to earth's global climate fluctuations??
You cant even get the fucking hockeysticks without a) zooming way in and b) manipulating modern temperature records which they have been caught at multiple times.
Climate scientists who claim a consensus or even say that the data are strongly in support of APG are simply laughable.
For the record, I'm a post doc working on statistical analysis as a regular part of my daily activities in advanced materials research.
>>7174567 >lol wut. when will faggots ever learn to read data? you still haven't mastered that lost art. nobody EVER claimed that the Earth hasn't been this warm before. the issue at hand is the RATE OF INCREASE, which is entirely unprecedented and tends to fuck up ecosystems faster than organisms can adapt or geological feedbacks can adjust the temperature.
useful metaphor: A Chicago cop pulls you over and tells you that your recent driving is against the law. You tell him that it's perfectly legal for your car to be where it is right now. To which the cop responds: "yes, but two hours ago you were in Detroit."
>>7174557 >I only heard about the Alps and Himalaya. That's not global. It's multi-local. Some glaciers melt naturally, some because of tourism. Stop the Himalaya tourism. It's retarded. How in the fuck do tourists cause glaciers to melt? And the reason that there aren't receding glaciers everywhere is because THERE AREN'T FUCKING GLACIERS EVERYWHERE. In pretty much everywhere that there ARE glaciers, those glaciers are receding, usually DRAMATICALLY
>Climate researchers all use cars, electrical energy, computers, and fly with airplanes to their congresses. YES WELL IF ENVIRONMENTALISTS ET AL. USE ELECTRICITY FOR ANYTHING, THAT'S PROOF THAT ENVIRONMENTALISM IS FAKE, AMIRITE? So much for staying reasonable, fag.
>>7174567 >a post doc working on statistical analysis >can't understand derivatives kekm8
>nobody here admits that both sides have political motivation >many people here speculate utter nonsense based on 2 minutes of their own speculation >nobody here bothers to mention that unnatural global warming isn't all bad >nobody here admits that the atmosphere has never been accurately modeled (inb4 it doesn't need to be very accurate. the temperature of earth is a determined by a chaotic system)
Why are you guys even bothering you aren't going to change anybody's opinion You were told by the first five or so anons that this thread is bait
>>7174637 what's a cause for concern is that there are actually people like you who measure from the top of a strong upward excursion in 1998 (huge El Nino) to today's baseline. measure baseline to baseline, using a multi-year moving average, if you want accurate data. it's like claiming that Sochi is suffering from a huge drop in population because there are fewer people there now than there were a year ago.
Do you have any idea of how acclimated sea creatures are to the current pH of the oceans? Even slight changes to both the global climate and ocean acidity will have an effect. What happens to the human body if you drop blood acidity to 7.0? You can't expect to make changes to the fundamental properties of a complex system and not see a drastic effect.
>>7174659 >measure baseline to baseline, using a multi-year moving average I can make an alarming looking graph about galactic cooling if I cook the data and its presentation enough.
Also if a natural variability can hide the warming for almost two decades then it's also strong enough to give a multi decade warming signal that is misinterpreted as AGW when in fact our influence is zero.
>>7174666 well see, if there is an alleged effect over the past 100-150 years, the 10,000 year interval you mandate isn't really useful for shit. the reason you don't zoom in on lab data is because with an experiment in a lab you're able to control your variables, meaning that there are ostensibly no new effects introduced late in the trial. this is not the case in geochronology; it's only in the past century and a half that humans have been extensively exploiting fossil fuels. THAT is why we're looking at a relatively short time interval: because it has a forcing in it that is entirely absent throughout the rest of the historical temperature record. if anything, the shortness of the interval in question is testament that there IS some strong effect in action; we've seen warming in the past century of a magnitude that usually takes thousands of years to happen. also, you're still just focusing on T(t) and ignoring the issue of T'(t). fuck you and your satanic trips.
>>7174667 the point is that there IS no hiatus. In 1997-1998, temperature rose sharply due to a strong El Nino effect and then fell just as quickly shortly thereafter. temperature has continued to rise steadily since, and nowadays is about up to where it was at the height of that El Nino. And then ninny-hammers like you draw a line from the top of that brief spike to today's point and say, "look, it's only as warm today as it was sixteen or seventeen years ago!", completely ignoring the warming trend in between. It's cherry-picking at its finest.
>>7174716 >"look, it's only as warm today as it was sixteen or seventeen years ago!" It have been a lot warmer in past historic time. Current climate is cooler so we'd need a lot more warming to return to the true baseline. You're of course too busy focusing on the last handful decades to promote your alarmist doomsday cult to realize you're the real cherrypicker here.
>>7174723 http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ You can clearly see the 1998 spike I'm talking about, along with the warming trend since. You can also clearly see the use of a running average rather than individual yearly points. Bite me, you instrumental record denier.
> sun has radiation energy with some reflected back to space by atmosphere > other energy comes to Earth and warms it up as normal > then this energy is radiated back up by the Earth > H20 & CO2 absorb this radiation and send it back to the Earth > rinse and repeat
Add more CO2 to this and it should be obvious what'll happen.
>>7174742 I've always had a problem with this model You're saying the co2 is a mirror and that more co2 will reflect more Except if you put a mirror begins a mirror there is no increase in reflected light
>>7174557 >Their own fault. They have enough of water and money, but they use it for swimming pools instead of planning cafefully. It's a local effect that could be circumvented most easily if people there wasted less resources. That doesn't change the fact that there's an unprecedented drought occurring right now. https://imgur.com/gallery/IgoUq
>Every time I read the news there's another story, sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less ice. You're appealing to your own ignorance as an argument.
>I only heard about the Alps and Himalaya. That's not global. It's multi-local. Some glaciers melt naturally, some because of tourism. Stop the Himalaya tourism. It's retarded. It's global. http://www.businessinsider.com/before-and-after-pictures-of-glaciers-melting-2014-5?op=1
>Coastal towns are never safe. Just look at how the coastlines of the North Sea changed in the last 1000, 2000 years. Florida has major settlements and recorded history since like 100 years or so. People there didn't find a balanced way of settlement yet. This has nothing to do with coastal safety: rising sea levels are creeping into water table. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-09-12/health/fl-saltwater-intrusion-20110912_1_saltwater-intrusion-saltwater-threat-drinking-water
>>7174955 >an unprecedented drought That doesn't change the fact that I dont give a shit for people in California. It's their own fault. It would have been prevented most easily. And that's no global thing. That's like saying it was anthropogenic cliomate change global warming when the Phoenicians had cut down all their trees, killing their own economy. >scarier-than-anyone-thought/ bingo. that's exactly the media bullshit I'm not gonna read. >http://www.businessinsider.com/before-and-after-pictures-of-glaciers-melting-2014-5?op=1 nice cherrypicking.
Oh and a big thankyou for calling _me_ ignorant. The insult dishonors only the one who phrased it.
>>7173726 No, this is what scientists think. The criteria for flasification was carefully set out by Santer et al. >>7173293 In "Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105" Showed that 17 or more years of trendless temperatures violated the Climate Change prediction.
Atmospheric temperature changes have flat-lined for 18+ years, as demonstrated here: "McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050."
This means the theory has been falsified. Instead of being honest, yes you rewrote the theory. Yes, that is called "Moving the Goalsposts." NO, whining and yelling "Denier" will not change the fact that you have entered the realm of unfalsifiability.
>nb4 ocean warming... Answer the question, with specificity and physical causality, How did the heat move from the troposphere, through the ocean surfaces and down into the deep ocean without raising tropospheric temperatures?
>>7173736 The United Nations Independent Panel on Climate Change is a POLITICAL organization. It starts with the assumption of anthropogenic climate change and goes from there. Anyone who takes them seriously is a schmuck. Do you really think its all about saving Gaia?
They want more than $500,000,000,000 by the year 2050! http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-could-cost-world-over-half-trillion-dollars-year-2050-un-report-1737524
When it comes to greed, they make the Oil Companies look like amateurs.
>>7174403 Shrinking Antarctic ice? Huh? Oh you mean land ice over volcanic areas is melting. Of course there are huge amounts of snow making up for it, but you did hear about that did you? And Antarctic Sea Ice is at near record levels. Oh, you didn't hear about that either did you?
>>7175066 http://www.cnbc.com/id/102541217 at first they claim that the warmest temperature ever was measured in the antarctic, however, in the text it is said that it's the same temp as in the 70ies >inb4 .9 F hurr durr
>>7174567 >post doc working on statistical analysis as a regular part of my daily activities in advanced materials research.
Good post. These idiots don't realize that when you take low-resolution (50 year mean), decorrelated data (temp proxies) you get a relatively flat line. Then tack on high-resolution instrumental data (1 month mean) and you get much more variance. Which is to say, a "hockey stick."
But the proxies failed. Pic related. Shows how the temperature proxies turned negative, so they cut them off and covered them up with temperature instrumental data to "hide the decline."
>nb4 But Simpleton Science says... Don't waste time.
>>7175199 >Hence there is a need to address two questions: 1) how should the duration of the hiatus be measured? 2) Is it long enough to indicate a potential inconsistency between observations and models? This paper focuses solely on the first question. From the paper referenced in your post. An apparent leveling is evidence that certainly weakens the warming model, but doesn't actually falsify it. If you look at the past century's temperature records, we've seen periods with similar leveling-off that nonetheless fit into the longer-scale trend of warming. The trouble with you lot is that you're ready to dismiss the figurative mountains and mountains of evidence against your position in favor of one single line of reasoning that seems to support it.
>>7175217 >They want more than $500,000,000,000 by the year 2050! >When it comes to greed, they make the Oil Companies look like amateurs. What that article says is that by 2050, it might cost $500 billion per year to help nations deal with the effects of climate change. (That's not money to be given to scientists, but rather the costs of mitigating changes in climate.) HEY, DO YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH THE SUBSIDIES FOR FOSSIL FUELS TOTAL ALREADY? $500 BILLION PER YEAR, WORLDWIDE. So what you're saying is that the costs of managing climate change thirty-five years down the line are likely to approach the dollar amount that governments give to oil and coal companies already. When it comes to greed, the oil companies are still WELL AHEAD.
>>7175220 Antarctic sea ice extent is indeed rising, albeit slowly. Land ice is being lost from Antarctica in substantial amounts. However, the melting is NOT occurring over volcanic areas (you nitwit), but rather at the edges, where warmer water meets the ice. Because ice flows, that loss at the edges gets distributed into the interior. You don't have to be a genius to understand this. Significantly, the loss of land ice is recent, dating back perhaps to the 1990s.
>>7175236 They used the actual temperature record (when available) in place of a proxy measurement. This is perfectly fine! I mean, if they KNEW from actual thermometer readings what the temperature was, and the proxy didn't agree with it, then the proxy shouldn't be trusted over the direct measurements. Now, it's a valid criticism to say "if the proxy was inaccurate recently, why are you trusting its record of times before we had thermometer measurements?" But you morons never actually make that argument, but instead carry on about this thoroughly imaginary falsification of data because you're too thickheaded to understand the logic behind the methodology.
>>7175324 >From the paper referenced in your post. An apparent leveling is evidence that certainly weakens the warming model, but doesn't actually falsify it. If you look at the past century's temperature records, we've seen periods with similar leveling-off that nonetheless fit into the longer-scale trend of warming.
Wrong. 17 years of flat temps falls outside of the 95% confidence interval. Since the confidence interval is symmetric, that has a probability of 2.5%. Statistical significance happens at 5%. The theory has been falsified.
And why the reference to similar leveling off in the past? The is an argument AGAINST Man-Made climate change. Because it was Natural. The whole point is that this was supposed to be different because its man-made.
Just admit that Climate Change is unfalsifiable. >nb4 wait 30 years! I mean 100 years! Till all the "scientists" are safely retired or dead. Do you really expect me to take this "heads we win, tails you lose" game seriously? Are you really going to tell me that if there was significant troposphere warming in the past decade you would say, "it doesn't count because it hasn't been 30 years, or 100 years or whatever."
Troposphere temps go up in the past decade, as predicted => Climate Change is TRUE! Troposphere temps do not go up in the past decade, contrary to predictions => Climate Change is TRUE!
>>7173008 Humans don't produce that much by themselves. But it's still humanity's fault because cows are the responsible organism for CO2 production (the number 2 is in the w key in android, making it COw, therefore, proving my point, lol).
>>7175324 >However, the melting is NOT occurring over volcanic areas (you nitwit), but rather at the edges, where warmer water meets the ice.
Volcanoes are ON THE EDGES, nitwit. Pic related And that warmer water is creating all that near-record level sea ice? You really are a nitwit. >nb4 evil denier Like volcanoes care.
"Melting Antarctic Variable crustal thickness beneath Thwaites Glacier revealed from airborne gravimetry, possible implications for geothermal heat flux in West Antarctica." Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Volume 407, 1 December 2014, Pages 109–122
" The presence of such inferred warm upper mantle also suggests regionally elevated geothermal heat flux in this sector of the West Antarctic Rift System and consequently the potential for enhanced meltwater production beneath parts of Thwaites Glacier itself."
Elevated Geothermal Heat Flux in This Sector. Lrn2Science.
>>7175340 >Now, it's a valid criticism to say "if the proxy was inaccurate recently, why are you trusting its record of times before we had thermometer measurements?" But you morons never actually make that argument,
I didn't state that argument because it follows directly. Sheesh. But thanks for debunking the hockey stick argument. But you really need to understand statistics. It is NOT perfectly fine to marry 1 month resolution data to 50 year resolution data. Put the instrumental data through a 50 year running mean. But that would flatten the hockey stick wouldn't it?
The fact that 98% of climate scientists (and pretty much all of top climate scientists) should at least make you worry. It is our home after all, literally our life blood. Outside of earth is basically hell, and we don't yet (not even close in fact) have the technology/resources to be able to repair major damage to a biosphere quickly and/or create sustainable artificial biospheres.
Really, we should be doing something. If you don't think there is a problem you are retarded.
If 98% of doctors told you that you were terminally ill, would you just ignore it because it inconveniences you?
>>7175536 The weather is a chaotic system, so it is naturally very difficult to predict exactly. Are you saying we aren't harming the planet? The earth is warming and weather is getting harsher. Animals are going extinct to fast, due to human activity, that we are currently in a major extinction event.
Please tell me how the climate isn't being majorly affected?
>>7175557 No tropospheric warming for 18+ years.... "Harming the planet" is a reference to any potential pollutant. That's a different argument. Let's stick with the subject. CO2 is not a pollutant. If anything, its plant food. It's been at MUCH higher levels in the past. This is really about politicians and the U.N. trying to get money, power and fulfillment of their political ideology.
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “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…”
>>7175557 >The weather is a chaotic system, so it is naturally very difficult to predict exactly. Are you saying we aren't harming the planet?
You're trying to have it both ways. "its a chaotic system, we can't predict it! Yet we know we are harming it." NO. You don't. This is what drives me nuts about this pseudo-science. Can't predict anything, yet its so sure that whatever is happening is being done by us.
>>7175676 Why do you so badly want Global Warming to not be true? You're jumping between extremes, just because weather is chaotic and hard to predict, DOESN'T mean we can't predict it. And just because we can predict it DOESN'T mean it's too chaotic and completely unpredictable. We can and do have it both ways. There is absolutely nothing pseudoscientific about it, it's complete fucking basic science in fact how do you feel being part of the 2% of brain dead retards the science world laughs at?
>>7175632 There is no evidence it's "a normal thing" our planet does, there is substantial it's caused by us. And no. extended global temperature change periods in the past like the ice age is not evidence.
>>7174922 I though this was the case but this simply shifts my argument So by this model x co2 per sq m should half the light getting though (of the frequencies in question) Do we know what x is If x is small which is what I would expect (though I'm no expert) then this is like expecting a piece of lead to heat up near a nuclear reactor because there is radiation produced In practice you won't be able to tell the lead has gained any energy because the numbers are so small
>It 98% of doctors made failed diagnosis, after failed diagnosis, after failed diagnosis. provides exact numbers, and it explains how, although small, the influence is significant.
Fortunately, this isn't the case.
>>7175666 >No tropospheric warming for 18+ years.... A large problem with citing data without reading the research is that important context is missed. For example, the satellites that collected the data varied in calibrations and orbit. Older satellites use Microwave Sounding Units while newer use Advanced Microwave Sounding units, and since they use different frequencies at different numbers, combining the readings is rather complex. Furthermore, most satellites have decaying orbits that must be accounted for, as it alters the accuracy of the MSU/AMSU. However, when they account for this fact and correct the data, people scream "They're cooking the data!"
>>7173026 The interesting thing about Earth is that significantly altering any of its spheres will also alter the other spheres. e.g. significantly altering the atmosphere will alter the hydrosphere, biosphere, and geosphere.
Consider when we were expelling a significant amount of sulfur into the atmosphere, creating a significant increase of sulfuric acid rain, which greatly influenced soil, life, and water in a largely negative way. This is not because sulfuric acid is inherently negative, but the quantities were too much and the change too sudden. The same can be claimed about CO2.
>>7177379 >>7177422 Why do you believe this is legitimate evidence for a galactic scale conspiracy theory? Do you have any doubts that these quotes might be mined to confirm a bias?
For example: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts
What makes your evidence better than the evidence I link? Or are they equivalent?
You claim there's overwhelming proof that alarmist models are right when every single one of them fails to make an accurate prediction.
Climate science is the modern equialvent to snake oil. Wild claims presented as absolute truth with a 100% failure rate.
How fucking delusional do you have to still buy it when the proof of its failure is right in front of your fucking eyes. Compounded by damning email leaks revealing their deceptive and underhanded tactics.
Firstly, global warming is not solely a human construct. It has been going on since the beginning of Earth and is a natural part of our ecosystem. We, however, are accelerating the process to the point where not only is it detrimental but could cause the extinction of a shitload of species. As to proof, there is no question that Earth is getting hotter. Every year you will hear on the news that they are getting record heat, and then that record will be topped the next year. 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. This is simply me stating facts. I'm not going to take the time to cite my sources but I encourage you to do research yourself so you don't have to be the guy bringing a snowball to the legislature and calling it proof global warming is a myth.
>>7177699 You didn't answer my question. I've looked at your graphs and data, and I also know the research papers they're affiliated with -- well, the graph is not from a research paper; it's made by Dr. Roy Spencer, posted on his website. Furthermore, the data Dr. Spencer used was cherry picked from a very specific area: the mid-troposphere, between 20N and 20S of the equator. This is easily confirmed.
However, Dr. Spencer never explicitly states this. Personally, I believe his intent was to trick people into sharing this graph, thinking the data shows something it does not. Regardless of his intent, people are doing such.
I will post a graph that calculates more than a single, hand-picked point.
>>7177756 >cherry picked from a very specific area: the mid-troposphere, between 20N and 20S of the equator. This is easily confirmed. Cherry picking usually is more specific than a globe-spanning band even if that band happens to be limited to tropics. But whatever, if it's so easy to confirm that this data is exclusively from the tropics then do it. Preferably with something appended that shows this cherrypicking makes it look cooler than if he had extended the latitude band.
>>7177784 >Do you know their explanations? I'd assume it's pulled out their ass, every change GISS does makes the past colder, the present warmer, or ensure that a new alarmist record have been set.
>From 1981 to 2013, GISS was directed by James E. Hansen. In June 2014, Gavin A. Schmidt was named the institute's third director.
Hansen is an environmentalist activist with clear political agenda. His successor is in bed with the climategate crowd. This is the equivalent of health research on tobacco sponsored by tobacco companies.
>>7177788 And how does it look like if we use a global dataset instead? Given how the RSS data looks like it shouldn't be much of a difference in the satellite record at least.
Also you said. >However, Dr. Spencer never explicitly states this. So he did explicitly state it in the fucking image, but you decided to ignore what was in your fucking face and pull an argument out of your ass.
>>7177798 >So he did explicitly state it in the fucking image He did not explicitly state his purpose or the significance of the data. This is evidence by the fact that you linked the graph, thinking it was showing a global average. Furthermore, it shows that you didn't even read the graph you were using as evidence, since you asked for proof of the evidence coming from the narrow parameter.
>>7177798 >I'd assume it's pulled out their ass, every change GISS does makes the past colder, the present warmer, or ensure that a new alarmist record have been set. You should read the explanations. That would allow you to at least form a strong argument instead of "I assume."
>>7177798 >And how does it look like if we use a global dataset instead? I already linked the graph, but you dismissed the analysis, claiming it was "over-processed".
>>7177798 >Hansen is an environmentalist activist with clear political agenda. His successor is in bed with the climategate crowd. >This is the equivalent of health research on tobacco sponsored by tobacco companies.
Fair enough. However, this does not explain away the independent research or analysis done by various other countries.
>>7176638 >Furthermore, most satellites have decaying orbits that must be accounted for, as it alters the accuracy of the MSU/AMSU. However, when they account for this fact and correct the data, people scream "They're cooking the data!"
the people who do this satellite temperature stuff account for this. Sheesh. If the data contradicts the theory, so much worse for the theory... No wonder Climate Change is a pseudo-science.
>>7177756 Oh Boy, straight from Simpleton Science. The kings of shilling and deception provide a rewrite of the AR4 models. See the real thing, attached. Its from the ACTUAL UN IPCC AR4 report; with updated temps. The only thing Simpleton Science has done is a pathetic attempt to rewrite history.
This WAS NOT the predictions. This is after-the-fact. Is there any lie that warmists won't tell to protect their greenie-socialist ideology?
>>7177756 If you want to be taken seriously show us an Actual Graph that was published at the time of AR4 (2007) or earlier, the temps can be updated. Cite the publication and date. This after-the-fact stuff is crap.
>>7177778 Sigh. Perhaps you don't know much about Climate Change theory. The "greenhouse effect" is supposed to start in the mid-troposphere and be the strongest there. It is also where specific predictions, like Santer et al. (2011) were made for. Now that the predictions have failed, I guess you don't want to talk about it! >>7173293
>>7177819 >You should read the explanations. That would allow you to at least form a strong argument instead of "I assume."
They are purposefully vague and devoid of substantive content. Nor do they actually correspond to the real changes. They talk about "homogenizing outliers." In the distant past, Urban Heat Island tainted data would be an outlier. So that would be corrected downward. So far so good. But there are much more Urban Heat Island tainted data now. So the outliers are now rural stations. They get corrected upward. Thus, old data is pushed down and new data is "corrected" up.
This is a grave mistake. All Urban data should have the Urban Heat Island effect subtracted from it period, end of story. Or better yet, don't use it. Instead of conveniently spreading it to rural data. Clean, non-urban temp data (NOT putrefied by homogenization) is about 0.5 degrees colder. That's right. About half of climate change is nothing but the Urban Heat Island effect!
>nb4 They compared Urban to rural data and they're the same. They compare AFTER homogenization which means that the Urban Heat Island effect has been spread to the rural data. So of course its now the same. Doesn't change the fact that its now bad data.
Did anyone else see that Vice episode on climate change? It seems undeniable that at the very least there will be a meter increase in sea level. Also, at least from a point of view as someone unversed in climate change arguments but as a statistician, it seems inane to argue over global temperatures over a period of time so inordinately short and incomprehensible in relation to other periods. The last one hundred years are the most industrious years of humanity and it would be very challenging to deduce the effects of that in the short term.
>But there are much more Urban Heat Island tainted data now. So the outliers are now rural stations. They get corrected upward. Thus, old data is pushed down and new data is "corrected" up. This is a bunch of nonsense. Urban Heat Island effect can be easily seen and corrected by comparing urban regions to the regions around them. Then if urban region is hotter it gets corrected down. And this is exactly what homogenization does. How does homogenization taint data?
>>7178091 >Then if urban region is hotter it gets corrected down. Sounds great. Except that this isn't what actually happens.
They correct past data(when UHI had less impact) to be COLDER and the present to be WARMER. And any station that shows anything uncomfortable such as a cooling trend is dropped or get some special manipulation because "undocumented instrument change" or "relocation" or whatever else they can cook up to fabricate its data set.
Their homogenization process does the exact opposite of it's intended purpose.
>How does homogenization taint data? If your gold standard calibration target is wrong then everything calibrated according to it will also be fucked up.
Do you think image sensors or monitors calibrated with an inverted colour chart would somehow end up displaying correct colours? If not, then why do you expect temperature charts homogenized with a fucked up target to somehow avoid corruption?
And no, they're not interested in accurate data, they generate media interest and hype, funding and so on. And any attempt to make it right will also lead to being ostracized.
Every system can be corrupted, systems that you aren't allowed to criticize are especially vulnerable as errors and corruptions are allowed to accumulate because interventions are forbidden, but somehow climate politics/science that enjoy this privilege is pristine, perfect and incorruptible? Seriously, put your bias on the shelf for a while and consider this.
>>7178821 >They correct past data(when UHI had less impact) to be COLDER and the present to be WARMER. So? Where is your evidence that those corrections are incorrect? The algorithm can be downloaded by anyone. If you think there is something wrong with it, you can point it out exactly. But you won't do that because your argument is based on the premise that climate change is not occuring, thus anything that shows climate change must be wrong. This is called begging the question. Until you can actually show what is wrong with homogenization your arguments simply amount to the fact that you don't like the conclusions.
>If your gold standard calibration target is wrong then everything calibrated according to it will also be fucked up. The calibration is based on the most recent, accurate temperature measurements. How is this wrong?
>Do you think image sensors or monitors calibrated with an inverted colour chart would somehow end up displaying correct colours? >If not, then why do you expect temperature charts homogenized with a fucked up target to somehow avoid corruption? What would the inverted color chart be in your analogy? Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of criticizing flaws in the method, you are raging against it's conclusions, with no basis to argue against them.
>And no, they're not interested in accurate data, they generate media interest and hype, funding and so on. And any attempt to make it right will also lead to being ostracized. This is just conspiracy logic which can be applied to any scientific fact you don't like. Get evidence or get the fuck out.
>>7179015 >Where is your evidence that those corrections are incorrect? Wow. I'm amazed by your mental gymnastics, it's truly mindblowing to what extent you're willing to go justify your blind faith. If you don't realize what's wrong with further increasing an already artificially elevated temperature measurement then you truly and thoroughly are a complete fucking retard and not even the atlantic freezing over would change your absurd belief.
I'm used to AGW proponents and their faithful using absurd reasoning but this is the most braindead statment I've seen so far.
>>7179066 >If you don't realize what's wrong with further increasing an already artificially elevated temperature measurement then you truly and thoroughly are a complete fucking retard and not even the atlantic freezing over would change your absurd belief. You have done nothing to show that the temperature measurement is incorrectly elevated. The only one using faith is you. Again, your entire argument is simply that you don't like the conclusion, thus the method must be wrong. You refuse to actually show how the method is wrong, because you don't actually know that it's wrong. So who should we believe? Scientists who publish papers detailing the reasoning, process, and data behind their conclusion for all to see, or someone who has none of these things? Only a religious believer could be blind to the intellectual paucity of your position.
>>7179045 >If everyone pretend this is true then reality will follow! >We don't have a consensus but if we have a majority who pretends to have a consensus then surely reality will adjust itself to us! >Remember that in science you're either with us or against us, our hypothesis is absolute truth and we don't tolerate any deviation from the official line! Put on your cultist garb and go to /x/ or /pol/.
>>7179124 >ocean heat content Are you sure it's not hiding in the crust? Maybe we have aquifier warming. Maybe it teleported to magma reserviours waiting to ambush our atmosphere suddenly via the same mysterious mechanism that made it escape to the oceans?
Oh we can't actually measure the heat teleportation but we know it's there because muh models.
> Global surface temperature shows it We tortured the raw data until it agreed with us. We're 100% sure this highly manipulated dataset tells us the truth. Now come join GISS in the climate activist march, it's all about science, nothing about politicis, trust us, we've never been caught lying and planning subterfuge in emails or anything like that.
>roy spencer fabricated the satellite record. I know this because facts ends where my opinion begins.
>>7179124 Special to Climate Depot: By Lord Christopher Monckton Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. The graph below shows no global warming at all for 17 years 6 months:
Related Links: Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine ten separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9) ’Stadium Waves’ 10) ‘Coincidence’ Update: Excuse number 10 for the global warming ‘pause’ — ‘Coincidence!’, according to NASA scientists: ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’ Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’
>>7179148 What are you babbling about? Earth's oceans have much more thermal mass than surface atmosphere. Any warming is absorbed by the oceans much more than the air.
>We tortured the raw data until it agreed with us. Again, all anyone has to do is show the faulty part of the homogenization algorithm. Until you do this you are just arguing from your hatred of the conclusion, so your opinion is worthless.
Roy Spencer made a graph calling mid-troposhere temperatures global surface temperature.
>the oceans decided to appear and steal all warming for the last 18 years. they didn't do it previously because trust us you're too dumb to understand our highly accurate models that have a 100% failure rate.
>Roy Spencer made a graph and I made a strawman about it being claimed as global temperature despite it explicitly stating in the graph that it's not, but I've never cared for the accuray of any written record so i'll just reach deep into my rectum and pull out a half-assed argument as I always do. Because my opinion is worth more than fact. ftfy.
>show the accurate part of the homogenization algorithm corresponding to real world raw data. Until you do this you are just arguing from your biased love of the conclusion, so your opinion is worthless.
Burden of proof swings both way.
In b4 muh 'consensus', handwaving, cherrypicking, ad hominems and impotent rage because people dare to not share your blind faith in the biased opinions of some retarded activist and conman with a track record of never being right.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
I had to make a followup to the shittiest post I've seen all day.
""Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10"
""Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)"
Why the fuck is a space agency spending a significant proportion of their budget "studying" climate? Surely there are other governmentai institutions that can do a better job?
Also, >trusting nasa and their 'impeccable' record with your life or future.
Kek, typical burger.
So, what about the "3%"? Well, are we counting meteorology in this as well? Or is it just climatologists, circlejerking in their climatology coloring books?
>>7179294 >IPCC >taking it seriously Oh, wow. Now that, that is just sad. You're either trolling, or you are seriously misguided. It keeps on coming out on how IPCC only works on buddy-buddy principle and completely ignores science in the process. This has been known for a while. This is the reason people have been forced to change their careers, not because their science isn't sound, but because IPCC constantly censors anything that isn't part of the hive mind.
Additionally, a lot of people on the list of agencies you have there, have been accused of, and found guilty of, some form of fraud. The most recent was chelean, if I remember correctly, for installing stations in fucking cities and near asphalt. Additionally, as soon as it's proven that humans are not responsible for climate change, a great big load of those agencies dissappears over night.
>>7179307 You know, fortune tellers have a consensus as well. That must make it true, right? Just because you ignore people from other (or should I say, actual scientific) fields giving you facts, doesn't mean they don't know more than you.
Humans release greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases demonstrably decrease the mean-free-path of thermal radiation. Therefore, greenhouse gases cause warming. As humans contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, humans contribute to warming. There isn't really a way to argue around this.
>outdated quotes. I guess phlogistons and the lumniferous aether also exists because once upon a time they were mainstream. Also H.pylorii doesn't cause stomach ulcers. I just need to find ancient quotes that support it and it will become truth.
2001 is outdated as shit. 2009 also. The hiatus back then could still be handwaved away as a statistical anomality(which they did with great vigor while sweating bullets and praying to the climate gods for a continuation of their short previous warming trend), today it have been long enough that it invalidates the theory no matter how much you cry, manipulate land surface records and try to ridicule those who actually cares about the climate science and not just have an ideological faith in climate politics.
AGW is a dying fad in damage control mode and it's not going to be more pretty.
They are desperate to claim for everyone to do something because then they could shout "look it's working!" to save their own asses. Political inertia however is going to kill their stupid little scheme. Especially as people are waking up to the subterfuge and manipulation that have been going on.
IPCC graphs will be the smoking-is-healthy ads of the early 2000s.
>>7179333 Except there is. CO2 is on the bottom of the list for green house gasses. Additionally, throughout a great huge part of history, changes in temperatures predated changes in CO2, proving again, that correlation =/= causation.
>>7179343 Strawman. >humans wear white clothing. White reflects sun. >humans contribute towards global cooling. If still you claim humans contribute to global warming, you have to claim humans contribute to global warming as well.
>>7179338 Humans release manufactured gases with many thousands of times the thermal forcing of CO2. The claim also does not change the basic laws of physics governing the emission and scattering of radiation. Furthermore, all claims that I have seen of this compare two graphs from different sources without error bars and then go "they don't match therefore CO2 can't cause warmming." From the previously stated physics argument, this is blatantly retarded. From a data analysis perspective, the argument is empty as the data sets are not being compared meaningfully.
>>7179333 Humans release CO2, a weak as shit greenhouse gas that at current levels would be too weak to separate from noise. To get around the impotency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas we add unobserved and unverified forcing variables that multiply the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas at a level that just happens to be backfitted to the natural temporary increase.
Natural factors stop the natural temporary increase, revealing the fallacious claim of forcings. Don't worry though, we can make several unverified claims and manipulations that would normally be crackpot science or fraudulent to explain the lack of warming away, because people are guilt tripped and have faith in feel-good environmentalist causes we can drag this damage control out for far beyond what would be possible in any other field. Ooops this is dragging out, lets start to attenuate our IPCC reports every year and invent implausible mechanisms that explain away the hiatus until we retire and die so we avoid getting lynched. Also step up the media damage control.
You forgot some minor details, I hope you don't mind me adding them.
>>7179365 Have you actually read any of the papers you are trying to defend? You speak of error bars as if people doing climate research know what they are. You might know, I don't know, but they don't seem to. You speak of scattering of radiation, as if there is a well-known mechanism behind how that causes global warming. It all boil down to "fudging it until it fits". Seriously, read a paper or two. It's not science.
Additionally, CO2 is being advertised as evil and the >manufactured gases with many thousands of times the thermal forcing of CO2 aren't even being questioned, as apparenty, they contribute a LOT less than CO2. Supposedly. So don't try that argument, because if those >manufactured gases with many thousands of times the thermal forcing of CO2 are not that bad, then neither is CO2.
>>7179385 >Have you actually read any of the papers you are trying to defend? All climate model papers I have seen include rather large error bars when in the context of a scientific paper. The error bars tend to go missing when the media gets a hold of them and when people want to compare it to real climate data in a negative way claiming that the model doesn't exactly fit the data.
>You speak of scattering of radiation, as if there is a well-known mechanism behind how that causes global warming If I increase the number of scatters, the time between scattering events decreases. Assuming each scattering event sends the light in a random direction, which is not a bad assumption, then the amount of time for a given photon to escape increases with the number of scatters. As it takes longer to get rid of energy without a significant reduction in the amount of energy input, the system accumulates energy, which manifests as heating. So yes, there is a very well understood mechanism by which scattering causes heating.
>aren't even being questioned, as apparenty, they contribute a LOT less than CO2 A lot of this has to do with what the press take away from press releases. As for political agendas, they are largely divorced from science whenever it is convenient for them to be. Since the media understands "CO2 causes warming," that is what most people will hear and that is what most politicias will focus on. Who cares about hexa-meta-whatcha-callit when no one that votes for the politician has heard of it?
>>7179216 >the oceans decided to appear and steal all warming for the last 18 years. What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with the oceans "stealing" warming. The oceans show Earth has been warming over the last 18 years and before that. So does the surface temp data. The meme that there hasn't been warming for X years is based solely on mid-troposphere temps which have been misidentified as surface temps.
>Show the accurate part of the homogenization algorithm corresponding to real world raw data. Until you do this you are just arguing from your biased love of the conclusion, so your opinion is worthless. This has already been done in numerous studies: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/williams-etal2012.pdf http://www.clim-past.net/8/89/2012/cp-8-89-2012.html
There are also studies on specific inhomogenities like the Urban Heat Island effect, showing that homogenization does remove them:
>>7179262 >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html Already posted the video destroying Booker in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
>http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2603/more_controversy_over_draft_un_climate_report_20_years_of_overestimated_warming Already pointed out that that was a faulty graph from a leaked draft of the report int his thread: >>7178068
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html >OMG one astrophysicist says global warming isn't real >no paper >climate scientists disagree >This is super important guys!
>>7179450 >claiming it's well understood >showing how it's "fudged to make it fit" It's basically an assumption with about 5 unknowns that are fixed so as to make a pretty picture. That's not fucking science and don't claim otherwise.
Additionally, large error bars mean bad science. Large error bars mean cooling is possible. Fuck, large error bars order of degrees mean you can not claim warming over past 100 years to be in order of degrees. Again, climatology isn't science.
>>7179456 I'm not claiming anything, you are. I only said CO2 is not that strong of a greenhouse gas and water vapor is a much stronger one. I think CO2 is somewhere between spot 10 and 100, with a factor of about 1000 from the first place. Been a while since I read on that.
>>7179455 >so what exactly did give humans souls, if not god? Supposedly there's been no warming or cooling for close to two decades now. Not saying there's no warming going on, I'm just saying that question, at this point in time, is more of a religious one, than scientific one. Climatology isn't science.
>>7179481 Wow, that's a really scientific argument. Next you're going to tell me that Jesus loves us and would never let the Earth get too hot right?
Still waiting for someone to debunk the scientific fact that global warming is real and caused by humans. This would of course require one to to show that for example, data collection is flawed or homogenization is flawed. But instead we get "hurr duh earth is weally big so I don't tink we can effekt it"
>>7179490 >Supposedly there's been no warming or cooling for close to two decades now. Not saying there's no warming going on, I'm just saying that question, at this point in time, is more of a religious one, than scientific one. Climatology isn't science. I'd rather not argue the nitty gritty of the subject right now, talking about the evidence and defending the IPCC. I would like to know what is your vested interest in the topic. Are you a nationalist who wants to burn and sell as much coal as possible and doesn't like the international community telling your nation what it should do? Personally, I would imagine anyone who cares about humanity as a whole would prefer humanity wean itself off fossil fuels sooner rather than later. The longer we have to switch to renewable energy sources the better.
>>7179472 Nice anecdotal youtube video that shows how flawed the entire system is and how desperate AGW apologizers are to suck hansen/gavins hairy dicks. >"we assume that everything was colder in the past and hotter in the present and will actively search for anything that support these statement, then apply the same past-cooling current-heating algorithm as we did to almost every other surface station that we have data availble on!" >Shouldn't we investigate temperatures in paraguay? No way! we might find out the raw data is closer to truth than our crazy readjustments and that would be unacceptable!
>>7179539 >Nice anecdotal youtube video that shows how flawed the entire system is and how desperate AGW apologizers are to suck hansen/gavins hairy dicks. The only "anecdotal" part of it is that it responds to Booker's inane fixation on a single station. It clearly shows how homogenization works and how it makes sense, and completely destroys the idea that scientists are adjusting the data based on ideology. How can you argue this when the adjustments only increases warming by 3% compared to the raw data? Wow you truly revealed the heinous conspiracy to fabricate 3% warming. Congratulations.
>>7179527 >Personally, I would imagine anyone who cares about humanity as a whole would prefer humanity wean itself off fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Do you care about humanity? Ensure people have cheap and reliable energy availibe as it strongly correlates to prosperity.
>The longer we have to switch to renewable energy sources the better. Switch to nuclear not renewable. Germany tried to go renewable and are now burning more coal than they did when they had nuclear to support their headless renewable policy. Nuclear will last for the hundred+ years it will take to get renewables to a point where they have a chance to provide baseload energy.
>>7179527 I'm a scientist. My vested interest is keeping science scientific and not turn it into astrology. Climatology is doing just that. It's making a mockery of the scientific method. And, yes, I do care greatly about humanity and my children, don't try and paint me as the devil or a witch who is against your religion. I want them to be able to know solid facts and extrapolate from them. I don't want them to blindly follow a person who actually does have vested interest simply because he applies color to the graph.
>>7179490 >It's basically an assumption with about 5 unknowns that are fixed so as to make a pretty picture. That's not fucking science and don't claim otherwise. "Scattering makes it harder to leave" is a fairly simple thing to demonstrate. Take some balls and mark one and see how the number of unmarked balls influences how long it takes for the marked ball to "escape." This is a bit different since the scatters will be escaping at a similar rate, but it should work well enough for a demonstration. You can work out the scattering angles/amplitudes for various molecules, but that is not really going to change that hitting shit makes getting out take longer.
>>7179572 >I don't care for conclusions, all I care for is science, and climatology isn't science. This is just sad. You're clearly lying to yourself. You don't like the conclusions, thus you think the methodology is wrong. You have not done a single thing to show how climatology is not science. You're a hypocrite.
>>7179560 But what is your vested interest in the topic?
>nuclear That's beside the point. It's better to switch gradually to nuclear and renewable than relatively suddenly when we actually begin to run out of cheaply accessible fossil fuels such as petroleum. Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere.
Also, Germany switched to renewable as a means of breaking it's eternal dependence on foreign resources. That dependence is what lost them both World War I and drove them to invade Poland.
>>7179554 >fixation on a single station. Nice strawman. Three different stations far away from eachother show the same trend, mentioned by booker.
>It clearly shows how homogenization works You take any data you disagree with, make an assumption that a paraguayan thermometer X years ago always showed 2 centigrades or more too much. Y years ago was sortof correct and can be used to pivot the whole graph and recently Z years ago was consistently recorded too low. You then make the highly scientific biased asspull that all three station had the precise same error because regional climate can't exist. And adjust them all in the same way.
And somehow this magically past-cooling present-heating homogenization happens time and time and time again for every surface record. It's amazing how regional climate ends up looking the same everywhere after the adjustment, totally just a coincidence.
> and completely destroys the idea that scientists are adjusting the data based on ideology.
It strongly suggests that all adjustments are purely based on ideology. That you selectively are blind or chose to lie reinforces my past statement that.
>You're a complete fucking idiot.
If I was a doctor and gave any patient data the same treatment I'd lose my license, get fined and possibly jailed. In climate science it makes perfect sense instead.
>the adjustments only increases warming by 3% compared to the raw data? And what if the raw data is already inflated by 30% due to increasing UHI which we know have been increasing all the time? Instead of adjusting downwards to get rid of UHI we instead adjust upwards to amplify UHI even further. The past when UHI was less severe? Adjust it downwards to make the artifically created warming stand out even more.
What makes you so willing to believe in outright fraud when there's heaps of evidence in your fucking face.
>>7179593 >when we actually begin to run out of cheaply accessible fossil fuels such as petroleum They already ran out a long time ago. We switched to more expensive and advanced technology, the cost increased a bit but the accessible fuel reserves with this new tech increased a lot.
The reason why the saudis are pouring out cheap oil with no limit nowdays is partially because the previous higher price meant fracking which unlocks fuel reserves anywhere in the entire fucking world was cost competitive, which meant they could've been marginalized. right now it isn't so further advancement in fracking is less interesting.
>>7179593 >Also, Germany switched to renewable as a means of breaking it's eternal dependence on foreign resources. They switched because the zealous green movement is large in germany and they shat their pants due to fukushima and made an ill-fated rosy political push against nuclear due to it. They are importing both coal and coal-electric energy now and the cost of electricity on average is highest in europe due to this(also the cost of renewables is pushed onto the consumer via some forced green tax equivalent.
>>7179594 >Three different stations far away from eachother show the same trend, mentioned by booker. That's the fucking point idiot. It's basically the definition of cherrypicking and it's all the more ironic because the entire point of homogenization is to find the very outliers Booker found and correct them. It just shows he has no idea what he's talking about. There are plenty of stations that show outlier warming from equipment adjustment or urban heat island effect and we're corrected down, why doesn't Booker show that? Because he's arguing against the conclusion and not the method. What a surprise.
>You take any data you disagree with, make an assumption that a paraguayan thermometer X years ago always showed 2 centigrades or more too much. Complete bullshit. The algorithm finds data that disagrees with surrounding measurements and corrects them. It has no bias towards warming or cooling trends.
>It strongly suggests that all adjustments are purely based on ideology. That you selectively are blind or chose to lie reinforces my past statement that. So making warming 3% higher than what the raw data suggests is evidence that climate scientists are adjusting the data based on ideology? You're fucking insane. First of all, the raw data already shows warming. Second, if scientists wanted to create false warming why would they only increase it by an insignificant amount?
>And what if the raw data is already inflated by 30% due to increasing UHI which we know have been increasing all the time? The Urban Heat Island effect creates urban outliers of warmth, thus homogenization finds it and corrects it. And I've already posted studies showing that it does remove UHI effectively by comparison to purely non-urban data. But you're the one arguing we shouldn't adjust the data.
>What makes you so willing to believe in outright fraud when there's heaps of evidence in your fucking face. What evidence?
>>7178068 >Yes, you are really proving how honest and unbiased you are by posting a faulty leaked chart and claiming it's the "real thing"
>hurr durr simpleton science... says that AR4 predictions don't count because right before AR5 they realized how foolish it would make them look.
The reddish-orange portion of the graph was originally from AR4, with updated data. And you are truly Orwellian. Trying to rewrite the past failures of the UN IPCC. It's even marked AR4 on the graph!! So, I'm sorry, you can't do it. Don't care how desperate your Simpleton Science ad hominem is.
Answer the Question: >>7177846 >If you want to be taken seriously show us an Actual Graph that was published at the time of AR4 (2007) or earlier, the temps can be updated. Cite the publication and date. This after-the-fact stuff is crap. You won't because you can't
>>7179626 Using an improperly baselined chart from a draft just shows you can't argue in good faith and have only strawmen. You can't argue against what the IPCC actually says so you argue against what it didn't say.
>>7178091 >Then if urban region is hotter it gets corrected down. And this is exactly what homogenization does. How does homogenization taint data?
Are you really that gullible? At this point you're just making it up. Think about it, things are becoming MORE URBAN, more UHI effected over time. Yes over time, the NOAA is ADDING more temperature adjustments. The exact opposite of what would be happening for UHI adjustments. Pic related.
MUH FALSE. A sloppy analysis by a "scientist" who gets part of his money doing Climate Change Advocacy-Work. Here's a real analysis that shows that warming was increased by 35%. http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_unintentionally_vindicates_Booker.html Sorry, you've been debunked.
>>7179582 "Scattering makes it harder to leave" Ok, by how much? How often does it scatter, considering the number of molecules in air?
The thing is, there are so many unknowns, that just by changing any one of them, you can either show warming, or cooling, and that is not putting the "scattering makes it harder to leave" argument to question at all, you will notice.
>>7179624 >The Urban Heat Island effect creates urban outliers of warmth, thus homogenization finds it and corrects it.
Then why is recent data not adjusted downwards if the past is? Did UHI lessen as population and urban areas grow to surround weather stations? Or could it be the algorithm actually corrects rural areas by using UHI hotspots as the gold standard? Or that it's downright fraudulent and always cools the past and heats the present?
Why is the UHI heavy present adjusted upwards when the less-UHI past is adjusted downwards?
You can't answer this to any satisfaction because doing so destroys your blind faith.
Also the giss algorithm also creates artifact hotspots like: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/why-giss-temperatures-are-too-high/
>>7179587 Do you honestly not notice how emotional you get when someone "attacks" your religion? I have explained how climatology is not following a scientific method, as have a lot of other commenters in here. Would you like me to define what scientific method is as well?
>>7179694 >UN IPCC made that chart! In a draft. Not officially released. It had a formatting mistake that was corrected in the official release. How delusional do you have to be to base your argument on something wrong your opponent never said? Thanks for showing your true colors, quack.
>>7179710 You have not read any of the papers, so don't comment. There are a handful of parameters, still, decades after the start of research, that have no actual, proven fixed point and are arbitrarily said to be as they are. In pretty much any paper. You keep on hammering until you get it right. That's not a fucking prediction, that's a post-diction. Someone clearly needs to teach people what scientific method is.
>>7179216 >Burden of proof swings both way. The burden is in your court.
Scientists have already made their claim, presented the evidence, data, and algorithm. All of it has been scrutinized by experts, and accepted. They have even released the data and algorithm publicly so independent researchers can examine it, which they have. Some independent researchers have even made their own programs, which confirm the original predictions.
If you claim it is faulty, you need evidence that it is faulty.
>>7179665 >At this point you're just making it up. I already posted research proving homogenization corrects for UHI. You have provided... nothing to support your argument. Hmm, I wonder who people are going to believe?
>Think about it, things are becoming MORE URBAN, more UHI effected over time. Yes, and if you look at the UHI corrections, they are also increasing over time.
>Yes over time, the NOAA is ADDING more temperature adjustments. The exact opposite of what would be happening for UHI adjustments. Only if the other adjustments aren't increasing faster you retard.
-A+B = X. A increases. Does this mean X must increase also? No. Again you simply don't like the conclusion and thus attack the method without basis. How dare they adjust the temperature up when you believe it should not be going up! You're a fucking child.
>>7179680 WOW, so let me get this straight... this guy thinks that warming is calculated by subtracting the arbitrary starting temperature from the arbitrary endpoint temperature? This is a completely wrong and nonsensical way to measure warming. For example, from 1900 to 2014 it "warmed" less than it "warmed" from 1910 to 2014. How exactly does that make sense. This is simply a measure of how much hotter it was in 2014 than 1900, not how much the climate warmed. Warming is a rate of change. To find it you should create a line of best fit on the two data sets. Their slope is the warming rate. Do that and you will see they are barely different. Debunked my ass.
>>7179693 >Then why is recent data not adjusted downwards if the past is? It is adjusted downwards. It's also adjusted upwards. This is simple shit.
>Or could it be the algorithm actually corrects rural areas by using UHI hotspots as the gold standard? That doesn't make sense. There are no "gold standard" areas. Urban areas are adjusted down. Areas that are outliers when compared with surrounding areas are corrected. There's no bias towards warming.
>>7179693 >Also the giss algorithm also creates artifact hotspots like: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/why-giss-temperatures-are-too-high/ So basically Goddard is complaining that GISS is including the Arctic. Yes, that's what you're supposed to do when you calculate the GLOBAL surface temp. What is the reasoning behind not including it?
>>7179720 >There are a handful of parameters, still, decades after the start of research, that have no actual, proven fixed point and are arbitrarily said to be as they are. In pretty much any paper. I can't parse this gibberish. Try again.
>>7179751 Just stop with this idiotic conspiracy crap. It's a fact that the chart was improperly baselined on a single year and that they fixed this in AR5 by baselining it to 1961-1990
>>7180211 >It is adjusted downwards. to counter UHI. >It's also adjusted upwards. to achieve an alarmist-looking result.
Got it. Too bad the upwards adjustment aren't justified by any real world mechanism.
> Areas that are outliers when compared with surrounding areas are corrected. There's no bias towards warming. So once urbanization reaches the right threshhold it causes rural stations to be corrected with UHI data instead of rural station being kept as gold standard adjustment pivots. This produces an end result that is biased towards warming even if intended or not. Knowing the charlatans in charge it's almost certainly intended.
This reflects rather ironic on the consensus-thinking.
>A majority believes in AGW so therefor it's true! >A majority of our datapoints are artificially heated so therefor artificially heated is the true baseline.
>>7180435 >It is adjusted downwards. >to counter UHI. >It's also adjusted upwards. >to achieve an alarmist-looking result. So you accept removing outliers when they are hot but not when they are cold because... this results in the conclusion you want. Thank you for once again showing how easily your opinion can be discarded.
>Too bad the upwards adjustment aren't justified by any real world mechanism. http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
>So once urbanization reaches the right threshhold it causes rural stations to be corrected with UHI data instead of rural station being kept as gold standard adjustment pivots. If you compare the adjusted data to rural only data you can see this doesn't happen, because the UHI itself gets corrected. How many times are you going to ignore this and repeat the same retarded argument? You keep asking a question that has been answered and then you ignore the answer. Are you thick in the head?
>>7172538 " Front Matter ." Climate Change: Evidence and Causes . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014 "Climate change: evidence and causes." Wolff, Eric. School Science Review, 2014, Vol 96.354 "Twentieth century climate change: Evidence from small glaciers." Mark B. Dyurgerov and Mark F. Meier, PNAS, Vol 97.4, 2000 "Evidence for climate change." Luntz, Stephen. Australasian Science, Incorporating Search 19.9 (Oct 1998): 11. "Climate Change Response: Evidence from the Margaret River Wine Region of Australia." Jeremy Galbreath, Business Strategy and the Environment, Volume 23, Issue 2, pages 89–104, February 2014 "Climate change impacts on crop yield: Evidence from China." Taoyuan Weia , Todd L. Herrya, Solveig Glomroda, , Tianyi Zhangc. Science of The Total Environment Volume 499, 15 November 2014, Pages 133–140 "Waterfalls, floods and climate change: evidence from tropical Australia." Jonathan Notta, David Priceb. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 171, Issue 2, 30 August 1999, Pages 267–276
>>7180250 >Just stop with this idiotic conspiracy crap. It's a fact that the chart was improperly baselined on a single year and that they fixed this in AR5 by baselining it to 1961-1990 >Hurr durr, Simpleton Science is so honest.
Sorry, another day, another Dana Nuttercelli Lie http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/no-matter-how-the-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-are-presented-they-still-look-bad/ In the post-politics draft, they used the lower ends of the models to fudge how good that look. And yes, they should have used the same baseline as AR4, to compare apples to apples to see how well the predictions went. Or is good scientific consistency a conspiracy theory?
Anyway, despite the Dana lies and deceptive graphics, the models don't work: " Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?" Hans von Storch,, Armineh Barkhordarian,, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita But the models don't work, do they.
>>7180250 >So basically Goddard is complaining that GISS is including the Arctic. Nothing can shake your faith in algorithmic warming, eh? Old temperatures; back when there was little UHI get lowered, New temperatures with a lot of UHI get raised. Yup, that's an amazing way to correct for the Urban Heat Island Effect.
This just in, 66% of warming in Australia is coming from lowering old rural stations and raising recent urban stations. Thems some great adjustments! http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/two-thirds-of-australias-warming-due-to-adjustments-according-to-84-historic-stations/ Pic related, old data, ready for algorithmic warming.
>>7180211 >>Think about it, things are becoming MORE URBAN, more UHI effected over time. >Yes, and if you look at the UHI corrections, they are also increasing over time.
YOU CAN'T EVEN READ A GRAPH!!! It says "Final minus Raw" >>7179665 Those are the numbers ADDED to raw temperature data to get Final data! UHI is an error (increased temperatures) that grows over time. So corrections should get smaller or be negative. Not grow larger!
Sheesh. I'm seriously worried about your comprehension skills.
>>7180211 >Only if the other adjustments aren't increasing faster you retard. What are these adjustments for? Be specific. Don't give me a link to NOAA/GISS. They are deliberately vague. That's just wasting my time. RETARD.
>>7180211 >>Then why is recent data not adjusted downwards if the past is? >It is adjusted downwards. It's also adjusted upwards. This is simple shit. False, statistically speaking. Overall, there is a huge upwards adjustment that runs completely opposite of what a UHI adjust would do; indicating a deeply flawed algorithm.
>>7180211 >WOW, so let me get this straight... this guy thinks that warming is calculated by subtracting the arbitrary starting temperature from the arbitrary endpoint temperature?
A pathetic nit-pick. Hurr-durr, he didn't do least squares regression, but looked at the slope of the end-points (1900 to 2014). Give me a break, that's not going to make much of a difference in these kind of data. You're getting really desperate in defending this temperature adjusting fraud. >nb4 Conspiracy theorist!!! Fraud is fraud. Ad hominem won't make it go away.
>>7182088 >>Responds with conspiracy theory links >>thinks he didn't get dunked on when this is a science board >hurr durr I've go not substantive response so I'll resort to "muh conspiracy theorist" and "muh Climate Change = Science"
Every substantive prediction of Climate Change "Science" has failed. Can you provide a single substantive prediction of climate change that worked?
Substantive = Causally connected to anthropogenic CO2, clearly distinguished from normal climate variability. Prediction = published before-the-fact. After-the-fact adjusted models are not predictions.
>>7182096 My post was quite substantive. I summarized the argument thus far. Throughout the thread, there are several papers linked that are in accordance to what we expect with climate change models. Hence, predictions were successful.
>>71821 > I'll dodge and faint. Point to after-the-fact "predictions," and assorted vaguery. Can't answer the question, can you?
State the substantive prediction, cite the paper etc. where and when it was published. State the (later date) test of said prediction, show the paper etc. that demonstrated it was an accurate prediction.
>>7182115 > I'll dodge and feint. Point to after-the-fact "predictions," and assorted vaguery. Pretend global warming = CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming.
Can't answer the question, can you? State the substantive prediction, cite the paper etc. where and when it was published. State the (later date) test of said prediction, show the paper etc. that demonstrated it was an accurate prediction.
Thread replies: 329 Thread images: 61
Thread DB ID: 52295
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.