/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8840711
No shit, if you ignore everything in the climate except a single mechanism, you're going to end up with "predictions" that actually look nothing like reality. That's why real climatologists don't do that.

>everyone agrees that warming has slowed down
Uh, no. No it has not.
See pic related.

>AGW predicts that all the derivatives of warming should mimic the derivatives of CO2
Also no. Double no on the timescales we're talking about.

>http://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
This a new and incredible tier of "research" you've found. It's full of marvellous things:

>The University of Alabama, Huntsville publishes the temperature of the global lower
atmosphere each month. This dataset is superior to many others because an absolute
minimum of adjustments are applied to the raw data before publishing.
Apparently the author doesn't even understand what the satellite record IS.

>In column 4 there are about 20,000 authors who did not endorse AGW. In column 5 there
are 168 because the 99% of non-endorsers who did not take a position were removed. There
are many reasons an author may have chosen not to endorse or reject AGW. First among
them is that the author does not see sufficient evidence to make an evaluation.
There's no scientific consensus on evolution, because most biology papers don't include the phrase "evolution is true".

>The UAH temperature in figure 1 is very nearly a pure measurement. GISS is an index: an amalgamation of real temperatures and ex post facto temperature adjustments.
This is so wrong it hurts.

> We are to believe no warming trend appeared in the original GISS because the “errors” in the data were just such that warming was canceled out. In truth, there have been no recent revelations in the physics of heat that warrant these adjustments.
The paper that first contained the adjustments also justified them. Finding it isn't even hard.

This trainwreck of a paper just goes on and on, and it's full of stupid shit.

>>8618867
>What is with you retarded cultists who want to blame fucking everything on global warming
Why shouldn't we talk about attribution? It's one of the few things that makes the public sit up and actually listen, and that's valuable in of itself.

>Forest fires are both totally natural, and a consequence of governments preventing natural forest fires.
They're also made both more frequent and more intense by warmer, drier conditions. AGW is creating those conditions in many places.

>CO2 causes a feedback effect via extra H2O in the atmosphere, wouldn't that naturally result in greater rainfall world wide?
On average, yes.

>>8618875
>All we have is guesswork and fantasies
The creationists claim something similar. They get laughed for it.

>Even in your own article they admit that they know nothing, and can predict nothing
No they don't. They admit that what they are doing is hard, and there's a limit to how precise they can be.

>You people want to literally destroy all industrial economies and turn us back to an agrarian society
Also we eat children and are secretly reptiles from space.