/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10499361
>It's all about CO2.
Do you literally eat handfuls of your own shit? You seem like someone who would do that.

>>9911798
wait wut?

>>9905562
co2 be time traveling

>>8715080

>In the past CO2 was a feedback, not a driver. That doesn't mean its not a driver now though, and it doesn't preclude CO2 from being responsible for a large part of those historical warmings.

Go back and look at that graph:>>8714893, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your owns facts. And "hurr durr blurry cause and effect" is just nonsense spewed by SimpletonPseudoScience.

>>8668335
If you assume the NASA ad hoc model in the first place. This model can't explain the warming of the late 19th century or the warming of the early 20th century. It just assumes that warming at that rate must anthropogenic.

>>8617832
>>8615730
>>8615730

And yet the second part of the Industrial Revolution got going in about 1945, leading to a gigantic increase in anthropogenic CO2!

And yet no warming.

So if it cools, climate change is true. And if it warms, climate change is true. How convenient. And how unfalsifiable.

>>8568582
Sigh. I told you that if you did a low resolution, "look at the correlation" graph, I'd call you a fraud. The only thing I see is temperature bottoming out at about 1955 and going up from there. And WOW, you show CO2 going up starting at 1958. Big deal.

YOU ARE A FRAUD.

And why aren't you showing CO2 levels at 1945? If needed, get the data elsewhere.

Oh yeah, I know why. Overall, there's no temperature increase from 1945 to 1975. Even though CO2 goes way up during that time.. In fact, 1945, post WWII was the start of the second half of the industrial revolution. There has an enormous increase in anthropogenic CO2. Yet no increase in temperature. NASA had to erase that inconvenient truth.
>>8566682


Pic related.

>>8280714
In terms of anthropogenic CO2 outputp, the industrial revolution didn't get going until 1945

>>8246840
>Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.
You idiot, can't read, can you? What did I say?
>>8246808
>FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
Your phony falsification criterion fails because "multi-decadal" always means longer than we've waited!

There was no warming from 1945 to 1975! 3 decades. Despite a huge increase in anthropogenic CO2. So by your criterion, Anthropogenic Climate Change theory has been falsified.

Now you're going to come back and say that doesn't count, proving the theory is unfalsifiable.

>>8110607
>did you read the paper?
>>Pic related.
>that graph is worthless for the simple reason that it's comparing two rate-of-change variables (the CO2 ones) to
> That graph is worthless because it debunks climate change pseudo-science.
Don't have an argument do you? Change in atmospheric CO2 mass should strongly correlate with anthropogenic CO2 flux. It doesn't.

YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!!
Look at that graph again. The correlation isn't there. >>8110607


>state variable (temperature) as if they were the same thing. also, he literally just says that the CO2 increases look kinda like the temperature graph (no statistical analysis whatsoever!) and
> I can't explain the lack of correlation between anthropogenic CO2 flux and atmospheric CO2 mass increase, so I'l try to distract you!!!

> ignores the fact that in the 50s and 60s, temper/ature is falling slightly while both CO2 trends are rising.
So you admit that CO2 doesn't drive temperature Thanks, I agree. Pic related.
Again, climate 'science' falsified.
Everyone agrees that there is often a correlation between CO2 or CO2 mass change and temperature or temperature change. There is sometimes a decoupling, as you mentioned. Which ironically prove that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures. Instead, temperature changes sometimes drive CO2 changes.

> But hurr durr, derivative variable, vs. straight-up variable is wrong.
What a hypocritical thing to say, coming from the "ENSO (state variable) explains (derivative variable) CO2 rate change excuse you use to explain away Humlum" >>8103507
Yes, comparing (discrete) derivative to (discrete) derivative as in >>8103507 makes a cleaner picture.

Now don't be a hypocrite and us the "hurr, durr, ENSO" argument ever again to explain away Humlum.

>>8002578
A huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 began at about 1945. During a period of global cooling. This falsifies climate change theory, so NASA tampered the data.

>>7974968
>>7973229
-cont.
Now we are left with the deliberate vagueries AKA weasel words of our favorite paid shill: >>7972899 "climate forcings are in some range" This is a bogus falsifiability assertion. The errors bars in the estimated forcings are much higher than the tiny difference in the purported forcing level that is supposedly warming us. So Paid Shill, give some very specific numbers! Oh you can't, because of the huge error bars in the estimates.

Or my favorite, pseudo-falsifability criterion >>7972873 "the long term trend is cooling." Here's an example; pic related. A huge increase of anthropogenic CO2. Yet cooling for a long time (roughly 1945 to 1965), and no warming from 1945 to 1975! The paid shill will immediately scream "cherrypicking!" and "not long enough!" Because for an unfalsifiable pseudo-science:

1. Cherrypicking == data that falsifies climate "science"
2. Long term == longer than the data which should falsify AGW.

In other words, AGW is unfalsifiablility incarnate. They never give an honest falsifiability criterion, because they can't.

>>7961593
- Continued
>>7959575
>>7959555
>These are basic facts anyone should be aware of, yet you are ignorant of them.
>>Show a graph of the phase relation of CO2 and temperature where they correlate and CO2 goes up first.
>>THEY CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>See pic...
THEY STILL DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION

Did the paid shill post a pic of the phase relation between temperature and CO2? No, instead he merely graphed CO2 and temperatures. Notice that the resolution of CO2 change is miniscule to hide up/down activity. In short, a strawman argument. Strawman arguments are part and partial to Climate Change shills. unSkepticalScience does it all the time. They pretend to answer a question, but instead answer a different one. I ask the question again:

Provide a graph of the PHASE RELATION of Global temperature and Global atmospheric CO2 which shows CO2 going up BEFORE temperatures.

The paid shill can't do it. Instead he'll post a different graph or simply yell "loon!", "conspiracy theorist!", or maybe "muh Consensus!" There is always the staple of shills, denial: "I already did!" All of which are no substitute for an actual phase relation graph comparing CO2 to temperature. Speaking of CO2 and temperature graphs, look at the attached pic. Notices the huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 between about 1945 and 1975. Yet no temperature increase! Again, AGW is falsified. Not that they care because AGW is not a scientific theory.

>>7753436
>>Notice that doesn't say "the myth of future predicted global cooling."
>From the abstract:
>"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was
>predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming."

As usual, the paper is a bait and switch. The paper is touted as proof that scientists weren't worrying about global cooling in the 70s. That is the bait. In reality, the paper is an assertion that scientists didn't agree on the cause of global cooling. It falsely attempts to show that there was much more worry about global warming. As usual, the author cherry-picked the papers. A little effort can show that there were many more papers worrying about global cooling; with varying theories of the cause, though including anthropogenic turbidity/aerosols.

So what is really going on here? The huge worry about global cooling was very real in the 60s and 70s. The cooling began in about 1945, at the same time as a huge upswing in CO2, pic. related.

continued

>>7297875
Its called the industrial revolution which really didn't get going strong until after WWII.

And thanks for showing natural polar warming.

>Still believing the climate hoax

Jesus christ /sci/

>>6595006

Wow! Nice smoothing. There was a massive increase in CO2 starting in 1945, yet no global warming between 1945 and 1975.

>>6570534

CO2 increased from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000. Human contribution is about 10%. Meaning 3.9 parts in 10,000 is perfectly OK, but 4.0 parts in 10,000 and THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!

Look at the graph. There was a huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 between 1945 and 1975, yet no temperature increase.

>>6521556

Here the data....

>>6470798

Except your graph is deceptive. Here's an accurate graph. No warming between 1945 and 1975 despite a huge increase in CO2 output. And the rate of warming was just as high before 1945 as it was after 1975, even though CO2 output was much higher after 1975.

>>6387305

Why is 10 years; actually 17 years too small a sample size? It was plenty large when the predictions are made.

If the prediction had held true, it would be significant "proof." But it didn't so it is just "cherry picking."

Nothing can falsify AGW/CC. And see the graph to the left why no temp increase from about 1940 to 1980, (big industrial increase) despite a huge increase in CO2. Does this falsify your belief in AGW/CC, even though you implied it would? Of course not, because nothing could.