/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10258936
>Pic related. Now tell me why you are trying to tell me about climate science when you don't know the most basic of aspects of it?
Your pic related tells me the only 'natural' factor included in the model was solar irradiance. All the other factors are anthropogenic. If that's what climate models are like they're practically guaranteed to blame all of climate change on anthropogenic factors. If there's a natural factor not included in the model that is contributing then their model will overestimate the amount of warming CO2 (or whatever best correlates with temp) causes. Right?
Observations show the amount of warming CO2 causes was consistently overestimated. Pic related.

>Did you try asking "we" how the Paleozoic was different from now?
Literally what I'm doing in this thread. Literally said "So what are the other variables?" You did give me a pick but that's for modern warming. You didn't explain how the Paleozoic was different. Maybe it just didn't have so many irate hyperventilating climate alarmist blowhards puffing out hot air everywhere?

>Which scientists?
I dunno, climate scientists? Whichever ones have been telling everyone that we need to reduce carbon emissions to 1980 levels within 5 years to save the planet.

>>8566331
Here's all the evidence you need. And yes, Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama. And all your hurr, durr creationist ad hominem is utterly irrelevant to the depicted science.

And SkS and Schmidt have been thoroughly debunked.

Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>nb4 denier blog. Don't care. Try facts and logic instead of ad hominem. If you can.

>>8078863
>>>8075026
>>overwhelming body of evidence = a few guys' opinions!
>We ignore our failed predictions and pretend they never happened.
ftfy
Look at this graph of all your failed predictions.
Source: Source: Dr. John R. Christy, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

>nb4 Schmidt and Nutter.
Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>>8010306
>>4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over
>Lie.
>http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
You lie, utter failure of predictions.

>>7973229
Them's accurate predictions
>nb4 simpletonscience Nutter says otherwise
Paid shill Nuttercelli lied and pretended to debunk this picture. However, his shilling has been completely debunked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>nb4 Evil denier Monckton
Monckton forever

>>7950559
>>>7950436
>>posts graph of US temperature over ten years
>>the whole planet totally isn't warming you guise!
>do you realize how retarded you are for conflating the temperature of one country with the temperature of the entire globe?

You do realize how retarded you sound for not knowing that there is a high correlation between U.S. temperature anomalies and global temp anomalies. Pic related. U.S. predictions and World are almost exactly the same. (dashed black line and solid black line).

Are you going to run over and cite Dana's libelous claims about this graph?

PEOPLE DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE WHERE DANA NUCCITELLI'S ARTICLE/GRAPH IS THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>nb4 Evil Lord Monckton.
Ain't it great!

>>7750121
>>>7750052 (You)
>http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
>"The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
>warmist dismisses solar variability to maintain profitability.

You'll never get it will you. Warmists, who's financial solvency depend on continually reciting "much climate change," have zero credibility.

In reality, the best explanation of the rapid rise (beside coming out of a cooling period from about 1975) is data tampering.>>7749994

Pic related. Satellite data, the most accurate data in the mid-troposphere (where AGW is supposed to be strongest) rose a whopping 0.25 degrees. Don't tell me that's horrifically unnatural. Warmist quote or no

>>7726124
Them models dindu nuffin.

>>7693332
The pause in the troposphere

>>7201685
Larger Version.

>>7104972
There's a false equivalence between the predictions and the data. The predictions fail over and over again, so people ignore the data.

>>7089685
>each "failed" scientific theory was once the best explanation of the best method applied to the best data of the time. Like anthropomorphic climate change now. Theories don't "fail" until they are supplanted with better data

Better data supplantation has occurred. Pic related.

The TRUE equivalence of your ridiculous conspiracy ideation to the "previous scientific theories are also conspiracies" concept is easy to show. It is demonstrated by your inability to admit that Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable. That is EXACTLY the zealotry of of a true believer. One who would propose that only a crazy conspiracy theory could falsify whatever scientific theory they hold dear at the moment.

>>7057456
Then why do their models fail so miserably?

>>7051343
You are the Denier, Denying the failed predictions of AGW such as Hansen's and the models.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

You can trust us. We are the scientists. We just need a couple of billion dollars more to really nail the models.

>>6791201

Which part of a statistical analysis showing 19 years of no warming, do you not understand? A rigorous statistical analysis, by definition, is not cherry picking.
>>6791083

Your theory has failed.

>nb4 We did after-the-fact model tweaking to get the right answer.
Anyone can predict the right answer after the fact.

>>6770383
>>1) Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for CAGW. It must distinguish from natural climate variance.
>That general climate won't be as hot as it is without greenhouse contributions from man, going off of the historical correlations that the earth's temperature has had with several environmental factors.

Stated without a shred of evidence. And not a falsifiabilitiy criterion either. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that no one is saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. (But its a very weak one). Its logarithmic response curve is not going to cause a catastrophe. But in any case you certainly did not provide a falsifiability criterion. In actuality, you provided nothing.

>>2) Show a single substantive prediction based on anthropogenic CO2 which has proven true for AGW.

>The earth is hotter than it would be without said emissions.

That's just a repeat of the above; and you provided no evidence to back up that claim. Certainly nothing to differentiate it from natural climate variance. Please don't waste my time with question-begging answers.

>If CO2 didn't heat the earth, we would have no explanation as to why the earth is as hot as it is today.

BTW, you resorted to a typical warmist trick of confusing a model who's predictive record is a spectacular failure - with reality. These models hindcast from 1970 to about 2000 plus or minus a decade and A PRIORI assume the warming is mostly driven by CO2/greenhouse gases. In short, a circular argument.

By making a model that assumes CO2 drives climate you "prove" that CO2 drives climate; which is why these models fail in making predictions.

This is possibly, the greatest flaw in Climate "Science" the confusing of models with reality.

Climate Model prediction works => Climate Change is TRUE!
Climate Model prediction fails => hurr durr its just a model so Climate Change is TRUE!

>>6764805

Larger version...

>>6690859

Ride a bicycle, live in a tiny house, and vote for greenie socialism. Subservience is the way to go! The fact that this give FedGov much desired power is purely coincidental.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Climate Change is an evil denier.

>>6622109

So fast that there's been no warming for 15 years.

Them models are working really well.

nb4: These after the fact models work fine... we just added aerosols. I can "predict" what the stock market did; perfectly.

>>6577146

These failed predictions can not be erased by popularity.

>>6568656

Stop faking all this certainty. Your models failed, showing that you do not fully understand how climate works.

If your "science" is so solid then you should have no problem with these two questions.

1) Name a single, substantive successful prediction of Climate Change theory.

Substantive = causally connected to anthropogenic CO2 and clearly differentiated from normal climate variability

Prediction = before the fact, not after-the-fact, not in hindsight.

2) Give a plausible falsifiability criterion for Climate Change theory. An unfalsifiable theory is not scientific.

>>6559020

You mean atmospheric temperatures have not increased in 15 years contrary to predictions.

>>6471577

sweet unfalsifiable theories.
your after-the-fact explanations mean nothing.

its your predictions that fail miserably.