/sci/ - Science & Math

forgot url. https://realclimatescience.com/

>cherry picking

>>11070384
>Tony Heller

>>11070384
1976 was an absurdly hot heatwave of a summer in the UK. Unmatched except by recent years.

>>11070421
Yes

>>11070384
Is there somewhere I can download a bunch of that data for all years?

>>11070384
>cherry picks
>doesn't understand the meaning of the word global

>>11070384
central england =/= global

>((((they))))

>>11070785
Is this a delta or a difference from a base?

>>11070384
>Central England
>Maximum Temperature
>Summer
>1976 vs. 2019
Someone sure is lying when they have to cut up the data this much.

why is your graph one season in one year in only England.

Why wouldn't you just use global average temp anomaly over time like is convention? Maybe you're the one lying.

>>11070882
Because maybe it's an assessment on local impact rather than global?
Also because NOAA mostly pertains to North America?

>>11070891
How does comparing the maximum daily temperatures during summer in only two years show local impact?

>>11070909
A time police?

>>11070909
I don't fucking know, I'm also asking for data source so I can do an assessment of my own

>>11070914
so you don't know but your first reaction when seeing an obviously cherrypicked graph is to assume the entire world is lying to you?

>>11070421
>>11070494
>>11070831
>>11070940
Not cherrypicked. Other data reflects this.

>>11070882
Because it shows that the climate is actually cooling, as evident by the graph I posted.

>>11071273
what data? if you have other data why would you only post obvously cherrypicked data of one very specific location in two completely random years? Why are you ignoring much broader more accurate global datasets which pain the complete opposite picture? Why do you have such an obvious agenda?

>>11070882
wow the earth has gotten warmer by 1° in the past 140 years.

that's so insignificant that it can't be anything but within the bounds of margin of error.

>>11070785
There is no such thing as a “global temperature,” the climate is multifaceted.

>>11070384
>>11070483
>Never once breaking 95
>Hot

>>11071451
>wow the water has gotten warmer by 1° in the past 5 seconds

>thats so insignificant that it can't be anything but within the bounds of margin of error

>>11071459
what would you call measuring the temperature all across the planet, land sea, atmosphere etc, year by year and using that data to create a baseline? what would you call significant increases in that baseline over several decades with no sign of slowing down?

>>11070882
nuclear radiation is probably unironically the reason for increased temperatures. That huge spike in the middle lines up with nukes.

nuclear shit is the only thing that really passively generates heat.

>>11071482
Pretty sojaboys are climate terrorists.

>>11070882
Love this graph. Years between 1945 and 1980, temps are stagnant. Pretty funny, given how it was one of the most industrial heavy segments of human history. Rebuilding after World War 2, German/European economic wonder building millions of cars and mining coal, private cars becoming the norm and highways becoming a world wide phenomenon. Yet temps are stagnant. Hmmm...

>>11071507
We're producing far more co2 now, as you can see the exponential curve didn't really take off until the 60s, interestingly enough the cooling effect from the huge amounts of aerosol pollution in the past actually offset most of the warming from the relatively small increase in CO2

>>11071525
>a 40% increase in CO2 that's normal anon, you do know climate changes right anon?

>>11071525
>atmospheric measurements
>ice core

comparing apples to birds. the two are not even close to being similar.
>3 + car = ??????

How dost've one make the leap of logic to compare samples of air to samples of something not exposed to air. may as well just compare air samples to samples taken from the ISS, where there is no air. That would be no more or less intelligent.

>>11071567
Ice core measurements are incredibly accurate, and very good representations of atmospheric concentrations. Sorry reality doesn't fit your narrative.

>>11071273
Clearly cherrypicked. Summer temperatures in Central England are rising. Summer global temperature is rising. Central England temperature is rising. Global temperature is rising.

>>11071451
>he doesn't realize how rapid 1 degree in a hundred years is

>>11071459
>There is no such thing as "Central England temperature," the Central England climate is multifaceted.
>There is no such thing as "the temperature of a room," the air is multifaceted.
>There is mo such thing as "temperature" every molecule is different.

>>11071490
Hold on, let me just check if /pol/ has answered that question yet.

>>11071493
Fucking hell, /sci/ is garbage.

>>11071601
inb5 tony Heller and that one graph comparing global average temp to mid troposphere tropical weather balloons.

>>11071507
>yaaaaaaaawn

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

>>11070831
Could this increase just be better instrumentation/measurements

>>11071610
No, the accuracy of older measuring techniques is well known.

>>11071608
>200p pictures, unpossible to decipher
Ah yes, the classic.

>>11071628
I'm not well-read on the subject but I have heard accusations that recent data is skewed because much of it is collected within concrete jungles, which have higher temperatures than surrounding areas. Could you give me more detail on what they were talking about and/or why it is wrong?

>>11071645
urban heat island effect is very well known and compensated for.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

it's one of the reason those evil adjustments Tony Heller keeps warning you about are necessary.

>>11071582
>A vertical line
Not a function anon, this is obviously fake news

>>11071605
Wat?

>>11071692
>vertical
It's not, try again retard.

>>11071634
>baby needs pictures waaaaah
https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm

>>11071645
If you only look at rural temperature stations you get the same trend. The effect of urbanization is already accounted for.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509

>>11071797
I'm being facetious retard, climate change is real--I AGREE WITH YOU

If you have evidence that global heating isn't happening or that the greenhouse effect isn't real then publish a paper and convince climatologists.

Don't rummage through the internet for a data set from which you can extrapolate what you want and then try to convince laypeople there's a global conspiracy between researchers that's orders of magnitude less feasible of an explanation.

Do climate models take into account the sun and moon's impact on the climate?

https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg

>>11071816
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUBrV0VFcbY

>>11071828
most folks who direct this research spend a decade getting a PhD and nobody goes through that so that they can spend their career fudge results to get research grants for a politically unpopular position. Even research by Exxon Mobil and Shell's own scientists corroborate climate change.

Corruption happens, but outing corruption involves identifying specific instances of ethical violations, like accepting money form under the table to generate particular results.

If we're going to talk about corruption, it also doesn't help that conservative administrations seek to divert funding for research into climate science; if you disagree with the conclusions or want to claim conspiracy, fine, but at least collect the data from which we can come to conclusions.

>>11071846
>nobody goes through that so that they can spend their career fudge results to get research grants for a politically unpopular position
How do you know? The IPCC is a political organisation intended to push climate alarmism - I'm sure the scientists make good money doing this, much more than they would have otherwise.
>Even research by Exxon Mobil and Shell's own scientists corroborate climate change.
Would you believe the research if it didn't corroborate with man-made climate change? If not, then you have no grounds to believe their research that does corroborate.
>like accepting money form under the table to generate particular results
What about accepting money from governments who will benefit financially from carbon taxes?
>If we're going to talk about corruption, it also doesn't help that conservative administrations seek to divert funding for research into climate science
Who wants to fund corrupt climate research?

>>11071828
Lindzen is right about at least one climatologist being corrupt

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

>>11071905
>The IPCC is a political organisation intended to push climate alarmism
It's intended to report what's 9n the scientific literature.

>I'm sure the scientists make good money doing this, much more than they would have otherwise.
They volunteer. Are you done making shit up?

>Would you believe the research if it didn't corroborate with man-made climate change?
Yes.

>If not, then you have no grounds to believe their research that does corroborate.
This is rich coming from the guy who denies the evidence because it comes to the conclusion he doesn't like. Thank you for admitting you have no ground to do so.

>What about accepting money from governments who will benefit financially from carbon taxes?
If governments are so desperate to have carbon taxes why haven't they done it yet?

>Who wants to fund corrupt climate research?
Oil companies and the politicians that support them.

>>11070483
>>11071466
it was VERY hot for the UK. It was such a unique event for them people still remember it vividly to this day,
>>11071273
>Not cherrypicked
extremely cherrypicked, you're full of shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_British_Isles_heat_wave

>>11071905
>How do you know? The IPCC is a political organisation intended to push climate alarmism
But this is what you have to substantiate. There are certainly special interests on both sides with a financial interest in the conclusion (I daresay moreso on the side of extractive resource multinationals), but people have thought of this and already built in safeguards like peer review. You have to show the data they generate was falsified or at least cite evidence to the contrary. The fact that you have researchers across a variety of sciences, climatology, geology, zoology, astrophysics, consistently corroborating the reality of climate change with their research, some of them have government jobs, some have tenured positions in university, some work for fossil fuel companies, etc. etc.

>Would you believe the research if it didn't corroborate with man-made climate change?
I would trust global consensus among scientists, yes. It's possible to corrupt a single scientist or an organization but I don't buy the idea that everyone is corrupt unless demonstrated otherwise.

>>11071828
What I always find funny about these videos is they present some scientist from some prestigious institute and use the prestige of the institute to boost their credibility while simultaneous bashing the institution for being corrupt and untrustworthy. He has a PhD in some field, wow very smart man, but he obtained the PhD from the corrupt scientists. They might as well present a village idiot and say look at the truth he speaks!

>>11071907
What research of his was funded by fossil fuel industries? How much money in total have they paid him?

>>11071928
>carbon taxes
Governments collect tax revenue but that isn't inherently desirable by governments. There are lobbyists who lobby for lower taxes as well. The compensation of elected officials isn't commensurate to the level of tax collection (at least not in the US).

>>11071936
It's always a pure appeal to authority.

>>11071928
>It's intended to report what's 9n the scientific literature.
Does it report literature that is against man-made climate change?
>They volunteer. Are you done making shit up?
How do they make a living?
>Yes.
So why did you find it surprising their research corroborates with man-made climate change?
>This is rich coming from the guy who denies the evidence because it comes to the conclusion he doesn't like. Thank you for admitting you have no ground to do so.
What conclusion is that?
>If governments are so desperate to have carbon taxes why haven't they done it yet?
They're working on it - but they need a willing population who will welcome the taxes. The next generations will be more likely to accept them as they've been heavily brainwashed in schools to fear climate change.
>Oil companies and the politicians that support them.
So why do you believe the studies that the oil companies funded that corroborate with AGW?

>>11071939
>What research of his was funded by fossil fuel industries?
Lindzen doesn't do research, he publishes opinion pieces in fake journals like Energy and Environment which attract fossil fuel lobbyists who then pay him thousands of dollars a day to lie during public hearings. Lindzen lies all the time and profits from it, you can't even present one example of real climatologists doing the same.

>>11071950
Replying to the wrong person?

>>11071957
Yup, it's pretty comical at this point, especially when they out right discredit themselves

>>11071934
>There are certainly special interests on both sides with a financial interest in the conclusion (I daresay moreso on the side of extractive resource multinationals)
Do you not think the extractive resource multinationals are the ones who are already heavily invested in alternative energies and will dominate that market making even more money? That's why they don't deny man-made climate change but make sure to give money to as many "deniers" as possible so they can be instantly rejected as a shill even if what they're saying is true.

>I would trust global consensus among scientists, yes. It's possible to corrupt a single scientist or an organization but I don't buy the idea that everyone is corrupt unless demonstrated otherwise.
Is it possible to accurately model the climate and accurately predict its state in the long term with current computer models?

>>11071966
>Does it report literature that is against man-made climate change?
Like what?

>How do they make a living?
How do scientists make a living? Why are you asking retarded questions? Is this a tactic to distract from the reality of global warming?

>So why did you find it surprising their research corroborates with man-made climate change?
What are you talking about?

>What conclusion is that?
The conclusions of the IPCC on the causes and effects of global warming.

>They're working on it - but they need a willing population who will welcome the taxes.
They already have that, most people support a carbon tax. And the government enacts unpopular taxes all the time. Your premise is empirically false.

>The next generations will be more likely to accept them as they've been heavily brainwashed in schools to fear climate change.
If it's brainwashing then show me what's false about it.

>So why do you believe the studies that the oil companies funded that corroborate with AGW?
I don't believe them. The same conclusions are proven by a massive amount of evidence. But please explain why these studies are wrong if you believe so.

And you haven't explained why you should be taken seriously when you present no evidence and attack sources hypocritically.

>>11071936
>but he obtained the PhD from the corrupt scientists
The scientists he got his PhD from are probably dead now and were never involved in the politicised bullshit that we have today.

>>11070785
They still constantly lied about how the heat wave in England was history’s first in order to sell the climate scare scam, faggot.

>>11071490
Anon, we aren’t able to measure the vast majority of earth’s temperature and the IPCC literally denies that it’s possible to predict the future state of the global climate.
“global temperature” is a misnomer, it’s not a real variable, it’s an unverifiable and non falsifiable scam.

>>11071976
>Lindzen doesn't do research
So how did he receive the 'Jule Charney' award for "highly significant research" in the atmospheric sciences from the American Meteorological Society?
>fossil fuel lobbyists who then pay him thousands of dollars a day to lie during public hearings
How much has he been paid in total and what evidence do you have that he's lying?

>>11071998
Oil companies literally have been funding AGW propaganda since the late 90s.
Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, General Electric, these are the “climate saviors” begins the scenes over the last 35 years. Big Energy founded Ecomagination in 2004 with the expectation of obtaining 60 billion in revenue over ten years building government funded green energy complexes and technology.
Turns out they made significantly more money than that.
https://www.mobil.com/en/industrial/lubricant-expertise/sectors/power-generation-industry-lubricants/wind-energy

>>11072011
How did Obama win a peace prize? Retarded question.

>>11072015
Turns out General Electric owns MSNBC too, and Google also joined in collusion with these oil companies.

>>11072005
pure bullshit, we have thousand upon thousands of land based monitoring stations, thousands of buoys to measure ocean temps, we have weather balloons and planes to measure atmospheric temps, we have satellites monitoring the entire planet through thermal imaging. You're utterly clueless.
The IPCC's entire work is based around computing probabilities of future climate states, to claim anything else is simply peak ignorance. Either you're a braindead idiot incapable of thinking for yourself, or you're some kind of shill.

>>11071998
>Like what?
Anything, there was a Norwegian one recently - or is all the literature they use pro man-made climate change?
>How do scientists make a living? Why are you asking retarded questions? Is this a tactic to distract from the reality of global warming?
How do the scientists who contribute to the IPCC make a living?
>They already have that, most people support a carbon tax. And the government enacts unpopular taxes all the time. Your premise is empirically false.
A carbon tax could destroy how modern society operates due to our reliance on cheap fuels - the current population won't be willing to change their lifestyles.
>If it's brainwashing then show me what's false about it.
Show me how the computer models are true.
>I don't believe them
Huh?
>But please explain why these studies are wrong if you believe so.
Show me how the computer models are true.

>>11072015
oil companies are barely competitive in the renewable sector, virtually all their assets are still bound up in fossil fuels. Those oil companies actually have research that predicted climate change that they sat on for years because they knew how bad it would be for them. And they don't publicly deny it because even they know it's indefensible. Most still fund deniers under the table though, like Willie soon and the heartland institute.

>>11072021
That's a retarded comparison. You said Lindzen doesn't do research yet he has won an award for his research.

>>11072040
behold the power of models which deny AGW

>>11072047
NAYRT and not familiar with the topic but it sounds like a reasonable comparison to me.
If the prize was for significant research could you direct me to the research in question?

>>11072039
>pure bullshit
>thousands of monitoring stations, thousands of boueys, weather balloons can cover the whole earth.
>a satellight can read the temp of the whole earth simultaneously.
Nope, nope. It’s true a satellite can picture the earth, but not in one moment, rather, over a very long time while building a mosaic of accumulated images.
The IPCC states that we do not have the capability to measure the temperature changes across the whole earth, instead, they treat it like a “scientific” election poll. Like that one that said Hillary was 97% certain to win. They just best guess the unmeasured area (which is the vast majority).
At least read the IPCC report before you reply to me. GE shill.

>>11072049
Can you show me how those IPCC models were tweaked?

>>11072049
>skeptical science
Literally a senator/representative who gets big energy kickbacks’ website.
The truth is that there’s 10,000 versions of that graph, all different.
The truth is that the vast majority of “climate scientists” work for companies like Monsanto, General Electric, and Exxon Mobil, who created consensus simply by funding thousands of studies to support their agenda, overwhelming the ones done in ernest that didn’t in number. A false consensus.

>>11072003
Who?

>>11072047
I never said Lindzen didn’t do research, I jumped in and only commented on the error of your presumption about the meaning of an award given by someone with interests of his or her own.

>>11072057
Not a reasonable comparison because Obama got the peace prize despite not being peaceful at all due to his love of drone strikes and maintaining the war. At least Lindzen actually did research in order to get an award for it.

The award was for "For incisive contributions to the theory of diverse phenomena ranging from gravitational to planetary waves in the upper and lower atmosphere." - he has multiple research papers on this.

He's also received other awards, and some of his peer reviewed papers can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Peer-reviewed_papers

>>11072087
The news, which is owned and heavily influenced by corporations like General Electric.

>>11072076
Nice possessive apostrophe

>>11072015
And your point is? You didn't respond to anything I said.

>>11072088
>I never said Lindzen didn’t do research
Well someone did which is retarded.

My point wasn't that him winning an award means he deserves it, it's just funny that he's won an award for research when it was claimed he doesn't do research.

>>11071273
>Not cherrypicked
kill yourself

>>11072109
I was interjecting, that was my first post in the chain. I don’t care if you like the post, you didn’t address anything I said in my call out.

>>11072112
Fair enough I agree, it shows that other poster didn’t look into that man before he commented on him, putting you above him intellectually. Not above me though, I am correct.

>>11072118
As someone who is intellectually superior to me, can you explain how the climate models work and why they should be trusted?

>>11072040
>Anything, there was a Norwegian one recently
Show me.

>How do the scientists who contribute to the IPCC make a living?
Through their job. Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

>A carbon tax could destroy how modern society operates
Why are you being such an alarmist? In reality the consequences of not having a carbon tax are far worse than having one.

>due to our reliance on cheap fuels - the current population won't be willing to change their lifestyles.
So you think supply and demand doesn't work?

>Show me how the computer models are true.
You can read the literature explaining the physics the models are based on. Also, pic related. Now explain why they're wrong.

>Huh?
You are confusing their conclusion being correct with believing them.

>>11072011
>So how did he receive the 'Jule Charney' award for "highly significant research" in the atmospheric sciences from the American Meteorological Society?
In 1985. LOL.

>How much has he been paid in total
We'll never know, he tries to hide his affiliations and has even lied about it.

>what evidence do you have that he's lying?
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

>>11072093
Which news? It seems like you're lying while accusing others of lying.

>>11072076
>Literally a senator/representative who gets big energy kickbacks’ website.
Wrong.

>The truth is that there’s 10,000 versions of that graph, all different.
Wrong.

>The truth is that the vast majority of “climate scientists” work for companies like Monsanto, General Electric, and Exxon Mobil, who created consensus simply by funding thousands of studies to support their agenda, overwhelming the ones done in ernest that didn’t in number. A false consensus.
Wrong.

Is this denier retarded or lying? You decide!

>>11072127
Only once you’ve read the IPCC report, which explains why they aren’t credible much more thoroughly than I’m willing to, if somehow your cognitive bias has allowed you to maintain your pro AGW position, get back to me.
I’ve read it more than once. I didn’t say I was superior to you, read that post again.

>>11072065
>The IPCC states that we do not have the capability to measure the temperature changes across the whole earth

citation please, GISS quotes uncertainty as below 0.05°C and covers over 70% of the planet, that's only one of many monitoring systems. So what the fuck are you smoking?


>>11072076
attacking the source rather than the data, typical glad you have no argument.

>>11072147
I've read AR5 and I can with complete confidence say you're full of shit, and are without a doubt lying. Please please please TRY and prove me wrong.

>>11072089
He hasn't done anything noteworthy in 3 decades. His recent work has been on the iris hypothesis, which he kept shilling even after it was empirically falsified, and on an embarrassingly bad estimation of ECS which failed to pass peer review.

>>11072114
There is nothing to address, just vague insinuation of an idiotic conspiracy theory.

>>11072138
Posting links to CNBC, Nature, Skeptical Science, the Guardian and the BBC gets marked as spam.
Maybe it will let me post one:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/26/scorching-heatwave-causes-flight-and-railway-delays-in-europe.html
>"It's intense. Climate change makes this extreme heat so much more likely. This is something that virtually couldn't happen if not for climate change," Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, told CNBC.
The Peacock network is 49% owned by GE.
>>11072142
Nothing I said was wrong.

>>11072047
I said he doesn't do research, not that he didn't do research.

>>11072156
I’m stating that you haven’t read the report. It is long. Also, why did you posit a question guised as ernest, feigning ignorance? Read the report.

>>11072161
The IPCC literally states in its summary announcement that the future global climate cannot be predicted, and that we need to focus on collecting data and trying to build models to get better at it, discrediting climate alarmism.
You haven’t read it, in each part, the acknowledgement of insufficiency is addressed and then passed by.

>>11072182
Where is there a lie? Everything in the article is accurate.

Links to Nature are blocked, welcome to /sci/, /pol/tard.

>>11072167
>ad hominem in lieu of substantial post.

>>11072195
It’s been a while, corporate oligarchy fag.

>>11072129
>Show me.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
>Through their job. Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?
Is their job tied to influencing political action?
>Why are you being such an alarmist? In reality the consequences of not having a carbon tax are far worse than having one.
Energy becoming more expensive affects nearly everything in modern society - a high enough carbon tax would be very damaging to the population but great for the government. Of course it's just a coincidence that governments believe man-made climate change, they truly care about the planet.
>So you think supply and demand doesn't work?
What point are you making?
>You can read the literature explaining the physics the models are based on. Also, pic related. Now explain why they're wrong.
Is there an actual breakdown of what the climate scientists do when using the models to get the results they do? Do they do any tweaking?

>>11072195
The lie is that a heat wave is because of industry. Climate Scientist is newspeak for Lobbyist.

Why do people always think they always know everything better than people that have studied a thing for literally their entire lives? Why are people so inherently arrogant?

>>11072198
>ad hominem
Not an ad hominem, try again.

>>11072218
It was an insubstantial insult with no substance then.

>>11072218
>I know a handful of logical fallacies, therefore I'm always right

>>11072043
As early as 2003 oil companies were spending hundreds of millions of dollars donating to universities like Stanford in support of climate change research, in open collusion with corporations like Exxon Mobil, Google, General Electric. Some of the most influential corporations in the world.
On google you literally are required to use the advanced version of “google time search” to find this stuff, because it’s the only way to avoid tailored search results linking to skeptical science.
The white paper for GE’s Ecomagination project used to be available on its website, claiming its for profit reasoning for supporting climate change as multi billion dollar industry, though even if you find the link now it’s scrubbed to a default page instead.

>>11072208
>https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Pseudoscience and not even published.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

If this is the type of work the IPCC ignores then it's a good thing.

>Is their job tied to influencing political action?
Does science influence political action? Do you really think these rhetorical questions are working?

>Energy becoming more expensive affects nearly everything in modern society - a high enough carbon tax would be very damaging to the population but great for the government.
The climate affects nearly everything in society. Again, your conspiracy theory about the government has no evidence and makes no sense. If governments were so keen to have a carbon tax, they would have done it already. The majority of voters support it. If scientists are lying in order to help the government, all you need to do is show where they're wrong. But you won't, all you'll do is speculate about motives, like every other conspiracy kook. Did you know the Earth is flat?

>Is there an actual breakdown of what the climate scientists do when using the models to get the results they do?
Did you look? I am so tired of these questions you don't even care about the answer to. You have no actual reasoning behind your position, just denial.

>Do they do any tweaking?
What do you mean by tweaking?

>>11072237
This white paper talked about things like using the news (at the time it owned 51% of MSNBC not just 49% like now) as well. It is a real shame the corporate white papers arent available to the public anymore.

>>11072239
Those with economic power can steer what science says to a wide degree. This is apparent through all history. The shamans said sacrificing virgins would stop the heat waves too.

>>11072237
>>11072242
Does archive.org have it?

>>11072214
>The lie is that a heat wave is because of industry.
How is this a lie? Does industry emit not emit greenhouse gases? Do greenhouse gasses not increase the temperature? Does increased temperature not make it more likely for extreme heat to be reached?

Not only is it not a lie, it's a scientific fact: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234114398_Global_increase_in_record-breaking_monthly-mean_temperatures

>>11072247
I never tried that. It’s very hard to find the original link to it. In like 2012 or so is when I read the paper. I was astonished. It’s a white paper that’s justifying to a board a proposal for “Ecomagination.org,” which was founded I believe in 2003 or 2004. If I can find it again I bet the archive does have it.

>>11072255
>accept my logical leap.
No.
>scientific fact
Wow.

>>11072194
>The IPCC literally states in its summary announcement that the future global climate cannot be predicted, and that we need to focus on collecting data and trying to build models to get better at it, discrediting climate alarmism.
It says the exact climate cannot be predicted, but the probability distribution of the climate can be predicted with high accuracy, which it then goes on to do. You're taking a statement out of context and misrepresenting it. What a surprise.

>>11072220
>I falsely accuse others of logical fallacies, therefore I'm always right

>>11072232
>I falsely accuse others of logical fallacies, therefore I'm always right

>>11072267
Nowhere does it use the word “exact,” nowhere does it state that a probability distribution model is predictive. You are adding and changing words to suit your corporate agenda.
It says quite flatly that the long-term future climate state cannot be predicted. That doesn’t mean “but we can predict it with our statistics.” Instead, it says that statistical analysis is still important research and we should focus on that as a result. It does NOT affirm that the future state of climate can be predicted with statistical analysis and in fact literally states that it can’t be in its fucking summary conclusion.
This part of the report will be quoted in 30 years to “prove” that science never claimed the alarmist threat was real.

>>11072279
>everyone who disagrees with me is one poster.
I expected that you are delusional, to be a corporate shill unintentionally requires it.

>>11072245
>Those with economic power can steer what science says to a wide degree.
How have they steered it? You still haven't shown one thing wrong with the science. There's literally nothing distinguishing your argument from flat earthers and anti-vaxxers. You demand that science be ignored but somehow you are immune from being swayed by economic powers and have literally no evidence. Your hypocrisy is stunning.

>>11072261
>accept my illogical denial and my non-response to reasoning and scientific evidence
No.

>>11072186
And i'm stating that I have read it as evidenced by my actual understanding of the material, you claim to have read it but misrepresent the entire report, making it clear you're lying, once again prove me wrong

>>11072282
>nowhere does it state that a probability distribution model is predictive.

more lies, every model range has a confidence and an error range.

>It says quite flatly that the long-term future climate state cannot be predicted.

and throughout the entire report makes predictions based on probability distributions, if you had actually read it you would know this.

>That doesn’t mean “but we can predict it with our statistics.”

it means the predictions we have made in this report can still be improved, hardly that they aren't valid once again if you had read anything more than some out of context statement you would know this. A rational person acting in good faith would examine his position and re inspect the facts not parrot the same sentence out of a massive report over and over again.

>>11072292
>illogical denial
My position is consistent with the IPCC’s findings, your news channel just didn’t show you that part.

>>11072282
>Nowhere does it use the word “exact,”
Nowhere did I say it did.

>nowhere does it state that a probability distribution model is predictive.
It does:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

>It says quite flatly that the long-term future climate state cannot be predicted. That doesn’t mean “but we can predict it with our statistics.”
Yes, now read the sentence directly after, where it does.

>It does NOT affirm that the future state of climate can be predicted with statistical analysis
That's literally what it does in the report. It presents a CMIP model to predict the probability distribution of the climate. You couldn't be more wrong than this.

>>11072307
yet again you haven't shown shit, parroting the same lie that's been fed to you proves nothing

>>11072304
An extremely high one, acknowledged in each section of the report.
And after it makes those predictions it disowns them as not actually predictive.
>it means the predictions made can be improved.
Empirically the predictions are majority wrong so far, and when the report concludes flatly that the long-term future climate can’t be predicted, it isn’t being ironic or unintentional.

>>11072286
>>>/x/

>>11072307
>My position is consistent with the IPCC’s findings
Oh good, so you admit global warming is occurring, caused by man, very harmful, and warrants mitigation. Glad we cleared that up and this thread can end.

>>11072319
you don't need to sign your posts on 4chan

>>11072317
Advanced corporate research using advanced time tool to avoid google’s result tailoring because relevant search queries don’t appear otherwise isn’t “being fed.”

>>11072323
Anon you said a lot of things I didn’t, and have indicated you haven’t read the report but rather were told what it said by interested parties.

>>11072326
>>>/x/

>>11072331
You said your position is consistent with the IPCC, so what is your position on global warming?

>and have indicated you haven’t read the report but rather were told what it said by interested parties.
It sounds like you're projecting, since the only knowledge of the IPCC reports you've shown is a misrepresentation of an out of context quote spread by blogs. Pretty funny.

>>11072331
>Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks. {2}

>Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise. {2.2}

>It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales, as global mean surface temperature increases. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and longer duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. {2.2.1}

>The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century, with the strongest warming projected for the surface in tropical and Northern Hemisphere subtropical regions (Figure SPM.7a). {2.2.3, Figure 2.2}

>It is virtually certain that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced as global mean surface temperature increases, with the area of permafrost near the surface (upper 3.5 m) projected to decreaseby 37% (RCP2.6) to 81% (RCP8.5)for the multi-model average (medium confidence). {2.2.3}
Literally just copying and pasting quotes right out of AR5, where are yours? You HAVE read it right?

>>11072135
>In 1985. LOL.
So you want something more recent? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjp%2Fi2012-12052-8
>We'll never know, he tries to hide his affiliations and has even lied about it.
Is there a chance that it's not very much at all? Or are you certain he's motivated purely by money rather than being a real scientist who seeks to disprove rather than have a religious belief in the supposed truth of climate "science".
>https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
I don't see anything backing up the rebuttals to Lindzen's quotes, we're just supposed to accept that that's "what science says". This is not how science works, where is the doubt? Where is the scepticism? How can this site call itself "skeptical" when it is dogmatic about climate change. Does it ever attempt to challenge AGW?

>>11072323
>implying climate change is real and not just being pushed by special interests
Lol

>>11072339
>out of context quote.
It’s the summary conclusion, and only you added words to fit your agenda.

>>11072340
This is out of context anon, and is not affirming predictive capability. It talks about “assessed emission scenarios, “ which is referring to numerous non-predictive climate models. Until you prove the model works, not even the IPCC agrees with you that the future climate state can be predicted.

>>11072342
>skepticalscience
>skepticalscience
Literally a shill website.

>>11072378
>The IPCC Guidance Note on Uncertainty a defines a common approach to evaluating and communicating the degree of certainty in findings of the assessment process. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence, especially for findings with stronger agreement and mul-tiple independent lines of evidence. The degree of certainty in each key finding of the assessment is based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. Levels of confidence include five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and are typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The likelihood, or probability, of some well-defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future can be described quantitatively through the follo-wing terms: virtually certain, 99–100% probability; extremely likely, 95–100%; very likely, 90–100%; likely, 66–100%; more likely than not, >50–100%; about as likely as not, 33–66%; unlikely, 0–33%; very unlikely, 0–10%; extremely unlikely, 0–5%; and exceptionally unlikely,0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely, 95–100%; more likely than not, >50–100%; more unlikely than likely, 0–<50%; and extremely unlikely, 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. Unless otherwise indicated, findings assigned a likelihood term are associated with high or very high confidence. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. {WGI SPM B, WGII Background Box SPM.3, WGIII 2.1}

good thing the models are doing fucking great

>>11072389
>attacking the source because he can't attack the argument
LOL typical

>>11072378
How is it out of context? Could you please provide the greater context that undermines all these incredibly clear cut statements? You HAVE read the report like you claim right? right?

>>11072342
>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjp%2Fi2012-12052-8
This is not research, basically just Lindzen giving his opinion with no data.

>Is there a chance that it's not very much at all?
So when Richard Lindzen lies about climate science and profits off of it, that's OK because we don't know how much money he made, but when climate scientists tell the truth this must be corruption because the government wants a carbon tax, even though they could have enacted a carbon tax long ago but haven't. Got it.

>Or are you certain he's motivated purely by money rather than being a real scientist who seeks to disprove rather than have a religious belief in the supposed truth of climate "science".
He seems to mostly be motivated by blind contrarianism, but that doesn't mean he's not also corrupt. If he seeks to disprove then he should do it already instead of making youtube videos for PragerU. His actions show he's more interested in making propaganda than doing science.

>I don't see anything backing up the rebuttals to Lindzen's quotes
Did you click on the links?

>This is not how science works, where is the doubt? Where is the scepticism?
Doubt and skepticism are cured by evidence. Ignoring the evidence is not skepticism, it's denial. And where is your skepticism of Lindzen?

>>11072346
>climate change isn't real, believe me and ignore all evidence

>>11072372
>It’s the summary conclusion
The summary conclusion is more than one sentence. I gave you the rest and disproved your misrepresentation directly. Cry more.

>>11072389
Clearly this website is incapable of challenging the validity of AGW - I guess that means it's impossible to cast any valid doubt upon AGW because it's completely water tight.

How has science gotten to this state?

>>11072432
Why don't you post research which challenges the validly of AGW, which stands up to peer review, and provides more accurate predictions instead of crying about it like a child?
If you can't you're a fool who lives in a fantasy land without any evidence to support your irrational beliefs.

>>11072432
That website is pro AGW propaganda.
>how has science gotten to this state.
Define science.

>>11072441
Propaganda implies it's somehow biased or false, you can provide evidence for this right?
skeptical science does a good job of citing it's sources so start their.

>>11072405
Yes, though I don’t have access to it now. I remember how it talked about unknown variables, insufficient measure, errors in reporting, and as well as unknown influence and unknown resolution/release/capture of heat in the atmosphere, and especially with regards to the influence of CO2. You are cherry picking and avoiding the stated conclusion at the end which says we can’t predict it and doesn’t say “except.” The statement that we can’t predict it being placed at the forefront of the conclusion was obviously intentional and with merit.

>>11072447
You didn’t define science.

>>11072452
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

Literally all you can do is repeat an obvious misrepresentation of the IPCC over and over again, even after being disproved. Hilarious.

>>11072452
You can't open a pdf?
Anon... you really aren't helping your case in any way I can't find anything in the report which collaberates your dubious memories. If you don't mind I'll trust what I actually read rather than what some random guy claims to remember reading some unknown amount of time ago.

>>11072460
It’s the front of the summary conclusion of the IPCC report, summarizing the meaning and findings from all the information put together. It’s not a misrepresentation to say that it disqualifies prediction and suggests a direction to focus on.
In no way is this an affirmation, and in fact it will be used to prove that ‘science’ (which you won’t define) never said that there was an incoming catastrophe from AGW.

>>11072464
>no substance post.
And that’s correct that I vm

>>11072466
>>11072396
It's extremely explicit throughout the report as to the confidence range of each prediction.

>>11072468
>and that is correct that I can’t open a PDF at this time. I believe it’s in the 700s page range.

>>11072470
It’s really low which is why it’s stated in conclusion that it can’t be predicted, because the climate is too complex.
In fact the models in extent are not predicting either, and so it’s an unproven product being sold by Big Energy, requiring carbon taxes as a solution.

>>11072473
>90%+ probability is low
are you fucking retarded?
Models are providing extremely valuable predictions, why would you say otherwise? Do you have some data no one else does?

I have decided to read EVERY IPCC report since it’s inception, I think it will be interesting and good for my quest against big energy’s AGW racket. I read a few already so I know they say different things and have wrong predictions, but that’s not enough.

>>11072478
Those aren’t real probabilities, they are probabilities within the models themselves, which then have a huge margin of error and have been falsified continuously over time. It’s why the IPCC started adding that disclaimer that the future state of the climate can’t be predicted.

>>11072411
Sure, despite that less than 1/3 of scientists believe in climate change. the 97% statistic is a lie.

>>11072483
> Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence, especially for findings with stronger agreement and mul-tiple independent lines of evidence. The degree of certainty in each key finding of the assessment is based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement.


but you just said the IPCC made no predictions about the future climate, why are there nothing but predictions with stated probability? You keep moving the goalposts, you couldn't be WRONG could you?

>>11072496
>citation needed

>97% statistic is a lie
kind of the number among actual climate scientists is higher.

>>11072480
I would be super impressed if you actually did this.

>>11072498
This is a claim, it’s not empiricism, the conclusion directly states that these statistics cannot predict the future state of the global climate. The conclusion is the part that tells us the summation of the report before it, and it starts off right away by ruling out prediction at this time, while offering a direction to continue research in.
The degree of certainty is very low because so far IPCC predictions were wrong already since it began being published.

>>11072516
>so far IPCC predictions were wrong already since it began being published.

they actually underestimate current warming so you aren't wrong. The IPCC has a history of understating warming due to political pressure it's true.

>>11072499
What percent of actual climate scientists work for mega corporations like Monsanto, General Electric, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and also smaller interested corporations which are under a subsidy umbrella making green energy technology and also receiving contributions from the listed megacorps, or universities that get significant donations to the climate science labs from said oligarchy? Or for the federal government panels, which are filled with lawyers from said corporations?

>>11072518
Stop copying from skepticalscience and presenting as though you’ve read any of them.

>>11072524
>What percent of actual climate scientists work for mega corporations
<1% The scientists that work for those companies are practical ones you would expect to work in those fields not climate scientists.

>>11072533
>direct lie as a response
Kek

>>11072524
some major projection you have there


>Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of “alarmism”: of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I. We also note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction of key characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215

>>11072535
A challenge, you will provide evidence for your claim won't you?

>>11072533
I said mega corporations, subsidy umbrella corporations, and the government, and it’s a much higher percentile than that, they created the position.

>>11072536
That’s an opinion piece. At least create your own content.

>>11072538
Honestly even if you are right by defining everyone who works a public institution as evil it's just a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy, provide evidence for AGW being incorrect in any way or shut up.

>>11072540
>The studies we have examined here find no evidence that the IPCC has made exaggerated claims in its climate change predictions; indeed, in many cases IPCC predictions seem to have underestimated actual outcomes. The Copenhagen Diagnosis finds several areas in which scientists were largely correct, or conservative, in their forecasts, and they find no areas in which climate scientists were overzealous.

you aren't too good at this whole reading thing are you?

It's a fact that the world is getting warmer. It's a fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing. It's a fact that carbon dioxide traps heat. It's a fact that we can tell where this CO2 comes from from its isotopic composition-from fossil fuel deposits. I don't see any possible way of looking at all of this and concluding that we're not warming the planet.

Where is the lie?

>>11072524
So no citation, thanks for admitting you lied.

>>11072546
I saw that it was a blog post and stopped reading anon.
The old IPCC predictions are off by more than 400%, they aren’t 95% accurate like you seem to believe. The temperature in an area can vary a wide deal and even change from one type of environment to another over time, but unless you can actually predict with accuracy your claims are just alarmism and the failures of your predictions reveal their unfalsifiability as you maintain them as “95% accurate” even though they are not even close.

>>11072555
can you post some specific examples?

>>11072555
It's a fucking scientific journal, are you fucking retarded? Does your ignorance know no bounds?

>>11072559
This guy is the Sargon of Akkad of climate denialists-he's nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.

>>11072535
Who would Monsanto hire?
Biochemists, Chemists, Biologists, anyone who helps them grow better plants.
Who would GE hire?
Mostly engineers, but also materials scientist and chemists they have their hands in a lot of pies.
Who would (Exxon Mobil/Conco/shell/BP) hire?
Chemists, petroleum engineers, Geologists, anyone that could make the extraction and refining of petroleum and petroleum products more profitable.

>>11072553
See:
>>11072555
Also I didn’t lie, but you did by claiming that I did.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs2.cgi?id=shilldefeater@fushills
The IPCC predicted that global warming would cause Mild winters, but also predicted that it would have harsher winters, increasing its odds off a correct guess. They used to say Global Warning would reduce the occurrence of heavy snow storms, and later said it increases them.
They claimed that severe hurricanes would double in frequency, but that didn’t actually happen and instead over 40 years it’s stayed roughly the same.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/1/100121-hurricanes-global-warming/
Your company needs to hire a better shill.

this shit is just embarrassing now....the average global temp is up by a pretty distinctive amount in just the last decade alone. If you plot temp of the last 150 years out,as many of the graphs people have thrown up here show, you can immediately tell that something is going on to make the atmosphere heat up.

The last 800 thousand years have seen co2 top out at about 300 ppm, we're over 400. Seems like an unlikely coincidence.

>>11072562

https://www.minnpost.com/environment/2012/02/monsanto-asks-its-scientists-if-global-warming-real/

>>11072570
According to which model? There are a lot. Betting on them is like gambling because of the sheer number of different ones.

>>11072570
>loses the debate
>this is embarrassing
Makes sense.

>>11072567
>shilldefeater@fushills
Juicy Chorizo that's some cringe right there.

>>11070384
nnnoooo youcant post facts about how fake gw is

>>11072567
Show me the parts of the report where the claim was made, then show the the data that disproves it, we don't just take things on faith here, actually do the work you lazy fuck.

>>11072581
>facts
lmao

>>11072573
>One of those scientists was Dr. David I. Gustafson, a chemical engineer.
Thanks for backing me up.

>>11072584
Define science first.

>>11071993
>Do you not think the extractive resource multinationals are the ones who are already heavily invested in alternative energies and will dominate that market making even more money? That's why they don't deny man-made climate change but make sure to give money to as many "deniers" as possible so they can be instantly rejected as a shill even if what they're saying is true.

Yes, we can continue with these ethereal arguments for every possible 64D chess conspiracy ad infinitum.

Certainly the same can be done and is sometimes done regarding the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, whether the Earth is round, the existence of gravity, whether Digimon are real, whether the Earth is thousands or billions of years old, and whether vaccines are mind control devices. These analogies are mostly not even exaggerations; denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying smoking causes lung cancer given the weight of evidence.

The fact remains that expert consensus based upon decades of data collection world-wide overwhelmingly substantiates anthropogenic climate change, and hand picking data from google searches to fit this or that explanation is not a convincing counter.

Humanity needs to be able to take environmental degradation seriously, so I'm willing to tolerate the absolutely preposterous likelihood that anthopogenic climate change is a fabrication by governments around the world and also the multinational oil conglomerates (despite spending billions lobbying against legislation to curb fossil fuel consumption) to get us to buy more solar panels. It is more nonsensical to transition to green energy infrastructure to avoid a much larger likelihood of a far more disastrous future.

>>11072579
...what debate? you haven't said or done anything to dispute the fact that the planet is warming up or that carbon emissions from human activities are the cause.

Is the atmosphere heating up? If so, why? If not, then how do you account for the vast amount of data collected over the last few decades showing a clear pattern of overall warming?

>>11072589
>no true Scotsman
>included means others were excluded

>>11072567
Where's the citation for less than 1/3 of scientists believing in climate change?

>The IPCC predicted that global warming would cause Mild winters, but also predicted that it would have harsher winters
>They used to say Global Warning would reduce the occurrence of heavy snow storms, and later said it increases them.
>They claimed that severe hurricanes would double in frequency, but that didn’t actually happen and instead over 40 years it’s stayed roughly the same.
Where? All you do is lie about the IPCC.

>https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/1/100121-hurricanes-global-warming/

Here's the paper: ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/ngeo_779_MAR10_-_print_issue.pdf

Show me where it's wrong.

>>11072592
>every claim is the same and I can associate this one with others arbitrarily to lower the perceived value of the discussion.

>>11071993
>Do you not think the extractive resource multinationals are the ones who are already heavily invested in alternative energies and will dominate that market making even more money? That's why they don't deny man-made climate change but make sure to give money to as many "deniers" as possible so they can be instantly rejected as a shill even if what they're saying is true.

Yes, we can continue with these ethereal arguments for every possible 64D chess conspiracy ad infinitum.

We can spend the next ten million posts coming up with every permutation of such a conspiracy and I feel like that's the idea at this point.

Certainly the same can be done and is sometimes done regarding the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, whether the Earth is round, the existence of gravity, whether Digimon are real, whether the Earth is thousands or billions of years old, and whether vaccines are mind control devices. These analogies are mostly not even exaggerations; denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying smoking causes lung cancer given the weight of evidence.

The fact remains that expert consensus based upon decades of data collection world-wide overwhelmingly substantiates anthropogenic climate change, and hand picking data from google searches to fit this or that explanation is not a convincing counter.

Humanity needs to be able to take environmental degradation seriously, so I'm willing to tolerate the absolutely preposterous likelihood that anthopogenic climate change is a fabrication by governments around the world and also the multinational oil conglomerates (despite spending billions lobbying against legislation to curb fossil fuel consumption) to get us to buy more solar panels. It is more nonsensical to transition to green energy infrastructure to avoid a much larger likelihood of a far more disastrous future.

>>11072591
>Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

>>11072596
I mean i wouldn't consider it a fallacy if the dudes from Africa and has never even set foot in scotland

>>11071993
>Do you not think the extractive resource multinationals are the ones who are already heavily invested in alternative energies and will dominate that market making even more money? That's why they don't deny man-made climate change but make sure to give money to as many "deniers" as possible so they can be instantly rejected as a shill even if what they're saying is true.

Yes, we can continue with these ethereal arguments for every possible 64D chess conspiracy ad infinitum.

We can spend the next ten million posts coming up with every permutation of such a conspiracy and I feel like that's the idea at this point.

Certainly the same can be done and is sometimes done regarding the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, whether the Earth is round, the existence of gravity, whether Digimon are real, whether the Earth is thousands or billions of years old, and whether vaccines are mind control devices. These analogies are mostly not even exaggerations; denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying smoking causes lung cancer given the weight of evidence.

The fact remains that expert consensus based upon decades of data collection world-wide overwhelmingly substantiates anthropogenic climate change, and hand picking data from google searches to fit this or that explanation is not a convincing counter.

Humanity needs to be able to take environmental degradation seriously, so I'm willing to tolerate the absolutely preposterous likelihood that anthopogenic climate change is a fabrication by governments around the world and also the multinational oil conglomerates (despite spending billions lobbying against legislation to curb fossil fuel consumption) to get us to buy more solar panels. It makes more sense to transition to green energy infrastructure to avoid a much larger likelihood of a far more disastrous future.

>>11072595
>if so, why?
This reminds of people saying if you can’t explain something unknown or only a little known, God did it.
>>11072599
Multiple anons are posting against AGW. I didn’t make that post.

For the record, renewables are fucking trash in any role but a supplementary one and nuclear power is infinitely superior in every way as a replacement for fossil fuel power.

>>11070384
So you'd help them make yourselves weaker.
I would say that it did work is a sign that we are a little irresponsible and unready but its time to not think like that anymore.
Pollution is a problem climate change is something that people with fusion power can reverse if it ever truly got bad which it will not.
Most of it is natural not man made owing to being a bit closer to the fucking sun. Believe it or not more light is coming to the areas where tractor owning humans live which means more food at less energy input.

>>11072596
>no true Scotsman
I don't think you know what that means or you wouldn't be using it.
>included means others were excluded
What's your point? I said Monsanto hires chemists and you bring an article that says yes one person they hired was a chemist.

>>11072609
Come on,just answer the question. Are human emissions of co2 changing the climate? If not, how is that possible?

>>11072466
>It’s not a misrepresentation to say that it disqualifies prediction
>Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution
And the report includes such predictions, qualified with high confidence ranges. Every time you lie about this you just further solidify your irrelevance.

>>11072615
I really wish we were just getting trolled, this guy gets dumber with every single post.

>>11072611
If all that matters is cost at point of purchase, sure; but the environmental footprint of a solar panel over its operational life is orders of magnitude less than that of a comparable quantity of any hydrocarbon fuel burned to produce the same energy output.

That environmental footprint comes with a cost that has to be born by other living things, including humans, and at least without a substantial carbon tax it isn't included in the price that manufacturers or power plants pay when they produce greenhouse gasses; they unload the cost of their activity onto others for free under our current economic system.

>>11072615
Monsanto hires many different kinds of professionals anon, chemists are just one kind. I proved that Monsanto paid its scientists to do this, which is what you appeared to dispute.

>>11072616
Only once science is defined; that request was hours ago.

>>11072627
The systematic study of reality.

>>11072630
So we are including Plato and Aristotle, etc? To me, for science to be separate or a product and boon of philosophy, it needs to be more defined.
I could make a bullshit system to study reality and by your definition it’d be science.

>>11072627

>>11072603

>>11072625
You asked what % of climate scientists worked for those major corporations and I said it was a low number because most corporations hire people that work in the field of the corporation and I don't know why they would need climate scientists.
You respond by calling me a liar and then I give examples of what types of scientist I would expect to work at those companies.
Then you claim that a chemist suddenly becomes a climate scientist because his work asked him to look into it and I accurately call him a chemist because that was how he was trained and I believe that is the majority of his work.
Then you misuse the no true Scotsman fallacy and claim that there must be real climate scientists working for Monsanto even though the only example of someone commenting on the subject while working for them is a chemist.

>>11071466
>>11071931
Yes it would've been humid combined with buildings ill-equipped to deal with the heat.

>>11072603
Thanks anon, this is a good one. Unfortunately the emergent claims of don’t observably and testably prove true, so either they are unfalsifiable (which to me means “not science even if it calls itself that,” or it’s false so far.

>>11072636
Any scientist who researched and wrote a conclusion on climate science and was paid to do it is by definition a climate scientist. They can also be exceptional in other fields and especially related fields like chemistry.

>>11072577
Based on your figure, you clearly don't know the difference between models. CMIP stands for Climate Model Intercomparison Project. Each number at the end of CMIP corresponds to IPCC reports, CMIP5 for AR5 and so on.

There is no such things as a CMIP model. CMIP consisted of all climate models worth a dime run under the same forcing and averaged together.

>>11072641
Technically he would be a climate engineer since he is a chemical engineer not a scientists.

>>11072632
Yes of course they're included-as we would of course include people like Newton or Lord Kelvin or Bacon. All made valid efforts to use the systematic study of reality to expand our understanding of the modern world. Not everything they discovered is still considered scientifically valid because evidence and experiment trump everything else, since science deals with reality. They wouldn't be upset at that-they'd be curious to find out what they'd gotten wrong, sine they were intellectually honest people.

I don't think the same can be said for you. I don't think you care about reality. Like many people,you seem to have happily adopted the practices of a post-truth age, where expertise is grounds for distrust and evidence takes a back seat to feelings. This whole thing where you insist "science" is defined is a perfect example-manipulative,evasive,and counter-factual. My definition is simple, but accurate enough for a casual discussion. Science is using observation and logic to describe the world.

>>11072407
>This is not research, basically just Lindzen giving his opinion with no data.
Oh I see - amazing how only opinion made it through peer review and into The European Physical Journal.
>So when Richard Lindzen lies about climate science and profits off of it
Prove he's lied.
>we don't know how much money he made
It seems most of the money was simply for expenses in court, but you're adamant he's received fossil fuel money that we don't know about. If fossil fuel emissions aren't a threat to humanity, what's wrong with taking money from them to prove this?
>when climate scientists tell the truth this must be corruption because the government wants a carbon tax
Why is the solution political rather than scientific? Why is it only the IPCC (interGOVERNMENTAL) that is listened to?
>even though they could have enacted a carbon tax long ago
No they couldn't have - lots of people are not convinced about AGW. There'd be riots if they did that. They want the population to want a carbon tax, rather than imposing it on them, so they're taking their time, ramping up the hysteria.
>If he seeks to disprove then he should do it already instead of making youtube videos for PragerU. His actions show he's more interested in making propaganda than doing science.
So nothing he's said has any validity at all? Do you believe there's any propaganda on the pro AGW side at all?
>Did you click on the links?
Ah okay - what is interesting is that they use cherry picked quotes out of context and attack them that way, yet ignore everything else he says. Why is that?
>Doubt and skepticism are cured by evidence. Ignoring the evidence is not skepticism, it's denial.
Depends on the quality of the evidence - alarmists don't challenge it enough.
>where is your skepticism of Lindzen?
Lindzen is one of the few climate scientists who challenges AGW like a scientist should. Even if he was wrong, he's behaving correctly, unlike the believers who simply cannot accept criticism.

>>11072640
Why not our physical understanding of reality predicts the warming of the planet due to the greenhouse effect, the planet is warming due to the greenhouse effect. if that's not a testable true prediction I don't know what is.

>>11072645
My claim was that there is an abundance of models to choose from, all varying in result and methodology. I quickly grabbed the first graph I saw, at this point you are really reaching to attack the poster sans actual substance to your argument.
>models worth a damn
This suggests undesirable variance that gets pruned towards a tailored document.

>>11072650
>expertise is grounds
It’s the media bombardment, contradictory predictions, and the constant sale of it that is most suspicious.
This view is quite common.

>>11072652
Show the test.

>>11072652
>greenhouse effect
Primarily water vapor and methane. There is less co2 concentration in the air than fluoride in your water.

>>11072662
You test the various components of air and determine their thermal properties when exposed to various wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. Then you can test how when combined the composition changes the thermal response. Then you find out what affect the current changing composition would have on the climate.

>>11072665
So are you saying that the increased heat is caused by water and methane?

>>11072653
>This suggests undesirable variance that gets pruned towards a tailored document.
Everyone is welcome to download the forcing, run it and submit their results for the upcoming CMIP6
https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/CMIP6/Guide/modelers.html

If climate skeptics truly believe what they're saying, they can easily submit their model for CMIP6 to be accounted for upcoming IPCC results. The fact is there is no climate change skeptic model. If you build a climate model from the ground up, conserving all we know about physics, momentum, and chemistry, then run it pass peer review process you'll get similar results as the models in CMIP6.

There is no need to choose one particular model. In IPCC, they use the average from all ensemble models as their most likely prediction, and use the spread as uncertainties. The different models count for the range of uncertainties. If all models agree for a certain thing (for example sea level rise) then we can say that the prediction is likely. If the models disagree (for example tornadoes) then we can say the prediction is unlikely. It is harder to specifically exclude any particular model from CMIP because you have to write a rebuttal peer reviewed paper against it. Sadly all skeptics are AWOL in this project and did not contribute, then come back to cry about how "IPCC models run warm" without evidence to the contrary

>>11072656
The media is awful, anyone who has ever read an article about a subject they have any real degree of knowledge of can tell you that. i spend a lot of time reading up on nuclear fusion research and the absolute howlers that the popular science press put out about that,oh god!

I ignore the media on climate change, they rarely talk about realistic solutions. Here's an article (that's actually pretty decent for a change) by one of them that illustrates how shallow and silly the statements made by politicians are about this stuff-https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#3b9228c35f7e

Is that your real beef, that the media are hysterical afactual ninnies? Why friend, I think everyone here would agree with you on that. But don't let that poison your soul against reality.

Do me an immense favor-sit down and review the basic facts of climate change-co2, the carbon cycle, ocean acidification, the isotopic ration of carbon from non-fossil fuel sources vs fossil fuels, forcings due to things like changes in insolation from ice melting and giving way to seawater, methane released from permafrost, etc. Ignore the media and try to get a firm grasp on all of this. It's very interesting!

>>11070384
>Central England
>Maximum temperature, not average

Not biting lol

>>11072670
Show the test I can do that shows measurable warming at the estimated ambient earth atmospheric concentration of CO2, which is 0.04% of its composition (compare to water fluoridation).
I remember a UC climate department making one for myth busters but it failed until they maxed the co2 pump and basically loaded it to 35% concentration. The premise of co2 warning rests on the assumption of replicated behavior at 0.04% of the makeup of an atmosphere even though its only observed and measured in a controlled environment at exponentially higher concentrations.

>>11072674
No I was pointing out the misnomer of acting like co2 is “the greenhouse effect,” when it’s the one of the three you can’t warm a greenhouse with by adding ultraviolet light compared to a greenhouse without it (0.04% vs 0.00000000001%).
With vapor at earth atmospheric concentration, it’s testable in a lab. With methane you can do it in the lab, no need to exceed earth atmospheric concentration to do it.
With CO2 the temperature doesn’t change in a way that indicates an active affect.

>>11072687
Is this going to be another goalposts on ice situation where you won't be satisfied unless we can magically create a second earth Identical to our own except for CO2 concentration?

>>11072694
Is this post ironic?

>>11072694
See:
>>11072693
The other more substantial gasses don’t need a magic combo to warm a greenhouse. You can easily see the differences in just a regular greenhouse using them.
Not so with co2. Post the test.

>>11072693
>>11072687
you're basing all of this off of one attempt at a test.....in what sounds like a very simplified form.

>>11072687
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc

Some math is required. First you calculate the absorption potential for pure CO2. Then you integrate from elevation 0 to top of the atmosphere with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Fourier did it about 100 years ago
chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html?https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

>>11072694
>how dare you expect me to prove the claim that 0.04% atmospheric concentration of co2 changes the atmosphere’s temperature vs an atmosphere without co2 when exposed to UV light.
For sure though you can test in a lab that all plants die in environments with less than 0.02% co2, regardless of the temperature.

>>11072696
Well that's usually how it goes.
Understanding the physics through laboratory tests isn't enough.
Understanding the various forcing and following factors isn't enough.
Knowing the duration that various greenhouse gasses spend in the atmosphere isn't enough.
Knowing the changes in atmospheric composition isn't enough.
Knowing the changes in the amount of energy we get from the sun isn't enough.
Understanding albedo isn't enough.
Understanding the changes in albedo caused by warming isn't enough.

What do you think will satisfy you?

>>11072706
Sorry the link is busted. Here's the true link
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786449608620846

>>11072707
How do you suppose we recreate the world climate in a laboratory?

>>11072706
Immediately your video is called out for being pseudo science and challenged to provide a chamber experiment with 350 ppm and 400 ppm and proving a reproduceable and measurable difference in temperature change between the two.
His challenge is the same as mine; pretty funny how obvious it is that it is a scam with only a little critical thought.

>>11072716
>Then you integrate from elevation 0 to top of the atmosphere with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

retard

>>11072713
The agony of empiricism’s common difficulty does not negate its importance. With all the other claimed greenhouse gasses, successful versions of this greenhouse experiment exist.

>>11072716
Such experiment are not doable because it is impossible to recreate Earth's atmosphere in vacuum chamber.

Why? Because gas expands when heated. Ideal gas law PV = T. In vacuum chamber when you heat gas they expand, if volume is finite then pressure and temperature will increase. This is basic 4th grade science. It is impossible to recreate the earth's atmosphere in controlled condition where the gas is allowed to settle gravitationally and expand without limits. However, with some basic calculus, you can integrate the absorption spectra just like Fourier did, and use the absorption spectra based on your idealized laboratory experiment.

>>11072721
see>>11072706

>>11072721
ignoring a factor doesn't make it go away, the height of the gas column in the real world has to be taken into account, this isn't hard.

>>11072718
>doesn’t meet the requirement
Nothing more than mental masturbation. It doesn’t make a difference in temperature if it has 350ppm co2 or 400co2, observably.
Why can’t we recreate the conditions of the atmosphere well enough to show it working with .005 differences in concentration? Maybe it’s because this ‘almost not even there’ co2 isn’t doing shit to the temperature on Earth.

>>11072729
Saying an experiment isn't valid because you don't like it isn't an argument THE HEIGHT OF THE GAS COLUMN HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND IS

>>11072729
>It doesn’t make a difference in temperature if it has 350ppm co2 or 400co2, observably.
We hit 350ppm in late 80s and we hit 400ppm in around 2015. 2015 was warmer than the late 80s.

>>11072729
>Why can't you get the same affect from a single thread that you would from an entire blanket.
Seriously?

>>11072729
>Why can’t we recreate the conditions of the atmosphere well enough to show it working with .005 differences in concentration?
See >>11072726
Because gas expands. Any vacuum chamber with specified concentration of gases will give you wrong reading of climate sensitivity (change in temperature per doubling of CO2) because the earth's atmosphere has infinite space to expand and is not restrained to a vacuum chamber.

>>11072712
The start of this study says that the atmosphere acts like a hot house (now called green house). I’m unable to read the rest, but you can’t reproduce the 0.04% co2 changing the temperature of a hot house compared to one with 0.035% or 0.05% or non at all.
Thought experiments aren’t empirical. The lady in the video isn’t comparing 0.04% co2 to 0.042% co2, she’s straight up filling balloons with concentrated co2.

>>11072739
Gas expansion isn’t at C.

Well now we're at the "deny basic physical reality since no one has done an experiment in an exact autistic way I will accept".


if you had 2 containers with glass lids that you could fill with varying amounts of co2 and air and expose to a carefully controlled amount of light and heat,to pick up on the difference in how the heat is absorbed and radiated between them using very sensitive thermometers,protected from the direct influence of the heat. If anyone here could mark down the information from this thread, do that experiment, and publish its utterly unsurprising results,I would appreciate it. you could immortalize this faggot's autism forever.

>>11072743
once again you fucking retard, because comparing .035% in a 2 ft gas column and a 10 mile gas column are completely different. You have to use fucking math.

>>11072743
Expanding empirical observations onto theoretical calculations is valid way to do science.
I explained multiple times why 1:1 vacuum chamber experiment doesn't work. Because gas expands and it is impossible to recreate the earth's atmospheric condition unless you have a 2nd earth.

In theory to recreate a close to 1:1 earh's atmosphere without violating the ideal gas law you need a gravity free vacuum chamber. Then you have a center mass and allow some gas to be pulled in by the center mass. Thus the gas blanked around the center mass have room to expand. Do you know how hard and expensive is it to make a gravity free, vacuum chamber on earth for something that has been proven with pen and pencil by Fourier 100 years ago?

>>11072749
The chemical reaction occuring through the air with co2 at a concentration that low in a controlled environment is needed to prove it occurs at that tiny concentration, since most reactions are diffused.

>>11072755
>non empiricism is empiricism
A greenhouse is often not a vacuum, and he described that as the best comparison, which is directly in line with my experiment requirement.

>>11072756
>The chemical reaction
What in the everloving fuck did you just fucking type?

>>11072766
Good strawman for lacking an argument.

>>11072756
There is no chemical reaction in greenhouse effect. It is simple electromagnetism physics. Chemical reaction infer changes in molecules and atoms. Nothing changed in greenhouse effect. All gas molecules vibrates. Some non-symmetric gas molecules like CO2 and CH4 when they vibrate their dipole moment changes, allowing the bonds between the atoms to interact with passing infrared lights, hence the greenhouse effect.
https://www.nku.edu/~hicks/CHE%20120/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect%20alpha.htm

The fact that you don't understand basic physics and calling the greenhouse effect "chemical reaction" means that you're a moron who failed grade school science class

>>11072769
I was just so astounded by your idiocy I couldn't really form coherent sentences.
There is no chemical reaction.

>>11072755
It’s definitely not expensive as the hundreds of billions that are being spent on climate change and it’s much cheaper than the carbon tax.

>>11072775
Like I said good strawman in lieu of an argument.
“I picked this irrelevant statement and tore it apart.”
Ok good job.

>>11072779
There is no chemical reaction.

>>11072778
So tell me how would you conduct such experiment. You need to launch a whole lab to the outer space to make it gravity free. Set up labs in international space station. Set up all the equipments, and standard gases. Train the scientists who conducted the experiement to also be a /fit/izen astronaut, because regular astronauts are not trained to conduct experimental physics experiment, just to satisfy your dumb 80IQ ass?

Or you could just take Calculus 2, pay attention in class learn to integrate, read Joseph Fourier's paper, and integrate the absorption spectra yourself with pen and pencil.

>>11072784
You could also, read Svante Arrheniu's paper where he calculated the absorption of CO2 based on differences in infrared radiation emitted by the moon and earth, super cool work back in the fucking 1800s, you could also look at the satellite data which has showed decreased longwave radiation exiting the earth at CO2s absorption bands as CO2 levels have risen.

or you could build a 10 mile gas chamber in space to satisfy one retard who thinks the greenhouse effect is a chemical reaction.

>>11072784
It’d be really easy:
>The CO2 breathed by astronauts aboard the ISS is captured by using a sponge-like mineral called a zeolite, which has tiny pores to lock in a CO2 molecule. On the space station, the zeolites empty their CO2 when exposed to the vacuum of space. ... The new system works by having a series of zeolite adsorption beds.
They just need a light bulb.

>>11072795
It shouldn’t need to be 10 miles large. Just at the same or close to the same concentration and claimed difference from human affect of 0.04 to 0.042%.
The only reason it can’t is because it’s fake and gay.

>>11072239
>Pseudoscience and not even published.
>https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
>If this is the type of work the IPCC ignores then it's a good thing.
For "pseudoscience" it got quite the response, didn't it? Hit a nerve it seems. Does the IPCC use the impact of cloud cover in their predictions?
>Does science influence political action? Do you really think these rhetorical questions are working?
Are they encouraged to publish research that helps governments to justify carbon taxes?
>If governments were so keen to have a carbon tax, they would have done it already. The majority of voters support it.
They won't do it now because many voters do not support it. Many voters remember when we were supposed to be heading into an ice age. Many remember the outrageous claims made in Al Gore's documentary that never came true. Many have lived through countless doomsday predictions of the end of the world. It ain't gonna work, which is why they're targeting children and creating their idol Greta.
>If scientists are lying in order to help the government, all you need to do is show where they're wrong
When their emails got hacked: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
>speculate about motives, like every other conspiracy kook
But don't you believe that climate scientists who deny AGW are in a conspiracy with the fossil fuel industry?
>Did you look? I am so tired of these questions you don't even care about the answer to. You have no actual reasoning behind your position, just denial.
Do the models include the impact of low cloud cover in their predictions?
>What do you mean by tweaking?
Arbitrary tweaking of climate variables to match observed warming.

>>11072795
I’ve been typing for hours and it’s late. At this point you need anything you can get I guess.

>>11072801
>It shouldn’t need to be 10 miles large.
Explain why you think this.

>>11072809
The other greenhouse gasses can already be tested in a literal greenhouse. The controversial one is the one that can’t be.

>>11072809
UCI thought it so hard they attempted in a televised experiment and got caught maxing out the co2 pump to fix the result when it didn’t work.

>>11072809
When every time an experiment fails the benchmark is moved back instead of the hypothesis falsified, you have to wonder if that’s not a result of bias.

>>11072811
I'm actually curious, link an experiment which satisfies all your requirements for CO2s experiement with methane concentrations between 722 parts per billion and 1866 ppb

>>11072818
I don’t have access to do so at this time anon, I hope you can find one.

>>11072811
>>11072813
>>11072817
I don't need your samefaggotry here.

>>11072811
>The other greenhouse gasses can already be tested in a literal greenhouse.
1. What are the "other" greenhouse gases.
2. Name 5 other greenhouse gases other than CO2 and CH4
3. show me a literal peer reviewed greenhouse effect experiment for climate sensitivity of such gases on a literal greenhouse that people use to plant pinneaple in the winter that mimic the their natural concentration in the earth's atmosphere.

You're off your meds anon. You know that the greenhouse effect is an analogy, and it doesn't require a literal greenhouse to prove it right?

>>11072821
There is no chemical reaction.

>>11072821
same excuse every time, at this point can we all just accept everything this retards says unsubstantiated bullshit, You made the claim back it the fuck up.

>>11072824
I’m explicitly arguing that it does. No one disputes that it occurs at higher concentrations, but so far the proof for the human contribtion of co2 on the already tiny concentration of earth’s atmosphere is popsci tier. I can post that university attempting that test where they end up cheating and got caught by clever viewers.

>>11072836
Post it then.

>>11072836
Until you can post the same experiment for methane and water this is a dumb discussion.

>>11072608
>We can spend the next ten million posts coming up with every permutation of such a conspiracy and I feel like that's the idea at this point.
Well you must believe in some kind of conspiracy when it comes to this - likely that the fossil fuel industry are conspiring to mislead the public on climate change. I just think they're smarter than that.
>denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying smoking causes lung cancer given the weight of evidence
Ironically scientists were paid to say smoking was good for you in the past.
>The fact remains that expert consensus based upon decades of data collection world-wide overwhelmingly substantiates anthropogenic climate change
There's been no tampering whatsoever of the data?
>It makes more sense to transition to green energy infrastructure to avoid a much larger likelihood of a far more disastrous future
How many countries would need to do this extremely expensive shift?

>>11072836
I still don't understand how you can be too dense to understand that the size of the gas column has to be taken into account. You're basically claiming a coat can't keep you warm because a nanometer of wool doesn't trap enough heat to warm you up.

>>11072818
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
Here a UC climate department defrauds viewers to make their experiment still succeed when it failed.

>>11072843
It’s not just me, universities who attempted the experiment I asked for thought they could prove it that way until they couldn’t.

>>11072836
No, show me any experiment that satisfy your own standard. I quote "The other greenhouse gasses can already be tested in a literal greenhouse. "
So I presume someone filled a literal greenhouse with pre-industrial concentration of CH4, or N2O, SF6, or other GHG as control experiment, then filled another literal greenhouse with present day concentration of CH4, or N2O, or SF6, or whatever?
I would be really surprised if such experiment exist.

>>11072847
It is easy to nitpick any experiment. We're still waiting for you to proof an example of an experimental design that is satisfactory. See >>11072843. Not only the size of gas column, you need to account for concentration gradient within the column because with natural gravity of earth heavier gas settles closer to the surface. But then on top, the gas column needs to have near unlimited volume to recreate the Earth's blanket atmosphere. Otherwise, if the volume is restricted then ideal gas law will take over and the gas will expand inside the chamber once heated.

>>11072239

Give it up, man. There will *never* be enough evidence to substantiate climate change for some folks. There will always be more conspiracy, and if it's an unlikely conspiracy that's just evidence for how deep the conspiracy goes.

It's an unfalsifiable belief because the conservative process is totally unequipped to grapple with the litany of realities consequent to the idea that the actions of one (individual/business/country) can impose a cost on others, as well as the western world's disproportionate use of the carbon budget to date, as these pertain to climate change and environmental degradation more broadly. It's simpler just to leap into the rabbit hole than it is to revise one's entire worldview.

If we want to control environmental degradation, we should try and educate folks and dispel misconceptions. But getting into this cycle of infinite "bUt HoW CaN you bE SuRE" arguements is a fruitless use of time and effort.

>>11072862
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-molecules.html

>>11072867
>Anthropogenic*
I will continue the fight against big energy megacorps.

>>11072867
I'm just here to make sure every random person who clicks on this thread understands that people like >>11072849 are retards who are scientifically illiterate and can't back up any claims with evidence. It's the least I can do to fight against the war on empiricism certain board immigrants have started.

>>11072877
>war on empiricism
You are the one denying its importance.

>>11070494
Fuck off faggot shill. The truth is being exposed and your gonna look like a little boy who cried wolf faggot

>>11072880
you're the once incapable of providing any evidence for any claim you have made in a 300 post thread, While ignoring every single bit of cited scientific evidence posted. FUCK YOU. and fuck every highschool dropout retard too dumb to question the bullshit propaganda fed to you.

>>11072891
t. propaganda-filled idiot

>>11072894
In this entire thread show me one post where you have provided a single shred of evidence to back up the absurd verbal diarrhea you've spewed everywhere. Then try and tell me with a straight face you can defend your own beliefs.

it is all about money and funds, today if you do not say that the world will end in 10 years, you do not receive funds form Uncle Sam and EU. They are pushing climate change because they want your money, they want to fuck middle class and poor, while the rich will get richer. Do you think they give a fuck about this planet?

>>11072908
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
atmospheric CO2 is 350-400ppm
atmospheric CH4 is 1800 ppb
At 1:38 you can see that they crank the CH4 to 8 ppm (which is 8000 ppb) and CO2 to 7%, which is 70,000 ppm.

>>11072947
Another idiot, incapable of addressing the physics, science or empirical observations. Unable to provide anything but endless conspiracy theories. Come back when you can contribute something to the conversation.

>>11072952
So your source for the greenhouse effect being a fraud is one clip from a mythbusters video using meat thermometers? Are you for real right now?

and you're STILL ignoring that the atmosphere is a gas column 10+ miles, which you're comparing to a 3 ft box. And you aren't smart enough to understand why this matters.

>>11072956
It's not about the meat thermometer. It's that they're cranking the concentration orders of magnitude higher than in natural settings to achieve the desired results. If setting up a proper experiment is so hard, they should've just acknowledged it rather than falsifying the result.

>>11072908
>>11072567
And here’s proof it was completely wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/6/01-12

>>11072956
That’s a different poster but your post is silly and dumb.

>>11072966
It's a fucking TV show, the studio spent the money they're getting content no matter what. The fact you somehow think this matters in the least is hilarious.

>>11072976
It’s a UC school’s climate science department, with the school allowing their name revealed in the episode.

>>11072976
It’s an experiment a UC put its name behind on a national tv show, claiming initially it would be “easy.”

>>11072980
once again I literally don't care what some idiots let themselves get roped into to be on TV, the experiment was terrible in every way, and had 0 chance of providing meaningful results.

>>11072986
showing GHGs have an insulating effect is easy, which they did, at levels identical to the atmosphere in a 3ft glass box with meat thermometers is impossible. and in no way scientific.

>>11072990
Well I do care that people are being misled by these corporations, if you don’t care it’s odd you are posting.

>>11072993
so your entire argument is that mythbusters isn't real science? is that it? Thanks everyone who isn't 8 already knew that.

>>11072991
It didn’t show if that is relevant over an area with 350ppm vs 400ppm co2. It just showed that if you attach a machine pump to one container and not the other, and pressurize one somewhat with co2x the temperature slightly rises.
There is barely any co2 in the air and it’s much less efficient at warming than more abundant gases. It’s a scam.
You can tell by taking a damn shower.

>>11073004
>>11072995

>>11072995
Mythbusters didnt conduct or set up the experiment, literal “climate scientists” did. The part of note is their deceit when the experiment didn’t work as they thought it should.

>>11073014
>>11072995

>>11072995
That’s definitely not my entire argument, it’s just a citation of climate science fraud. My argument goes back much further in the thread.

>>11072995
>claims corporate involvement in the climate change debate
>posts proof of it
Why are you pretending it’s anything other than a literal example of that?

>>11072889
>>/x/ - tier comment.

>>11073019

if anyone's interested in actual science and not a children's show here you go.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.3867&rep=rep1type=pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

>>11073029
Boring, show me an experiment I can do in my own backyard and confirm with my own 2 eyes

>>11073025
soooo mythbusters a show for kids which has more shoddy downright incorrect experiments than I can name? Great job you really uncovered a global conspiracy! you're a genius!

>>11073032
I can use this logic to pretend any scientific advancement in the last 100 years is invalid, no one gives a fuck about your feelings cletus

>>11073035
>empiricism is bad.

>>11073036
There's a world of difference between claiming everything that can't be done by a retard in his backyard for 20 dollars isn't real. And if you seriously claim this I suggest you never drive or fly anywhere.

the studies linked are by definition empirical.

>>11073035
Most scientific advancements are empirically proven. This claim here about tiny changes in concentrations of the already barely present co2 changing an atmosphere’s temperature in otherwise normal conditions isn’t.

>>11073040
I can’t read them unfortunately and also don’t believe you. You should post their full text here.

>>11073041
>>11073029

>>11073046
Post the full text. Or are you just spamming links you can’t access?

>>11073050
Abstract

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5,6,7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8,9,10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11,12,13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

>>11073053
Main

Starting in October 1996, the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument14, on board the Japanese ADEOS satellite, produced about nine months of global observations of the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation. Some 27years earlier, NASA had flown a similar instrument (IRIS—Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer15) on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft, between April 1970 and January 1971. Details of the performance of the two instruments are given in Table 1. Although these two experiments were on board separate spacecraft almost 30years apart, the existence of the two data sets allows the examination of the outgoing longwave radiation spectra to detect whether any significant change had occurred between the two measurements. Comparing averaged spectra for the same region, allowing for the different spatial and spectral resolutions of the two instruments, reveals that they are extremely similar and highly reproducible. Nevertheless, on closer inspection, informative differences are observed.
Table 1 IMG and IRIS instrument characteristics
Full size table

To illustrate this, Fig. 1a shows an averaged IRIS cloud-cleared brightness temperature spectrum superposed on an averaged IMG cloud-cleared spectrum, for the same three-month period (April–June) and a central Pacific area (latitude 10°N–10°S, longitude 130°W–180°W) for the range 710–1,400cm-1. The spectral resolution of the IMG data has been degraded to match that of IRIS, instrument field-of-view effects have been taken into account, and land/island areas have been masked out. For cloud clearing, a two-step approach was used16. Figure 1b shows three curves: upper, the difference IMG-IRIS taken directly from Fig. 1a; middle, a theoretical difference spectrum, corresponding to conditions for the central Pacific; and lower, the observed difference spectrum for a ‘near-global’ case (60°N–60°S) for the same period, for comparison. The curves in Fig. 1b are displaced by 5K from one another. Figure 1c shows the component of the simulated spectrum that includes only the effect of trace-gas changes between 1970 and 1997 (omitting temperature and humidity changes), to aid interpretation.

The agreement between the upper and middle curves of Fig. 1b is very good. This result, given that the IMG and IRIS data were recorded using two separate spectrometers, 27years apart, and that the simulation is completely independent of IRIS/IMG observations, gives confidence in the quality of the data. The internal consistency of the data is further illustrated by the inclusion of the bottom, quasi-global result. Despite the fact that the averages in the top and bottom curves contain very different numbers of spectra, the consistency between these results is notable: the major features of the observed difference spectra appear consistently in all the difference spectra we have studied.

Our interpretation of Fig. 1 is as follows. We consider first the sharp spectral features. A negative-going brightness temperature difference is observed on the edge of the CO2 ν2 band, between 710 and 740cm-1, in accord with the known increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 1970 and 19971. The O3 band centred at about 1,060cm-1 also shows a negative-going difference from the background window signal, which can be attributed to the known changes in ozone17 and in temperature18. A strong, negative Q-branch is observed at 1,304cm-1 in the CH4 band, due mainly to increases in tropospheric CH4 concentrations in the period between the observations, which causes emission from higher, colder layers of the troposphere. Negative-going lines due to ν2-band H2O absorption are seen between 1,200 and 1,400cm-1. There is also evidence of weak features due to CO2, CFC-11 and CFC-12 in the 700–1,000cm-1 range.

>>11073050
Just use sci-hub mang

We now consider the background difference spectrum in the two window regions on either side of the O3 band. The window difference spectrum could be influenced by changes in surface temperature (assuming constant oceanic emissivity), humidity of the lower troposphere, aerosol content, or cloud amount and type. Consistently, the difference in the 1,100–1,200cm-1 window is close to zero (within ±1K), while the difference in the 800–1,000cm-1 region is positive, and lies between about 1 and 2K. It is important not to over-interpret the observations to an accuracy that is not justified by the errors (see below), nor to lose sight of our principal result, which is the observation of the sharp spectral features discussed in the preceding paragraph. Nevertheless, we believe that this reproducible difference between the windows is consistent with small residual amounts of ice cloud in both averaged spectra, possibly exacerbated by the different fields of view of the two instruments: we discuss this further below.

The simulations shown in Fig. 1b and c were calculated as follows. Profiles of atmospheric temperature and water vapour were extracted covering the same region and three-month time periods from the NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington) reanalysis project19. Stratospheric ozone changes were estimated using measured trends20 extrapolated back to 1970, whereas tropospheric ozone changes were calculated using a three-dimensional chemical transport model, forced by realistic emission scenarios21. Remaining gaseous concentrations were taken from the relevant IPCC values for CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC-11 and CFC-12, in 1970 and 1997. The MODTRAN3 code22 was used to calculate the expected radiance spectra in 1970 and 1997.

All the principal features due to changes in CO2, CH4, O3, temperature and humidity are well modelled, as are the small changes due to the chlorofluorocarbons (for example, at 850 and 920cm-1) and weak CO2 bands (for example, at 795cm-1). We note that the main features of the observed difference spectrum can only be reproduced by including the long-term changes in CH4, CO2, O3 and the chlorofluorocarbons: inter-annual and short-term variability is not sufficient.

We must consider, however, whether any aspect of the observed difference spectra could be caused by instrumental, or other, artefacts. We have considered three: the accuracy and precision of the spectra; possible causes of differential window signals; and inter-annual variability.

First, we have examined the central issue of the accuracy and precision of the two data sets, and whether our analysis is justified on this count. We believe it is, for the following reasons. (1) We have reported above the agreement between the observed difference spectra and simulated spectra, which are calculated quite independently from basic knowledge of the atmospheric state. (2) We have derived difference spectra over a wide variety of regions and times (including the east and west Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans) and see consistency in the principal absorption features.

(3) Random error is reduced by averaging: in the extreme case in which all the error in Table 1 is assumed to be random, we obtain a value of ±0.058K for the central Pacific difference spectra. (4) Absolute accuracy is potentially a more serious issue: if all the error quoted in Table 1 were systematic, this would indicate a maximum absolute peak–peak error for the combined data of about 0.45K at the centre of the IRIS/IMG pass bands, increasing to about 0.75K at the edges. Such errors of absolute calibration vary slowly with wavenumber, and could produce small ‘ghosts’ at the positions of the observed spectral features, though these are very unlikely to be significant. Slowly varying systematic errors23 may also contribute to the differential window signal, but only at this same level of <0.45K. (5) Normalization of each averaged spectrum to the intensity at one selected wavenumber indicates no significant multiplicative error between IMG and IRIS above the 0.5K level. (6) Examination of the data shows that neither spatial nor temporal sampling is seriously biased. We conclude that the main features of the observed spectra cannot be accounted for by instrument errors, but that the absolute calibration of the difference spectra might be in error by up to about 0.5 to 0.75K peak–peak.

Second, we have considered the observed differences in the two window background regions, and the influence of the different fields of view of the two instruments. (We point out that this influences only the background levels: we have averaged differing numbers of IRIS and IMG spectra to show that the main features in the difference spectrum due to greenhouse gases are not dependent on the fields of view of the two instruments). However, broad-band difference signals could occur if aerosol or cloud ‘contamination’ remains in the notionally clear fields of view. Using available aerosol data24, we have shown for typical conditions that aerosol absorption is unlikely to be a significant source of error (<0.1K). However, recent work25 has shown that ice cloud, particularly if composed of small crystals, does exhibit stronger absorption in the 800–1,000cm-1 than the 1,100–1,200cm-1 window. It is quite possible that small residual amounts of ice cloud absorption remain in both sets of data. Owing to the larger field of view, the IRIS spectra have a much higher probability of being contaminated than their IMG counterparts. The observed 1K or so enhancement of the 800–1,000cm-1 difference signal would be consistent with this, and could also arise from a change in the mean cirrus microphysical properties. We cannot separate these two effects, but we do conclude that the observed window difference spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data. R.J.B. has performed further calculations, following on earlier work26,

which confirm that window difference spectra of the magnitude observed can easily arise from small changes in amount, size or shape of small ice crystals: these studies also indicate that the difference spectrum should be larger below about 920cm-1, which is consistent with the observed data, especially the global case (Fig. 1b). Further work on these and other cloud effects in the data will be performed separately: for the present, we believe we have demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the observations to give confidence to the principal findings of this work regarding changes in radiative forcing due to CH4, CO2, O3 and the chlorofluorocarbons.

Third, we must also take into account inter-annual variability as a possible cause of the observed difference spectra. In the window region, the brightness temperature difference is strongly modulated by short-term fluctuations, such as inter-annual variability (specific concern involves the 1997 warm El Niño/Southern Oscillation, ENSO, event). Our studies show that, while this could account for an uncertainty of about 1K in the position of the zero line in the spatially and temporally averaged difference spectra used, it could not account for the sharp spectral features observed, nor the differential window signal just discussed.

The results presented here provide (to our knowledge) the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect: previous studies have been largely limited to theoretical simulations because of the paucity of data. We intend to examine the temporal and spatial variation of the difference spectra, and will include cloudy and all sky data. Future measurements by an IRIS-type instrument that combines high accuracy and a narrow field of view are a priority for climate research.
Methods
Reduction of IMG to IRIS spectral resolution and solid-angle correction

Before any further analysis, the IMG data were smoothed to match the IRIS resolution. In addition, the wavenumber scale in the two instruments is slightly different, owing to differing solid angles within the instruments27. An empirically derived multiplicative factor of 0.9995 was applied to the IRIS wavenumber scale. Our work indicates that this process needs to be performed extremely accurately in order to avoid artefacts appearing in the difference spectrum.

Cloud clearing and spatial resolution

Cloud clearing was achieved in two steps16. First, for each spectrum, the brightness temperature at 1,126.6cm-1 (surface to top of atmosphere transmittance ≈ 0.94) was compared to the underlying sea surface temperature taken from NCEP for the same location and time. If the difference exceeded a set threshold, the spectrum was rejected as being cloud-contaminated. The threshold for both IMG and IRIS was set at 6K. This value was found by testing the variation of the standard deviation of the spectra with the threshold value.

>>11073053
>>11073054
>>11073056
>>11073057
>>11073062
>>11073064
>>11073071
>>11073073
rent free seething

The remaining spectra were subjected to a second filtering, to try to remove any residual spectral effects of cirrus clouds. The brightness temperature difference between two wavenumbers (909.8 and 1,250.4cm-1) was compared with a threshold value16. The threshold value was chosen as before, by noting the temperature difference at which the standard deviation of the set of IRIS, or IMG, spectra fell to a near-constant value. A value of 8K was used for IRIS spectra and 7K for IMG. More severe cloud-clearing thresholds led to either all IRIS spectra being rejected as contaminated, or insufficient numbers of IMG spectra being retained to give the requisite spatial and temporal coverage.
Numbers of retained spectra in Fig. 1

The numbers of spectra retained and used in averaging to produce Fig. 1, after cloud clearance, were as follows. Global: IMG, 4,061; IRIS, 529. Central Pacific: IMG, 213; IRIS, 28.
Random and absolute errors

The total uncertainty of IRIS and IMG are quoted in Table 1. To examine the random and absolute components of this, we have taken the quoted errors to represent either the maximum random error (for example, caused by noise in the detector or electronics system) or the maximum systematic error (for example, multiplicative or additive error, such as absolute errors in the transmission or reflectivity of optical components such as filters and mirrors, or the temperature or emissivity of the blackbody targets used to calibrate the instruments, or an offset due to vignetting in the field of view). Such errors would typically be slowly varying with wavenumber.

We note that multiplicative errors of absolute calibration as described above could produce sharp features in a difference spectrum, but that these would not exceed the quoted peak–peak error. Thus we conclude that the maximum systematic error, slowly varying across the spectrum, is probably ≤0.5K.
Spectral range used in comparison

The upper limit of 1,400cm-1 used in this analysis was based on the useful signal to noise ratio of IRIS; the lower limit of 710cm-1 was based on the recommendations of the IMG Science Working Group.

References

1

Houghton, J., Jenkins, G. & Ephraums, J. (eds) Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).
Google Scholar
2

Houghton, J. et al. (eds) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).
Google Scholar
3

Mitchell, J., Johns, T., Gregory, J. & Tett, S. Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature 376, 501–505 (1995).
ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
4

Tett, S., Stott, P., Allen, M., Ingram, W. & Mitchell, J. Causes of twentieth century temperature change near the Earth's surface. Nature 399, 569–575 (1999).
ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
5

Cess, R. et al. Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback predicted by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. Science 245, 513–516 (1989).
ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
6

Rind, D. et al. Positive water vapour feedback in climate models confirmed by satellite observations. Nature 349, 500–503 (1991).
ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
7

Lindzen, R. Some coolness regarding global warming. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 71, 288–299 (1990).
ADS
Article
Google Scholar
8

Goody, R., Haskins, R., Abdou, W. & Chen, L. Detection of climate forcing using emission spectra. Earth Observ. Remote Sensing 13, 713–722 (1995).
Google Scholar
9

Harries, J., Brindley, H. & Geer, A. Climate variability and trends from operational satellite spectral data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 3975–3978 (1998).
ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
10

Goody, R., Anderson, J. & North, G. Testing climate models: an approach. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 2541–2549 (1998).

11

Slingo, A. & Webb, M. The spectral signature of global warming. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 123, 293–307 (1996).

ADS
Article
Google Scholar

12

Clough, S., Iacono, M. & Moncet, J.-L. Line-by-line calculations of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: Application to water vapor. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 15761–15785 (1992).

ADS
Article
Google Scholar

13

Clough, S. & Iacono, M. Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: 2. Application to carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 16519–16535 (1995).

ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar

14

IMG mission operation and verification committee. Interferometric Monitor for Greenhouse Gases (ed. Kobayashi, H.) (IMG Project Technical Report, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Komae Research Laboratory, Komae-shi, Tokyo, 1999).

Google Scholar

15

Hanel, R., Schlachman, B., Rogers, D. & Vanous, D. Nimbus 4 Michelson interferometer. Appl. Opt. 10, 1376–1382 (1971).

ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar

16

Strabala, K., Ackerman, S. & Menzel, W. Cloud properties inferred from 8-12µm data. J. Appl. Meteorol. 33, 212–229 (1994).

ADS
Article
Google Scholar

17

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998 Ch. 4 (Report No. 44, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 1999).
18

Oort, A. & Liu, H. Upper air temperature trends over the globe. 1958-1989. J. Clim. 6, 292–307 (1993).

ADS
Article
Google Scholar

19

Kalnay, E. et al. The NCEP/NCAR 40-year re-analysis project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 77, 437–471 (1996).

ADS
Article
Google Scholar

20

Randel, W. & Wu, F. A stratospheric ozone trends data set for global modeling studies. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 3089–3092 (1999).

ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar

21

Olivier, J. et al. Description of EDGAR Version 2.0: A Set of Global Emission Inventories of Greenhouse Gases and Ozone-depleting Substances for all Anthropogenic and Most Natural Sources on a Per Country Basis and on a 1 Deg x 1 Deg Grid (RIVM Report No. 771060 002 and TNO-MEP Report No. R96/119, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1996).

Google Scholar

22

Berk, A., Bernstein, L. & Robertson, D. MODTRAN: a Moderate Resolution Model for LOWTRAN 7 (AFGL-TR-88-0177, US Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, 1989).

Google Scholar

23

Hanel, R. et al. The Nimbus 4 infrared spectroscopy experiment 1. Calibrated thermal emission spectra. J. Geophys. Res. 77, 2629–2641 (1972).

ADS
Article
Google Scholar

24

Shettle, E. P. in Atmospheric Propagation in the UV, Visible, IR and MM-wave Region and Related System Aspects 15-1–15-12 (AGARD-CP-454, Air Force Geophysics Lab., Bedford, Massachusetts, 1990).

Google Scholar

25

Ackerman, S., Smith, W., Spinhirne, J. & Revercomb, H. The 27-28 October 1986 FIRE IFO cirrus case study: spectral properties of cirrus cloud in the 8-12 um window. Mon. Weath. Rev. 118, 2377–2388 (1990).

ADS
Article
Google Scholar

26

Bantges, R., Russell, J. & Haigh, J. Cirrus cloud top-of-atmosphere radiance spectra in the thermal infrared. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 63, 487–498 (1999).

ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar

27

Chamberlain, J. The Principles of Interferometric Spectroscopy (Wiley, Chichester, 1979).

>>11072970
What part of the paper does this contradict?

>>11071576
>Ice core measurements are incredibly accurate, and very good representations of atmospheric concentrations.
then why'd they stop using them.
why not keep a baseline and just use one method.