/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8720406
Trigger alert! Several climate scientists published a falsification criterion; no troposphere warming for 17 years.

Prof. 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

>>8094386
>>With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).

BOGUS. Troposphere did not warm for 18 years despite a massive increase in CO2.

>nb4 2016 El Nino. That's WEATHER. It is about to be following by a unusually strong (and cold) La Nina.

>>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…”

>>7056998
Wow, you drew an upward diagonal line through temperature data even though the trend is zero to negative starting at 1998. Who is that supposed to convince?

A little honesty would use a higher-order fit to see how the trend changes over time.

>>6997285
>>Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up.
>basic chemistry
>if you increase the concentration of heat-trapping compounds in the atmosphere, you will increase the heat contained in the atmosphere

Saying that adding CO2 adds more heat to the planet, is as simply minded a description of adding CO2 to the atmosphere as a child's explanation of gravity: "Gravity pulls things down," making the child conclude that planes are impossible.

Sure, all other things being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise temperatures. In a VERY WEAK way. CO2 has to be doubled to add a mere 1.2 degrees Centigrade to the global temperature
>>6998066

But all things are never equal. For example, for the past nearly two decades there's been no global warming, even though CO2 has gone way up.

So I repeat: Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. Provide a graph.

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>>6792445

No, and they show no global warming.

>>6701996
>http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

Didn't answer the falsifiability question, because AGW is not falsifiable.

And the iopscience article is a load of crap. But that is all you can do because you have such a low level of understanding of AGW "theory." Hurr durr, link to article... Hide behind authority.

I repeat, NASA GISS said that the models are wrong
>>6697449
And NOTHING in the article you linked to demonstrates a causal link predictive link to anthropogenic AGW.
I quote your article:
>In conclusion, the rise in CO2 concentration and global temperature has continued to closely match the projections over the past five years,
There Has Been No Temperature Rise in the Past 5 Years. They are flat-out lying!!!

You have failed to provide a successful causually based prediction of AGW.

You have failed to provide a falsifiability criterion.

>>6690873
>Climate change is happening, it is a consensus. You can't argue with the data

Then don't argue.

>>6457258

You are correct. The models predicted warming based on significant increase in CO2
>>6456175

It didn't happen.

>>6438586

Nonsense. Love the cherry picking graph. And you would be the first to call the attached graph cherry picking.... Love the way you draw a diagonal line straight through 17.5 years of flat/downward temps.

Climate Change/Global Warming is an unflasifiable dogma. Observations that fit models are "proof," observations that don't fit models are just evidence that the models need tweaking. And then you liken skeptics to holocaust deniers. If that ain't the essence of a religion, "your an unbeliever, so you're evil!" then what is?

And you guys always refuse to debate the subject. Claiming that you don't want to give credence to the evil deniers; the real answer is that you'd get your ass handed to you in a sling. As happened here:

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e

>>6410218

Except there's been no global warming for 17 years.

>>6385726

By your falsifiability criterion, AGW/CC has now been falsified. See pic.

>>6359782

But the global temperature has been rising for 400 years -- since the end of the little ice age. On the other hand, it has not risen in more than a decade, despite a significant increase in CO2. So what does rising or non-rising temperature prove or disprove?

>>6345406
The thing is, global temperatures have flat-lined just as CO2 has gone way up. It seems that the science is sub-par; temperatures were supposed to have gone up with the increase in CO2.