/sci/ - Science & Math

how do you test a climate "'"' "'" science' "'"' "'" theory?

>argumentum ad populum
The entire cult is near tautological. The only requirement for it to be true is that climate is changing/has changed. No shit its like looking outside and seeing its raining today when it was sunny yesterday.
The fact that its continues to receive massive funding and political leverage yet cannot make meaningful predictions isn't sufficient to reduce the mob alarmist mentality.

>>10265149
It can be directly observed and it is happening.
>coral bleaching
>melting ice caps
>Don’t be a fucking retard and realize it’s the truth

>>10265172
That's literally the point I'm making
The only requirement is that 'something' is changing, which will be true invariably whether humans are here or not.

>>10265176
>The only requirement is that 'something' is changing
Well no the main requirement is that the global temperature is increasing

>>10265178
Is that even true anymore? I thought that was the basis of the switch from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

>>10265176
I don’t think you understand what climate change means. You’re getting caught up in the name. Just because it’s called climate change doesn’t mean the only thing needed to make it real is change.
>muh climate is always changing so climate change isn’t a problem hurr
That’s basically what your argument boils down to

>>10265181
It should really be called “Fucking up the Earth”

>>10265182
Perhaps you're right anon.
What are the rigorous requirements that would preclude something from being attributed to climate change?

>>10265119
You see, scientists are only right when I like what they're saying

>>10265119
>consensus
hahahahaha
Pathetic

>>10265135

>>10265149
>>argumentum ad populum
The consensus is a consensus of scientific evidence, not people.

>The entire cult is near tautological. The only requirement for it to be true is that climate is changing/has changed.
That's the only requirement? Why are you lying?

>The fact that its continues to receive massive funding and political leverage yet cannot make meaningful predictions isn't sufficient to reduce the mob alarmist mentality.
If X, Y and Z occur then the global temperature will increase by this amount. How is this not a meaningful prediction?

>>10265181
Wow so redpilled. Instead of looking at the data you just repeat /pol/ memes as of they're your own thought.

>>10265184
If it's not casually connected to the climate? What exactly is your point?

>>10265181
This is bait or is you as dumb as you sound in dem comment?

ANYONE POSTING BELOW THIS LINE IS BUMPING A WORTHLESS TROLL THREAD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>10265119
>paris treaty is literally useless and would do nothing to help the environment
stop talking politics you fucking faggot
if you want to talk science then just fucking do it

>>10267540
This is now a thread for the serious discussion of surviving the climate crash. How many governments are stockpiling food?

>>10265119
>mfw mini ice age in 15 years
>muh global warming

>>10267565
Relying on your government in such a scenario is basically suicide. Self-sufficiency is your only real option.

>>10265119
Freeman Dyson:
Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus in the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmy0tXcNTPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs&t=55s


>>10267565 >>10267540 >>10267537 >>10267525 >>10265508 >>10265505
>>10267575 >>10267590

>>10267595
THIS
humans have had a negligible affect on the climate, volcanoes have been heating up the earth for hundred of thousands of years

>>10265119
wtf i hate oil now

>>10267575
>mfw mini ice age in 15 years
Won't happen, temperature and solar activity have completely diverged due to massive greenhouse gas emmissions.

>>10267595
Unfortunately, Freeman Dyson has no idea what he's talking about.

https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/01/guest-posting-expanded-dyson-exegesis.html

>>10267615
>volcanoes have been heating up the earth for hundred of thousands of years
How have they been doing that? Please, do tell.

>>10267615
>humans have had a negligible affect on the climate
The amount of heat being radiated towards the Earth from CO2 has been directly measured via radiative spectroscopy. The change in CO2 caused by humans has been directly measured via isotope analysis. The change in climate forcing since the industrial revolution is equal to the change in forcing from man's CO2 emissions. The whole effect can hardly be considered "negligible."

>volcanoes have been heating up the earth for hundred of thousands of years
The climate has cycled consistently between glacial and interglacial periods according to the Milankovich cycle for hundreds of thousands of years. It hasn't warmed throughout, just cycled between these two climates, until now when we are rapidly warming out of an interglacial. So if volcanoes were warming the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years, why are we only warming now? Also, volcanoes cause warming by releasing CO2, but humans are rleasing more CO2 in a day than all the volcanoes on Earth do in a year. So this is just nonsense.

This is why I don't respect republicans. Climate change is a demonstrable fact, all deniers are mongoloids or are purposefully deceitful.

>>10267727
While I agree that climate change denial is complete lunacy, it is never a good idea to use blanket statements like that.

>>10265119
> People on /sci/ waste time arguing about whether a woman can have a penis when scientists have already said that they have reached consensus on the subject

>>10267736
Do they actually?

>>10267736
>Women can't have penises and Pluto is a planet because that's what I was told when I was a child REEEEEEEEEEEEE
No one cares you fucking sperg.

>>10265176
Do you think climate scientists have accounted for change irrespective of human activity or do you think that you, a complete nobody shitter on the internet has discovered a hole in the research within 10 seconds?

>>10267842
>climate scientists
This is a misnomer since climate "scientists" do not use the scientific method.

>>10267846
What part of the scientific method are they missing?

they are just /pol/ drones
ignore them

>>10267738
There were a shit ton of posts about trans people this week.

>>/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=trans

>>10267791
>>10265119

> peer review always selects the best papers
See: https://igorpak.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/how-not-to-reference-papers/
> science makes infallible statements but also can change to contradictory statements

>>10265119
Ah yes, (((scientists)))
Greenhouse effects mediated by CO2 reached their limit at 350 ppm, you could double it every year for a decade and it still wouldn't be a tenth of a problem that CFC were
We dodged a bullet but nobody even fucking remembers anymore

>>10267595
a sad fuck contrarian who will be dead in 5y, doesn't have to deal with any of the shit coming

>>10268165
16 of the 17 Warmest Years on Record Occurred Since 2001
https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/chart-16-17-warmest-years-record-occurred-2001

>>10268327
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

>>10268327
>>10268329
I only see sensationalism, I don't see any openly available data registered, nor any note on the methodology used or the site of the temperature readings taken, nor any instrumentation used

>>10267674
>we generate more pollution now than in 1750

Now tell me exactly how the radiative forcing affects surface temperatures. Then show me a model of it that doesn't rely on fudge factors or over fitting of data.

In literally any other field, the results are so flimsy they wouldn't even be published.

>>10268103
>Any science I don't like can be ignored because a paper in an obscure field of computer science was not given credit for having priority
Really makes you think.

>> science makes infallible statements
Who are you quoting?

>>10268165
>Greenhouse effects mediated by CO2 reached their limit at 350 ppm
The greenhouse effect from manmade emissions has caused about 0.5 degrees C of warming since 350ppm was reached in 1990. This is actually faster warming than the past 100 years, since greenhouse gas emissions have been exponentially increasing. So hardly a comforting "limit."

>you could double it every year for a decade and it still wouldn't be a tenth of a problem that CFC were
A ridiculous assertion on several counts. Doubling of CO2 results in 3.5 degrees C of warming. Doubling it 10 times would destroy all life on earth. Luckily there is not enough available carbon on earth for this to ever occur via humans. Do you actually believe this nonsense or are you trolling?

>>10268374
>Greenhouse effects mediated by CO2 reached their limit at 350 ppm, you could double it every year for a decade and it still wouldn't be a tenth of a problem that CFC were
>We dodged a bullet but nobody even fucking remembers anymore
I only see sensationalism, I don't see any data at all, nor any note on the methodology used or the source of these claims, nor any instrumentation used

>>10265119
>scientists
fuck off

>>10268532
>/pol/tard
Fuck off

>>10267846
>>10267848
>no reply

Reminder that this is the retard who unironically says things like "facts don't care about your feelings". He just feels like climate science is biased, and if your facts don't comport with the stories he tells himself, he shuts down.

>>10270019
>"facts don't care about your feelings"

>>10270019
>Reminder that this is the retard who unironically says things like "facts don't care about your feelings". He just feels like climate science is biased, and if your facts don't comport with the stories he tells himself, he shuts down.
How did you come up with that?

>>10270647
People who deny climate change are overwhelmingly conservatives who love to tell everyone that they have the facts on their side.

>>10270991
>People who deny climate change are overwhelmingly conservatives who love to tell everyone that they have the facts on their side.
Maybe they do?

>Yes, goy, this chart decisively proves that we need to establish one world socialist government as soon as possible and put a 20% tax on everything, otherwise the world will end. You aren't some kind of science denier, aren't you?

>>10271603
When /pol sends their people they don't send their best.

>>10265181
the term climate change or climatic change has been around for a century

>>10265176
>the great barrier reef would have bleached if humans didn't exist

>>10265149
That's the weather not the climate you fucking retard

>>10272272
>That's the weather not the climate you fucking retard
Do you need to swear?

>>10265119
>there was a broad consensus in 1800 that humans had not evolved from lower creatures
evolutionists BTFO!!!

>>10265183
That's right. And leftist politicians fucked us by trying to cash in on the situation.

It's really similar to their $1000/plate fundraisers, and raising awareness parties. They get to virtue signal while they stuff themselves with the finest, most energy intensive delicacies. Culturally, they really believe they can solve literally any problem that way. It's even sicker and more deluded than the right wingers who simply want to just outright rape the environment, because at least the right knows what side it's on and doesn't even try to plead ignorance.

possibly 1/3 or more of global biomass lives in the crust. IN THE FUCKING CRUST.

No matter what we do to this lump of rock, it's going to right itself. I don't believe for a minute that life on Earth would have survived this long were it not for some VERY robust corrective mechanism. Life in the crust is always going to exist unless something literally melts it.

Freeman Dyson's opinion on this is all you need to know. In summary, it is that models are great for seeing the effect of a single parameter in past data, but they include so few important parameters that their predictive utility is utter shite.

>>10272320
>than the right wingers who simply want to just outright rape the environment
A lot of these guys are religious fanatics who believe everything on earth was put here by god for humans do just piss away. And they've resorted to lying about the consequences of their actions in order to keep getting away with it. Plenty of "sick" to go around on all sides, imo.

>>10272331
Thankfully once it gets to that point the Earth needs righting humans wont be there to fuck it up again

>>10265119
>Climate change
We are far, far away from a global ice age. Ice caps have receded and expanded in the past, this is just that phase, whether or not it's an extreme one or slight one is unknown. Knowing some 'people', it wouldn't be surprising if a-little man made elements are added into nature's process just to show 'proof'

>>10272333
Exactly, but one side is corporatist and subservient to coal and oil. Dems at least admit there's a problem, which imo is exponentially better than denying it outright. When will conservacucks learn that if someone is "virtue signaling" then there's probably a problem that needs fixing.

>>10272371
I think you underestimate the sheer size and impact of human civilization on the Earth. "this is just a phase" does not explain it, not in the slightest, I think the thing to blame is the billions of lbs of carbon we spew into the atmosphere every year.

>>10272297
>there was a broad consensus in 1800 that humans had not evolved from lower creatures
[citation needed]

>>10272378
Fair enough but admitting the problem exists then knowingly proposing fake solutions that enrich you isn't much better imo.
The cancer cure fundraising industry is a good example. There are people whose entire careers and lifestyles depend on "spreading awareness". It's absurd, whether they actually believe in what they are doing or not.

>>10272331
>possibly 1/3 or more of global biomass lives in the crust. IN THE FUCKING CRUST.
That's fine for you, crust-creature, what abou us humans?

>Freeman Dyson's opinion on this is all you need to know.
Freeman Dyson literally admitted that he has no expertise on the subject and is just being contrarian for the same of being contrarian. See >>10267652

>In summary, it is that models are great for seeing the effect of a single parameter in past data, but they include so few important parameters that their predictive utility is utter shite.
>>10272371
Have you actually looked at their predictive success or are you just making shit up? See >>10265492

>>10265119
Name one (1) thing that the Paris accord did to fight climate change.

>>10272409
>The cancer cure fundraising industry
It might seem like a bit of a stretch to some, but when you see leaders of these groups driving around in porche SUVs and recognize how consumerism drives pollution which causes cancer, you can see their hypocrisy. Stupidity/ignorance is no excuse.

>>10272415
>Have you actually looked at their predictive success or are you just making shit up?

only goes out to 20 years, I'd like to see longer. That could easily be random noise (I did my masters thesis on checking the fit of climate models to reanalysis data, 20 years is nowhere near long enough for conclusive results here). Also hides the very rapid increase in uncertainty at longer timescales (which are usually brought up by climate nuts, talking about distant years such as 2050 and 2100 as if they're tomorrow).

>>10272409
yeah, I'll agree, we've just had a whole lot of politicians jerking themselves off at "climate conventions" anyway. It seems nearly impossible for anyone to propose actual change. China is somehow "committed to going green" when they build more coal plants than anyone, not like the EU is any better. The worst thing about climate solutions is that they're a slippery slope, so many solutions can just outright end up fucking us over, completely contrary to their purpose.

>>10272371
>We are far, far away from a global ice age.
We are currently in an ice age and have been for millions of years. I just love it when deniers show they have no idea what they're taking about in the very first sentence.

>Ice caps have receded and expanded in the past, this is just that phase
It literally isn't. You're talking about the Milankovich cycle that goes from glacial periods to rapid interglacial warming to interglacial periods that then slowly cool back into glacial periods. Each period takes thousands of years and is predictable based on the orbital eccentricity of the Earth around the sun. Now where are we in the cycle? About 12000 years ago we left the interglacial period with interglacial warming of a few degrees C over a few thousand years. Over the last 10000 years we've been in an interglacial phase in which we should be slowly cooling back into a glacial phase. But instead we suddenly started warming even faster than interglacial warming (an order of magnitude faster) over the last century. So this warming is completely out of phase with the natural cycle, both in it's timing and in its magnitude. It is indeed extreme and unnatural.

>>10271597
They do love to tell people that they have facts on their side? I agree.

>>10272434
I don't know what you're talking about, see the dotted lines? Those indicate the confidence intervals, since the temperature has failed to go outside of the bounds, the chances of the anomaly being random noise is pretty much nil at this point. I'm sure you did your masters thesis and the only criticism you found was that the time-frame was 20 years, a bullshit criticism.

>>10265119
Why are you straw manning?
>people on /sci/ waste time arguing about whether climate change is real
This isn't up for debate. 100% of human beings believe climate change is real. If you believe the Earth once had ice ages, then you believe in climate change. The question is whether or not humans are influencing climate change.

>>10272434
>only goes out to 20 years, I'd like to see longer.
So when you said their predictive utility is utter shite what you meant was that they have been successful so far but it's unknown whether they will predict farther into the future?

>That could easily be random noise
What do you mean?

>>10272452
>Milankovich cycle that goes from glacial periods to rapid interglacial warming to interglacial periods that then slowly cool back into glacial periods. Each period takes thousands of years and is predictable based on the orbital eccentricity of the Earth around the sun. Now where are we in the cycle? About 12000 years ago we left the interglacial period with interglacial warming of a few degrees C over a few thousand years. Over the last 10000 years we've been in an interglacial phase in which we should be slowly cooling back into a glacial phase. But instead we suddenly started warming even faster than interglacial warming (an order of magnitude faster) over the last century. So this warming is completely out of phase with the natural cycle, both in it's timing and in its magnitude. It is indeed extreme and unnatural.
This is such a load of complete bullshit, and you know it. Did you guys have a round table and decide its better to keep it simple for the layman or something?

>>10272435
ya their hypocrisy knows no bounds. i think they know that their livelihood depends more than most people on totally unsustainable activities so they'd better not do anything about the problem while trying and look as if they are.

>>10272415
>>10272386
>The earth has never had a spike so rapid, these changes are unprecedented

>>10272456
the dotted lines are the confidence intervals from the CMIP3 ensembles, are they not? And the black line the ensemble mean? I can't see any /actual/ observed temperature data on that graph, or am I missing something? I'll admit I thought the black line was actual data on first glance but it doesn't seem to be. In this case all that graph shows is that all of the models agree with each other (which they will, because those producing the models bias them towards the agenda of the people funding them).

>>10272470
I misread the graph at first. See >>10272504, I still have gripes.

>>10272479
>durr I have no response to basic facts of climatology so I'll say it's fake

>>10272498
Who are you quoting?

>>10272511
What the fuck? The colored lines are temperature records. The black,line is the model mean. I doubt you ever did any work on clinate models if you can't even read a graph properly and don't know what GISTEMP and Hadcrut are.

>>10272516
and what does that have to do with milankovich cycles?

>>10272511
aha, okay, I see now. HadCRUT4, Cotwan & Way, NOAA NCEI and GISTEMP are actual data, and CMIP3 is our predictive model.

So, firstly:

of course CMIP3 agrees with the data in the hindcast, if it didn't it would have been re-tuned until it did, and that's fair.

Now, CMIP3 predicts a confidence interval into the future (i.e. after 2000). We are then only comparing 20 years of data with the output. The CMIP3 confidence interval shows the range for the model.

Let's use an example. I could predict that the next three times I flip a coin, it's going to be heads, and through some 'model' with some parameters I pull out of my arse I arrive at a 95% confidence in that. Many times, we will see three heads in a row, mostly we won't. But you see how the 95% is entirely my own construction? Nature doesn't care about my made-up confidence interval. At which point I would go back to my model and improve it (obviously I know the answer: it is a 0.5*0.5*0.5 chance of three heads in a row, but I'm using this as a toy example).

Just as 3 coin flips is not enough, I don't think 20 years is enough. Do you see now?

>>10272529
I remembered HadCRUT was actual data, sorry for the confusion. See: >>10272536, it's as I first thought. You made me doubt myself earlier lol

>>10272516
see you post bullshit about 1 thing: milankovich cyclces
then when challenged you post about something completely different: ice cores / temperatures
and you make no attempt to connect the 2

you're all over the place man. no wonder there are so many deniers.

seriously: you suck at this. if you had any integrity at all youd tell your boss to fire you and hire someone who knows what they're doing.

>>10272532
>what does the thing causing cyclical changes in temperature have to do with the cyclical changes in temperature?
Just stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself. If not, please point out where on the cycle we are and why you think current warming is a part of that cycle.

>>10265119
Your arguing to conduct "science" by memes. The "consensus meme" was the work of little shits like pic related.

>>10272574
its a simple question and you haven't got the knowledge to answer it.
how do milankovich cycles relate to your ice temperature graph?

>>10272536
>Let's use an example. I could predict that the next three times I flip a coin, it's going to be heads, and through some 'model' with some parameters I pull out of my arse
The model is based on observed, causative factors. It's not simply data fitting, it's physics.

>Many times, we will see three heads in a row, mostly we won't. But you see how the 95% is entirely my own construction? Nature doesn't care about my made-up confidence interval.
The confidence interval describes the model, not nature, so I have no idea what point your trying to make here.

>Just as 3 coin flips is not enough, I don't think 20 years is enough.
Enough for what? Again, you started this line of discussion by claiming that the models have shitty predictive utility. When I showed you predictive utility, you say that is not enough. You presented no reason for why we should act as if the models are not going to work in the future. You did not tell me what part of the model or the physics it's based on is wrong. So I have no reason to believe you and instead have only reason to act according to the most successful and well founded model.

>>10272551
>see you post bullshit about 1 thing: milankovich cyclces
>then when challenged you post about something completely different: ice cores / temperatures
>and you make no attempt to connect the 2
I know it's very hard to argue coherently when you have no idea what you're taking about, but my post is about both Milankovich cycles and the temperature changes they cause, which are seen in the graph I posted. In fact I only mentioned Milankovich cycles once. The meat of my post was about the observable cycle in temperature between glacial and interglacial cycles. Yet you quoted my entire post in your idiotic non-response calling it bullshit. Then you act indignant when I show you the data illustrating what I'm talking about, because you don't understand the terms being used. You're like a baby having a tantrum. No one knows what you're crying about or how to console you.

>>10272584
Are you incapable of reading the post you're responding to? Milankovich cycles caused the temperature swings seen in the graph.

>>10272594
Hey calm down there buddy, I'm just trying to learn how milankovich cycles and your temperature ice core graph are connected.

No need to snivel and cry like a petulant teenage girl being called out on her bullshit.

>>10272600
oh ok, but how? I dont see how they're connected. You haven't shown me a graph relating to milankovich cylces.

Run along now, find that graph on the internet, and post it up please.

>>10272576

>>10265119
>Implying that global warming is bigger problem than rampant air, soil and water pollution
The consensus is not a problem, the fact that "top scientists of the world" are wasting their time on long-term problem with no clear solution while ignoring more urgent problems that we have to solve right fucking now or we face extinction... made me skeptical about the state of mainstream science.

>>10272604
>>10272607
Cyclical changes in the orbital eccentricity of the Earth lead to certain parts receiving more solar radiation at certain times. When these effects coincide every few tens of thousands of years the resulting temperature increase is large enough to jumpstart various feedbacks such as the feedback between warming and greenhouse gasses being released from the oceans and the hysteresis between ice cover/thickness, albedo, and temperature. Eventually solar radiation drops from its peak and these feedbacks are retarded. This is why we see rapid interglacial warming coinciding with peaks in the Milankovich cycles followed by slow cooling.

>>10272588
>It's not simply data fitting, it's physics.
That's what you'd hope. Yes, it is using physics, but I don't think it is using enough physics (not enough parameters). Say my coin toss model is based on physics too, but it only uses the mass/shape of the coin, and doesn't take into account its interaction with the air. Then the model is masquerading as a physical one, but is missing vital parameters.

>The confidence interval describes the model, not nature
Correct, we're on the same page

>Enough for what?
Enough to say that the data being in alignment with the made-up confidence interval (made on incomplete physics as I've mentioned) is not just random chance. 20 years is not long at all on the time scale of variation of climate.

>You did not tell me what part of the model or the physics it's based on is wrong
I'll turn this one around: tell me why I should believe you that CMIP3's variable coverage is sufficiently comprehensive that we can trust its confidence bounds. Then I'll believe you. Until then, the confidence bounds mean nothing to me.

>>10272628
oh ok, well I guess I'll just have to take your word for it without a graph...

You can produce a graph showing the physical affects of all this, right?

>>10272625
>Implying that global warming is bigger problem than rampant air, soil and water pollution
Ah the old false dichotomy gambit.

>no clear solution
Emitting less greenhouse gases is a clear solution.

>>10272637
>People emitting less greenhouse gases is a clear solution to deforestation, top soil loss, ground water depletion, and most especially to dwindling reserves of oil and gas which me and my family will require well into the future to continue our decadent lifestyles.

>>10272635
Not him, but helping a brother out to educate idiots like you

>>10272629
>Yes, it is using physics, but I don't think it is using enough physics (not enough parameters).
Why? It seems to be the only thing you don't like is the conclusion, side you refuse to explaim what's wrong with the methodology.

>Say my coin toss model is based on physics too, but it only uses the mass/shape of the coin, and doesn't take into account its interaction with the air. Then the model is masquerading as a physical one, but is missing vital parameters.
And what vital parameters are we missing?

>Correct, we're on the same page
Then what is your point about the confidence interval?

>Enough to say that the data being in alignment with the made-up confidence interval (made on incomplete physics as I've mentioned) is not just random chance.
The climate doesn't operate by random chance, we know this from hindcasting, which had been done for much longer intervals than 20 years. Your argument would be fine if the model was simply data fitting but it's not. You're attempting to ignore everything we understand about the climate.

>I'll turn this one around: tell me why I should believe you that CMIP3's variable coverage is sufficiently comprehensive that we can trust its confidence bounds.
Because it's based on our understanding of the climate after decades of research. Now please tell me why I shouldn't trust the scientists who did that research and I should believe you instead.

99% of /sci/ is anti-science crap. This is more of an anti-science circlejerk board.
Even fucking math threads are riddled with lunatics.

>>10272644
>"top scientists of the world" are wasting their time on long-term problem with no clear solution
So "no clear solution" clearly refers to a solution for global warming, not other problems you mentioned. But now you are trying to move the goalposts by demanding that reducing emissions solve all other problems. Pathetic.

>>10272657
yes, thank you. that's the one.
the bottom 2 graphs are practically identical!! (who needs a scale when the 2 curves are so similar?)
milankovich cycles must be, indeed 1000% the cause of glacial cycles just like he said.

>>10272675
the post you are responding to referred to "more urgent" problems - problems other than global warming

who is moving the goal posts? you are. because you seem to think that global warming is the only problem worth being concerned about

>>10272660
>The climate doesn't operate by random chance
Then what is this apparently randomly unusually low activity from the sun is recent years, which is known to affect the climate? There could be many other such 'random' factors which the models have not yet learnt to take into account which could be causing the increase in temperature.

>Now please tell me why I shouldn't trust the scientists who did that research and I should believe you instead.
Okay, you have asked and I'm obliged to say my primary reason. I will preface this by saying my understanding of the mechanics of climate models /is/ limited and that my work with them has only been in comparison to reanalysis.

From what I can tell talking to climate physicists/oceanographers, atmospheric/deep ocean interactions are immensely important in understanding climatic changes (of course they are, just think of that heat capacity). At the same time, these scientists have admitted understanding of overturning circulation in the oceans is still poor, and only in recent years has data collection improved significantly.

>>10272660

(>>10272713 continued, can't tell what 4chan wants me to re-format yet)

"While the high model uncertainty in both parameters may explain the uncertainty in the AMOC projection, deeper insight into the mechanisms for AMOC is required to reach a more quantitative conclusion." - 2016

So, understanding of overturning circulation in relation to predictive models is still terrible. Why am I to believe them if they can't get this highly important factor right?

>>10272660
(>>10272717 continued)

it didn't like my link, the paper I was citing was "Uncertainty in twenty-first century projections of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in CMIP3 and CMIP5 models"

>>10272397
On the Origin of Species hadn't been published yet.

>>10272701
>the post you are responding to referred to "more urgent" problems - problems other than global warming
Yes, but you do realize that a post can make multiple points and sometimes these points have to be responded to individually. Then responding to a counter to one point as if it was countering another is called moving the goalposts.

>because you seem to think that global warming is the only problem worth being concerned about
And this is called a strawman, which is being employed in order to attempt to distract from the topic being discussed in this thread, since the poster has no response to the arguments therein.

>>10272739
there was already a prevailing understanding among biologists by the late 18th century that evolution was real, Lamarck wouldn’t have been accepted had there not been an earlier basis for the idea of inherited change

>>10272764
conversing with you is a waste of time and energy.
why didn't you just post this graph to begin with?
>>10272657 along with this one >>10272516
probably because it would make this statement >>10272452 look retarded
and off you go again on retarded tangents trying to hide your own bullshit under mountains of minutiae.

>>10272687
What's your point?

>>10272713
>Then what is this apparently randomly unusually low activity from the sun is recent years, which is known to affect the climate?
Low activity, yet the Earth is warming rapidly. The factors that dominate the climate at this scale are hardly random.

>There could be many other such 'random' factors which the models have not yet learnt to take into account which could be causing the increase in temperature.
Yeah it could be leprechauns.
Unfortunately you need both to present proof of leprechauns and explain how our calculation of warming from greenhouse gases is wrong until this argument is valid.

>At the same time, these scientists have admitted understanding of overturning circulation in the oceans is still poor, and only in recent years has data collection improved significantly.
Ocean circulation is a short term driver. Take the temperature data and detrend it and you will see a very good correlation between ocean circulation indeces and temperature. But it doesn't explain the warming trend that was removed from the data. This is a horrible explanation.

>>10272717
>So, understanding of overturning circulation in relation to predictive models is still terrible. Why am I to believe them if they can't get this highly important factor right?
Because ocean circulation is chaotic. The factors that determine the temperature over the long term (decades) are not. It's very simple. Saying we can't predict ocean circulation is very different from saying we don't understand its effects.

>>10272739
I don't think you understand what consensus means. It is not simply the opinion of scientists, it's what the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports.

>>10272785
>conversing with you is a waste of time and energy.
Says the guy who can't come up with a valid response.

>probably because it would make this statement >>10272452 (You) # look retarded
How would it do that?

Climate alarmists and activists are as unscientific as deniers. No credible scientists argue that climate change is a major threat to human life; the bureacrats (especially in the EU) systematically highball climate change estimates because
a) it appeases the activists
b) It allows them to get more funding and attention.

Moreover The Paris climate Accord was a fraud. Nearly every developing nation made "promises" to do squat, while gleefully pushing for expenses on the United States. The US had every right to pull out.

>>10272819
>Ocean circulation is a short term driver.
On the surface, sure. But overturning circulation completes cycles every few hundred to a thousand years or so, and as such the deep ocean's ability to take in/out heat is limited by this.

If understanding of overturning circulation is poor now, then it was considerably poorer in the early 2000s when CMIP3 came out.

This is what the scientists I spoke to concerned themselves about, they weren't sure just how much or how little heat the oceans were absorbing, where it occurs etc.

pseudoscience belongs to >>/x/

>>10272849
In other words, the earth is still warming.
Although CO2 emissions can get regulated and comsumption can get increased (just have some plants, benefits you also against air pollution), how can humans adept to an earth that is 3 kelvin warmer than average?

>>10265176
Only, the temperature is rising faster than at any point in geological history with a directly corresponding rise in atmospheric gases that are proven to reradiate and insulate the energy absorbed from electromagnetic radiation, the advent of which also happens to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution?

If we move away from non renewable fossil fuels and towards energy independence and renewables the world will become a better place is countless ways. Even if the above is not indicative of human induced climate change (which it undoubtedly is), we win. If human caused climate change is fake (it isn't) and we switch to renewables, we win and we save future incalculable misery.

This isn't rocket science. There is everything to gain here and very little to lose. Please. Just think.

>>10272849
>No credible scientists argue that climate change is a major threat to human life
Here is a summary of the effects according to published climatologists.

>Nearly every developing nation made "promises" to do squat, while gleefully pushing for expenses on the United States.
Wrong.

>>10272637
Tell me why there's a carbon tax and no plastic bottles tax?
Tell me why are wind and solar generators still promoted as alternatives to coal even though both are unviable economically?
Tell me why IPCC scientists call for reduction of burning of fossil fuels but they don't give a single fuck about deforestation and green algae dying in the oceans due to toxicity - which both greatly affect natural means of CO2 removal?

>>10273152
1.) Plastic bottles are taxed in my state and should be taxed everywhere. But even if they aren't, plastic bottles aren't burned and pumped directly into the atmosphere.
2.) They are economically viable
3.) One issue at a time, but the forests aren't as important as the algae as far as oxygen production and the atmospheric carbon contributes directly and substantially to ocean acidification, which as far as im aware is the leading problem our oceans face atm.

>>10272764
>the subject of this thread is global warming therefore I'll ignore your attempts to derail it to "my fucking house is on fire and no one is doing anything to help"
Congratulations sir, your grandkids will thank you that you fought for 2 degrees lower average global temperature as they slowly dehydrate while sick due to fresh water contamination.

>>10273160
1. They shouldn't be taxed, they should be replaced by something else. If new packaging technologies were funded/promoted as heavily as CO2 tax, we would solve the bottles problem already. Removing one of the biggest sources of oceans pollution as well.
Burning plastic bottles releases toxic chemicals into atmosphere, not to mention CO2.
2. Nope, at least in my country. People get them only when government gives funds. Once funding expires, people get rid of them and go back to coal.
3. Leading problem for oceans is man-made pollution via sewage dumping. Algae are extremely sensitive to heavy metal levels in water, guess where that might come from.
Some of the most aggressive chemicals can be found in used solar panels and "eco-friendly" lightbulbs. They should be recycled properly, mostly they aren't.

>>10265181
Global mean surface temperature increases.
This gives more energy to climate systems. This results in more evaporation, stronger rains, stronger desserts, etc.
Hence climate changes.

>>10265505
>woodfortree.org
>neutral honest data
laughingwhores.jpg

Meanwhile the giec tell us we've been on a plateau for a decade. Oceans are even getting colder.

>>10273160
>as far as im aware is the leading problem our oceans face atm.
India and china are the main problem for the oceans.
That's their problems, and the solution might be a nuke.

>>10273133
Yessss, but you renewable energies consume more energy to produce, are a scam people like you benefit from.
To boot they have to replaced often thank to losing 50% of efficiency in 15 years.
The perfect scam, too bad people have the net and can see clearly what you are doing, caviar socialist.

Can we start banning people who neglect the scientific method?

Im actually a right winger who believes in climate change. The lefts big mistake was turning the idea of climate change into a cultural issue rather than a human issue.
You know historically the right wing were actually proto environmentalists. What do you think CONSERVation is. The nazis themselves implemented the first so called green policies.
Its only in modern times that there has been this split. The neocons, who arent even conservative are the ones who facilitated it.

The only reason america still has Forrests is because of teddy Roosevelt, a republican

My personal politics are complicated. I consider myself a strasserist. With influence by kacysinki.
So i guess an eco fascist.

I belive there is nothing that is going to save humanity. We are going to go extinct. And it isnt the republicans fault. Its capitalisms fault. The democrats have hand in this too. They just have control of the media so they have better PR. Obama was president for 8 years. 2 of which he had complete control of everything. Chose to push an unpopular health care bill instead.
It doesnt matter if a democrat is president, anything they do will just be cosmetic because they are managerial neoliberals.
The republicans are brain dead for sure. If you even say the word climate change the pol tiers just start slamming their head against the wall like a retard with a football helmet. There is no point.

Just enjoy the final decades of humanity.

>>10273383
>Yessss, but you renewable energies consume more energy to produce
Western economists/politicians and their cheerleaders are literally betting the fate of the human race on something called "economies of scale" - the idea that efficiency increases with greater adoption of a technology. They're making this bet because the alternative is to abandon the "perpetual economic growth" now instead of later, even though they realize that humans will have to abandon it eventually anyway. Everyone knows this really, except of course for the 'muh humanz gonna colonize muh galaxy muh 18 trillionz of humanz muh hive planet muh zeropoint fusion thorium liquid salt mega reactors' neckbeards.

Yes, western economists/politicians have more beliefs in common belief with said neckbeards than they do with scientists, or even with logical people of average iq. I believe they are all severely mentally ill.

>>10272867
The only concern there is whether global warming will make AMOC unstable. Scientists consider this unlikely. It has little to do with attribution of present and future warming to greenhouse gases.

>>10272849
Forgot pic

>>10273383
>Yessss, but you renewable energies consume more energy to produce
Western economists/politicians and their cheerleaders are literally betting the fate of the human race on something called "economies of scale" - the idea that efficiency increases with greater adoption of a technology. They're making this bet because the alternative is to abandon the "perpetual economic growth" meme now instead of later, even though they realize that humans will have to abandon it eventually anyway. Everyone knows this really, except of course for the 'muh humanz gonna colonize muh galaxy muh 18 trillionz of humanz muh hive planet muh zeropoint fusion thorium liquid salt mega reactors' neckbeards.

Yes, western economists/politicians have more beliefs in common with said neckbeards than they do with scientists, or even with logical people of average iq. I believe they are all severely mentally ill.

Anyway, its not like knowing this can possibly do anyone any good. The momentum is far too great at this point. You'll be much happier by not knowing or by simply going along to ge along. It will not be pretty for some future generation, but frankly no one seems to care so so be it.

>>10273406
>I belive there is nothing that is going to save humanity. We are going to go extinct.
To be fair, that was inevitable. If we ever had a choice as a species, it was between going out with a bang or a whimper. I prefer the whimper, as it implies a stable population and limited consumption of resources over a millenia, but it seems most people feel we ought to go out with a bang.

>>10273172
Global warming is a much bigger problem, but it's not like you have to choose between one or the other anyway. Try a different tactic, this one's fallacious.

>>10273424
*not "a millenia"
just "millennia"

>>10273377
The data isn't from the website, it's from publicly available databases. But good to see your best argument is attacking the name of the website without even bothering to look to see if it's biased.

>>10265492
How many models failed and got removed from that list?
It is an old scam, used in stocks newsletters.

>>10273435
This data is forged. But you won't believe it although he proves it with their own documents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

>>10274112
>How many models failed and got removed from that list?
Which list? The CMIP models are publicly available from the time they're made, so nothing gets removed.

>>10274120
Even other deniers think Tony Heller is full of shit http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

He both misrepresents/cherrypicks the data and fails to take into account that new data is added over time to these records to improve coverage. He also ignores that all corrections to the data are explained and justified by climatologists, and never responds, just assumes that all changes are fraud.

>>10274120
Tony Heller indeed forges data: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/