/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11773621
Deniers have greatly exaggerated the inaccuracy of models.

>>11773935
/thread

>>11773621

>>11773621
>so have neos/climate/epidemiology/whatevernext models greatly exaggerated the apocalypsis?

>>11773935
I love how someone made it into a gif

>>11773621
Yes,

>>11773935
>is p exaggerated?
>no, because ¬p is exaggerated
wut

>>11773621
To people actually interested in the AGW debate these two sites are a good read

https://scienceofdoom.com/
https://climateaudit.org/

>>11773935

dOeSNt hAVe ErroR BarS

>>11774348
what observations, from what data set.
Just by hiding the data set source, your pic is good only for TP

Yeah, wasn't New York suppose to be under water by now?

>>11774348
protip: not a coincidence that the "observations" end at 2015
>>11774348 is full of shit

>>11774376

You sound like somebody who poops too much and needs more fiber

>>11773935
It must suck to have a job where you have to constantly justify your existence.

>>11774389

The data ends with 2015 bc that's when the graph was presented. Great observation, anon.

>>11774392
so no data set name...?

>>11774398
>dersperate squirming
so no data set name...?

>>11774311
Data altered to fit a narrative is not a negation of the original data. Are you feeling okay?

>>11774376

Every model he included is listed by name. Did you miss that?

>>11774409
say it then if it's so easy

>>11774418

Lol

>>11774408
>Data altered to fit a narrative is not a negation of the original data.
I can't even tell from this sentence whether you're a denier or an alarmist.

>>11774311
>Is p accurate inaccurate?
>p's inaccuracy is greatly exaggerated

>>11774427
awww it's retarded

not the models you faggot, the observations

>>11774432
Based retard.

>>11774327
>https://climateaudit.org/
>>>/x/

>>11774431
Are you retarded or unfamiliar with logic notation? If you read the post I was replying to it should be immediately obvious and if it's not then you should find another board.

>>11774433

Google the models and look up the data, brainlet.

>>11773935
>I can make my model fit if I make data error estimates large enough!
>I'm not the one doing visualisation tricks, you are!

Even taking up the entire absisca, the model orediction is wrong.

People should just admit that the models are shit. That doesn't make AGW any less real, but this isn't science. They need to stop using outdated continuum mechanics ideas.

>>11774446
>have climate models greatly exaggerated the change in temp per co2
>Deniers have greatly exaggerated the inaccuracy of models
okay chief

>>11774443

>>11773621
Science today...

Nobody:

OP: "I didn't study science, but I love to feel smart. If you don't agree, you're a fag."

>>11774448
>>11774407

>>11774458
What, are you kidding? The data isn't even graphed correctly in the denier graph. You could at least properly place the data, let alone graph all the models instead of averaging them together, or instead of removing +/- 0.5 degree margin of error and pretending it was never there. All of this is pointed out in the picture from the first reply of this thread >>11773935

If you have to alter data to fit your narrative then you are on the wrong side of history.

>>11774449
Exactly this.
"Oh yeah we can model earths climate using 200 cells with no feedback cloud cover, salination effects, and by assuming climate sensitivity is linear"

>>11774448
the data set is RSS and anything from it before 2016 is bullshit, so you can go shove that pic of yours up your little russian ass.

>>11773621
Well in reality it's more like we get atmospheric CO2 per temp change. Atmosphere can take on more CO2 with more temperature rather than the other way around.

>>11774478

Keep scrolling, troll. You'll get there.

>>11774485
the worst part is you probably actually believe this.

>>11774479

...and who needs to include magnetic field fluctuations?

LINEAR ERRYTHANG

>>11774486
I really appreciate this board has deteriorated to the point where posting actual science is considered trolling

>>11774486
What, to the other denier version with improperly aligned data and no margin of error? Sounds like you don't need to make things up or hide from the facts at all.

>>11774479
>>11774488
>list a couple random variables proved to have negligible long term climate effects
>just so they can claim CO2 which has incredibly easily observed effects doesn't do anything
Whoa is this the power of shills?

>>11774493

Dumb bitch, the graph was made by including dozens of models with their own data sets. You should keep up with the actual model publications if you're going to larp a scientist around real scientists.

>>11774491

Pls include your bona fides next time

>>11774485
>PV=nRT
>Except for CO2
Was your education sponsored by Halliburton?

If climate change is real why is it leftists who believe in it?

>>11774496

It's the power of having studied graduate physics.

Punch line, physics is hard. Stick to sociology.

>>11774506

Lol ideal gas law

Bro, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>11774501
The data is offset on the x-axis from the observations, and do you even know what a margin of error is?

>>11774510
>studied graduate physics.
I notice you didn't claim to study anything even remotely relating to climate. Curious.

>>11774515
Alright, explain to me how the atmosphere doesn't follow the ideal gas law.

>>11774348
Still doesn't have error bars and fails to fix any of the other flaws. Meanwhile >>11773944 stands unrefuted.

>>11774380
Says who?

>>11774523

Well co2 isn't an ideal gas, moron.

>>11774516

We all know your margin of error is unacceptable for science or engineering.

Probably good enough for sociology, though. Admit it, you study liberal arts.

>>11774478
Your argument seems to be that an exaggerated denier model proves that alarmist models aren't exaggerated. If you don't see how that doesn't follow logically, then perhaps you're the one who find another board.
>If you have to alter data to fit your narrative then you are on the wrong side of history.
Again, I can't even tell from this sentence whether you're a denier or an alarmist.

>>11774530
Congratulations on outing yourself as having no idea what you're talking about. At least read the entire Wikipedia page next time.

>>11774521

Physics doesn't relate to climate science? What should someone study to understand climate systems?

>>11774532
Is this sarcasm or ignorance?

>>11774535

To be clear, you're suggesting that co2 is an ideal gas?

>>11774538
would you expect a math major to know everything about physics despite having never studied any?

>>11774533
>Exaggerated
Falsified. The actual models and their margins of error line up well with the observations. Again, if you have to lie about the data then you are wrong.

>>11774539

It's literal. You don't study science. Best case you're a premed liberal arts student that needs help in physics.

>>11774540
No gas is an ideal gas, you moron. That doesn't mean that the ideal gas law doesn't apply to them. It simply means there will be some small deviation between the calculation and the real observation.

>>11774543

If the math major focused on applied math for physical systems, sure.

Either way, it seems likely you're still in school and forming your opinions.

>>11774548
You have no idea what you're talking about. Margins of error are used in every branch of science.

>>11774553
>If the math major focused on applied math for physical systems, sure.
pretty huge if
which you clearly didn't do the equivalent judging by how obviously ignorant you are.

>>11774449
>>I can make my model fit if I make data error estimates large enough!
Error estimates are based on the range of model results. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them arbitrary.

>>I'm not the one doing visualisation tricks, you are!
The "tricks" or errors are right there for you to either defend or admit to. Ignoring them is not an argument.

>Even taking up the entire absisca, the model orediction is wrong.
How so?

>>11774471
>>>/x/

>>11774487
>>11774506
Read it for yourself and decide. Always be skeptical of a conclusion someone else draws for you. Now, I'm well aware that industrial era we are pumping way more CO2 into the atmosphere than the natural cycle. But, the natural cycle still plays a big role. We don't have to pretend like it doesn't.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

>>11774557

Lol wut?

>>11774555

You're a margin of error

>>11774565
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought because sinks for CO2 exist that means the atmosphere is "taking on more CO2"

>>11774565
>https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
Boomer meme aside, i have absolutely nothing against the link you posted i'm not sure what conclusions you're trying to draw from it.

>>11774552

Small deviation lol I'm glad you don't build rockets.>>11774535

>>11774570
That's why I'm always correct

>>11774479
>Oh yeah we can model earths climate using 200 cells
Ever heard of Kriging?

>with no feedback cloud cover, salination effects, and by assuming climate sensitivity is linear"
Source?

>>11774577

Please tell us what you studied and when you graduated.

>>11774576
Alright, now explain to me exactly how the ideal gas law doesn't apply to our atmosphere, you psued.

>>11774581
Where did you study? The University of YouTube? I'm assuming you're the anon I was talking (that's called a margin of error) then you weren't even aware that margins of error exist! That shit blows my mind. I legitimately never thought I would see such a stupid claim on a science board.

>>11774538
>I studied "science" therefore I am qualified to critique climatology.
Nice LARP, retard.

>>11774593

I have a grad degree in physics and undergrad in chemistry. I prefer using YouTube for kitten videos.

Your turn.

>>11774594
Pic related never ceases to be accurate.

>>11774585

Two easy answers; the atmosphere isn't a closed system and atmospheric chemistry lol Bon appetit.

>>11774544
I'm fascinated by how you're mentally incapable of taking responsibility for the logical abortion in your first post. Just own up and move on to a different argument that maybe makes sense. Dancing around and denying logic only makes whatever else you might have to say less credible.

>>11774597
Nice LARP. You can barely claim a highschool degree without knowing about margins or error given that science classes are required and all of them except maybe into to biology cover margins of error.

Even if you do have a degree, it's clearly not worth the paper it was printed on since college physics and chemistry both use margins of error. Try not to make yourself look like an idiot next time.

>>11774609

You're confusing me with another, anon. I'm literally being paid right now to analyze time series data and troll you back into your sociology book.

>>11774609

Homeboy shared his degrees. What about you, what did you study and did you graduate yet?

>>11774604
>The atmosphere isn't a closed system
Your claim was that the atmosphere "can take on more CO2 with higher temperatures". If you want to make this about carbon sinks then you need to abandon your original argument. The atmosphere considered at any one point in time can be considered a closed system. Now tell me, if you take this snapshot of the atmosphere and vary the temperature does it follow the ideal gas law? Why or why not?

>atmospheric chemistry lol
Which atmospheric reactions are you referring to? None of the atmospheric gasses that react with CO2 do so in large enough quantities to be meaningful and a slight increase in temperature will do nothing to change that.

>>11774608
>logical abortion
Lol, do you mean when I pointed out that an alteration is not a logical negation?

lol, love it how deniers start the same thread with same "facts" and fail the same ways

i love /sci/ climate threads, because they always deteriorate instantly into namecalling as soon as one party realizes they don't actually know anything.

>>11774616
>You're confusing me with another, anon
Oh sure, I'm sure you just hoped in here to defend anon for the nonsensical claim that only sociology uses margins of error.

However I do believe you when you say you're getting paid to troll me

>>11774618
If we're making grandiose and unsupported claims then I hold three PhDs from MIT in Physics of Geological Processes, Organic Chemistry, and Climate Science.

>>11774628

Nope, that wasn't me. I only told you the ideal gas law is not useful for your explanation and that you haven't graduated yet.

Lol it's ionizing radiation that causes atmospheric reactions, not temperature. Co2 is formed in the atmosphere by co and ozone lol also ask yourself, what is exposed to the atmosphere that reacts with co2?

>>11774634
>so have climate models greatly exaggerated the change in temp per co2
>Deniers have greatly exaggerated the inaccuracy of models
Dance all you want, it won't change reality.

>>11774654

That's cool, except I actually earned my degrees and they exist.

*The margin of error in your degrees is 3phds.

>>11774657
>Nope, that wasn't me
Uh huh, sure is a lot of that going around. If you want to make your argument about carbon sources and sinks then we can talk about that, but don't try to pretend that you made it at least defended the argument that in this post >>11774485

It's intellectually dishonest.

Well then... how about... THIS

>>11774673

Ok, schizo.

Let us know when you get that gender studies degree.

>>11774679
And... THIS

>>11774660
You're really reaching there. When you take a dataset and add a constant value to all of the x components of that dataset and then claiming it's the same data you are lying about that data. Which bit of that is going over your head?

>>11774664
>My degrees exist
>That's why I had to learn about margins of error from a thread on /sci/
You sure showed me

>>11774598
RIP Freeman Dyson

>>11774680
Let me know when you have a valid argument

>>11774690

Nobody:
Schizo: yOu caN't evEn CAlcuLate a maRgin oF eRRor

Lol

>>11774699
Try

Deniers: MaRginS oF ERroR aRe oNLy fOR SocIolOGy
Rational people: except that every branch of science uses them

>>11773621
>models
seriously fuck all models. coronavirus is the best proof. now that the fear mongering hasstopped suddenly there is no danger. it is all about politics. no such thing as science apparently.

>>11774679
>>11774684
What about it?

>>11774712

We get it. Having just finished your first statics for social science course (prereq algebra), you're feeling saucy and want to peacock a bit.

Want to pick a problem from data camp and find out who's better at statistics?

>>11774723
We don't even need to, the evidence is in this thread. You are defending a graph made by stripping the margins of error and falsifying the data. That's bad statistics.

You lose by default.

>>11774712

Lol child thinks I'm a climate change denier bc I called him a sociology student with poor statistics skills.

>>11774727
>Defends falsified data
>I'm the child
Are you feeling okay?

>>11774686
This is exactly what people mean by "cognitive dissonance." For some reason, you're unable to look at the actual words you and OP wrote, and admit it's a complete failure of logic. Something in your brain (vanity perhaps?) keeps trying to substitute a new logic in place of the original logic.

>>11774725

You are sincerely delusional, but good luck on your sophomore sociology finals!

>>11774721
Has not CH4 a better correlation with temperature fluctuation than CO2?

>>11774733

Vanity or false bravado.

>>11774733
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought the text of the OP was disconnected from the graph in the OP

>>11774732

What falsified data? Your degrees?

>>11774734
Thanks, I hope you have better luck in the next climate change denial thread. Maybe you won't get BTFO next time.

>>11774735
I thought you said you studied this stuff?
Yes methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, yes it's also involved in glacial cycles. Yes it has a very short atmospheric residency after which it degrades into CO2. Yes we're also emitting way too much methane. I'm really not even sure what you're trying to argue.

>>11774712

Blogsters: stop posting
Non blogsters: stop replying

>>11774743

Lol confusing the us again. By my count, there are at least 5ppl here calling you dumb as rock.

Margin of error, 2.

>>11774739
The graph you've been defending this entire thread. The one presented in the OP. The one that was made by stripping the margins of error from a bunch of climate models, averaging them, and then adding a constant x value to the new dataset in order to make it appear to conflict with observations while claiming it's the same data.

>>11774743
I'm another Anon who wanted an answer on why the current models, at least those who have more press, are based on CO2 instead of CH4 when it's the latest which has both higher greenhouse effect and correlation.

>>11774747

My script is running for another few minutes, just a couple more sociology jokes and I'll bounce

>>11774748
>Lol confusing the us again
the irony

>>11774738
>No! I didn't really write what I wrote, I wrote something else!

>>11774751
Methane is short lived and breaks down into CO2 (for the most part), so CO2 is considered more important

>>11774750

The actual individual models from his testimony are also posted, with the full text publicly available.

You're complaining about the ops choice of sharing a graph with only the average, which is totally acceptable as the margin of error isn't eliminated or suggested to be zero.

More importantly, the cmip is an average of said models lol you're bad at science.

>>11774755
You haven't quoted anything I've said, and you don't seem to have any real argument. I hope you're at least shitposting in multiple threads.

>>11774758

Lol atmospheric chemistry and the ideal gas law

>>11774713
>there is no danger
bs
100k dead out of 1.8M
that is 6%

>>11774761
>so have climate models greatly exaggerated the change in temp per co2?
>Deniers have greatly exaggerated the inaccuracy of models.
Literally OP and you. The first two posts. I've quoted this again and again, but your cognitive dissonance seems to prevent you from even seeing it.

>>11774758
Understood, thank you.

>>11774760
>Imagine being so intellectually dishonest that you completely ignore the fact that the data has been shifted
>Imagine being so desperate to defend your lie that you claim that all you did was remove the margin of error from the graph
Yep, I sure am bad at science. Clearly, this graph that was made by a science denier to misrepresent data and trick other people into denying science is perfectly valid. It must have been my sociology degree confusing me again...

>>11774762
Atmospheric chemistry follows the ideal gas law. Are you trying to make some kind of point?

>>11774765
Neither of those are my posts, bruh. If that's what you've been tripping out about this whole time then you really need a life.

>>11774778

Hahahahahahaha no it doesn't. I'd ask for a source, but it doesn't exist.

>>11774772
No problem. It's worth mentioning that methane is underrepresented as a greenhouse gas in the IPCC data. Some anthropogenic methane is not counted in the inventory with the justification being that it's counted in certain CO2 inventories and so counting it again would double count it, but that's dubious which is why I say methane is underrepresented.

>>11774789
Every gas follows the ideal gas law. What would make the atmosphere any different?

>>11774779
Wow, so you're even dumber than I thought. At least vanity's a normal excuse for cognitive dissonance. If you're not even the guy who wrote it, what's your excuse? Illiteracy?

>>11774795
>You being wrong makes me dumb
How's that for a logical abortion?

>>11774778
I'm honestly not entirely sure what your point is, but I do have a question. If someone tells you the quantity of a gas in the atmosphere say for example neon or helium has doubled. Does that tell you anything about the pressure, temperature or volume of the atmosphere?

>>11774794

Hahahahahah literally zero gases follow the igl, with noble gases being the closest. The igl completely fails when calculating reactions. You haven't taken enough chemistry.

>>11774802
Of course, it tells me that the volume of neon (or helium) has doubled for a given temperature and pressure.

>>11774801
Illiteracy it is.

>>11774808
The ideal gas law isn't used for "calculating reactions" it's a relationship defined for an ideal gas. Slight deviations in the real values don't mean that gasses don't follow the ideal gas law

>>11774802

I'm not the schizo sociology student, but that's a good q.

If you assumed the boundaries were static, that energy wasn't being exchanged at the boundaries AND eliminate all chemical reactions or intermolecular forces... Yes.

>>11774814
>>11774822
my point exactly, it tells you absolutely nothing. Which is why bringing up the ideal gas law in this thread is utterly pointless and you retards can stop arguing about it.

>>11774824

Lol I'm the one telling this schizo igl doesn't work for the system.

Context, bb.

>>11774824
>He doesn't know multivariate calculus
Besides what it does tell you, the ideal gas law was brought up because some moron claimed that the atmosphere "takes on more CO2" as the temperature rises. The relationship defined in the ideal gas law shows that this is nonsense.

If you don't want to talk about it anymore then stop bringing it up.

>>11774751
>I'm another Anon who wanted an answer on why the current models, at least those who have more press, are based on CO2 instead of CH4
Huh? As far as I'm aware models take into account all greenhouse gas forcings. CO2 just happens to be the most significant at this time. This is not based on historical correlations but on actual causative mechanisms.

>>11774838

Embarrassing. You see where it says co2 next to ch4? Hmm? Resulting drivers? Atmospheric reactions? IgL? Sociology lol

>>11774873
>You see where it says co2 next to ch4?
Yes, CO2 is a resulting driver of methane. What is your point?

>>11774873
>He can't read a graph
It says that CH4 emissions result in an increase in CH4, O3, H2O, and CO2 all of which provide a forcing

>>11774873
>I STUDIED GRADUATE PHYSICS
Nice LARP, retard.

>>11774995

Yep... Basically we have co2 being produced and consumed in unknown quantities.

>>11775002
You have no idea what you're talking about. What possessed you to come to a science board?

>>11775000

Bless your heart! I studied and graduated, child.

>>11775006

You know, being an actual scientist. Nbd.

Maybe try /pol/

>>11775011
more like actual retard amarite haha gotim

>>11775020

Sick burn, sociology.

>>11775011
>>11775020
We have fairly reliable estimates for the greenhouse gasses we produce and that are produced naturally. Saying we're producing unknown quantities of CO2 is ignorant.

>>11775028
You have no place here either, science denier.

>>11774496
I didn't say co2 didnt do anything. I said the models we use are hopelessly inadequate to predict future global climate outcome. Let alone local climate effects.

Cloud cover has a large effect. Clouds literally reflect on average 30-40% of sunlight.

Salination has an effect. It is responsible for temperature differences in when water will freeze - of the magnitude of several degrees. Which is important when modelling the reflection of icecaps. Furthermore the concentration gradients caused by such effects alter the velocity of ocean currents.

I know co2 is a green house gas
I know humans will be responsible for effects of raising global temperature of probably about 1.8 degrees

The question is how sever will this be? We do not know. because, at the moment, climate is too complex to model - we do not have appropriate amounts of data. Even if we did we do not have appropriate simulations that would allow us to execute an effective, local, response.

Please tell me how we a going to measure the effectiveness of climate policies if we do not know what potential scenario we are comparing it to?

>>11775007
Sure you did, sweaty.

>>11775032

Adorable. Full circle to the sources of uncertainty.

>>11775038

My place is to prevent impressionable individuals taking your climate boi catastrophe drama at face value, while simultaneously advancing science as a professional.

Go study. You're young and can be anything you want! Except a scientist lol

>>11775032
That is not what the argument is about. Will a 1.8 degree increase in temperature be disastrous for the planet. Will it lead to run away warming? What potential damage would illicit what response?

Everyone knows humans are poducing CO2 and that is causing a warming effect.

>>11775051
i guess I shouldn't be surprised the dude LARPing as a """""scientist""""" is easily the most ignorant person on the thread. Seriously I have yet to see a single actual argument or citation.

>>11775064
if you actually care and aren't just a contrarian shill why don't you go read the IPCC reports? all these questions and more are answered.

>>11774560
>Error estimates are based on the range of model results. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them arbitrary.
This
If you have a problem with the size of error bars, make an argument for why their size is too big to be reasonable. Don't just throw shade at some dishonest scientist you've invented

>>11775065
not him but this website is full of citations
https://scienceofdoom.com/

Its not attempting to discredit climate science. But seeing as you appear to know very little about the subject it would be a good start.

>>11775065

Scientists: basic chemistry, thermodynamics

Sociology students: cITaTiOn pLEasE

>>11775044
Fun little semantics game, but climate models aren't as simple as starting with accurate figures.

>>11775064
Right, so why did you call me retarded for pointing out that we have accurate figures? Was it a knee jerk reaction to being corrected?

>>11775076

Hahahahahahahahah who needs accurate data?!

>>11775066
Because i believe, after the climate gate controversy, the IPCC reports will likely pander to a political narrative rather than just give me the data to fiddle around with.

Sites like climateaudit do give data, explain methodology, and actually look like science websites.

bear in mind most climate scientist are just failed physicists that aren't very good at statistics either.

Im not shitting on the IPCC, but they are not a neutral party in this. Which is why i read textbooks instead.

>>11775070
>Its not attempting to discredit climate science
That's exactly what it's doing. That's why they picked that URL

>>11775074
You have proven in this thread that you don't know either chemistry or physics. Calling everyone sociologists won't make you right.

>>11775082
I didnt call you retarded im a different person. I come in peace

>>11775086
Certainly not the denialists. That's why they shill falsified data as being legitimate.

>>11775092
No it really isn't. It has very good sections on different models, thermodynamics, climate sensitivity.

"Science of doom" is just a reference to the political resolution of the debate - its ironic - which you would understand if you even read the about page

>>11775094
Fair enough. Sometimes subtext is hard to divine.

>>11775000

Sociology sophomore after statistics for social sciences

>>11775087
>climate gate
literal nothingburger if anything it should make you skeptical of those who deny AGW considering how shady the hacking was in the first place. Not to mention how bady anything in it was taken out of context.

>>11775101
It's literally a blog

>>11775101
>>11775112
a blog by a literal who, which is clearly nothing more than a denier circlejerk going by how many times he uses the word religion not to mention his comment section.

>>11775074
pretty odd how it's impossible to know anything about those two and deny the reality of AGW
I'll give you a chance to make what you consider to be the best argument against AGW. and we can talk. Or you can keep larping like a retard your call. I think we both know what you'll choose.

>>11774479
>with no feedback cloud cover, salination effects, and by assuming climate sensitivity is linear
>>11774578
>>11775039
I've seen it multiple times that deniers will pretend that models don't account for something they push as being critical to discredit the science, but it simply isn't true that these things aren't considered
From the IPCC in 2013 :
"There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback."
and on salinity:
"Potential temperature and salinity are the main ocean state variables and their zonal distribution offers an evaluation of climate models in different parts of the ocean (upper ocean, thermocline, deep ocean)."

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

>>11775066
>IPCC reports
Lol where the worst case scenario is that world GDP might be 10% less in 80 years than it might have been otherwise? Oof.

>>11775107
You're statement about CO2 was completely correct, we do have good data on it - anyone claiming otherwise misunderstands the actual potential problem/ debate

1) News papers have for years been printing "climate will [instert horrifying scenario] in [insert relatively short timescale] for about 30 years now. This does not necessarily reflect the view of scientists. On the other hand scientist have not rallied behind a response to this media campaign because...

2) Climategate proved the institution of news media was more powerful and could overwrite the statement of science institutions. Hence the IOP withdrew its statement on the climategate affair and published a new, nicer one, due to media pressure. Easily politicized institutions are therefore not always reliable sources of information (climate science, psychology, sociology...).

3) Climate science requires a very sophisticated use of statistics, that even most science graduates will not have had any contact with - and as most climate scientists are failed physicists- can easily be done very badly.

4) what i said in the above post. How can we actually record our effect (positive or negative) on the climate if we do not have a reliable standard to compare it to. The misleading regurgitation of this argument is "what would the climate be like if humans never existed" which is crude, but you see the point.

>>11775136
>Easily politicized institutions are therefore not always reliable sources of information
>Cue list of things you don't like
top kek

>>11775136
I wouldn't have said "fair enough" if I knew you were shit-house crazy. "Climategate" isn't a real thing.

>>11775130
I never said these things were not considered. I meant they were not modelled in conjunction as the potential feed back effects/ interations between these multiple variables, are not computationally feasible at this point.

If you can show be a model that takes into accound cloud cover, ocean depth, atmospheric and ocean currents, salination, ice cap coverage... please do.

These things have all been measured independently which is why I stand by my statement
We have not produced a model that includes all potential +/- feedback loops - it is not compuationally feasible to do so, and most climate models rely on about 200 cells at the moment.

>>11775142
I do not dislike these things. I know some differential psychology, i know some atmospheric chemistry/ physics. I am just saying broad statements presented by the media are likely to miss or misinterpret the point. Like the meme of "multiple intelligences" or the various claims [x] will be doomed in 20 years.

>>11775151
It is a real thing. Just because some website tells a different story does not make it true.

>>11775152
To add to this the average simulated ocean depth in most models is ~20m, for the best it is ~50m

>>11775170
tell me in your own words what you think climategate was and why it's a big deal.

>>11775152
and this >>11773944 does not satisfy you?

>>11775182

Data was manipulated to achieve desired outcomes. Pretty simple stuff.

>>11775188
completely false try again

>>11775170
No, it's not. "Climategate" was a desperate attempt by denialists to misrepresent emails concerning how to deal a well known descrepancy in tree ring data as a temperature proxy and whether or not to include it in there graph.

>>11775182
Steven Mcintyre requested data from the university of east anglia. Completely within his rights - the access to this data was denied multiple times.

At the time of hacking, the leaked emails revealed a covert attempt to never release the full dataset to Mcintyre.

The institute of physics original note on the matter (after the emails were released) was a full inquiry into climate science and their methods were required. After media pressure the IOPs new statement was effectively "Their methods are bad but that doesn't mean their results are wrong"
Think about that. A hard science institution was bought to heel to defend a lesser institution because of media pressure. That is what happened at climategate

The funniest part is of all this is that even if the climate science is perfectly legit, and I can't see why it wouldn't be, the only political solutions anyone ever comes up are the most ass backward own-goal nonsense you could imagine. "Solutions" that literally just exacerbate climate change instead of mitigating it.

>Paris Accord
Great idea! Instead of repatriating industry into countries with better environmental laws, let's do the opposite and cause even more CO2 emissions by subsidizing it in countries with worse environmental laws.

>Carbon trading
Even better! Let's create an exchange to funnel more risk-free transaction fees from local economies into international banks, while allowing international corporations to buy exemptions more even more massive pollution by reusing that same captive money flow.

>>11775151

Right, bc the mob doesn't have a history of persecuting scientists.

At this point, if you can even manage to publish research that isn't in support of ipcc concussions, the mob steps in, ready to tar and feather the apostates.

If you don't have serious experience applying for grants, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>11775231
Oh but if we are nice to china they'll adopt more expensive green energy too they wouldn't just keep using coal to save money while the west incurs enormous energy bills would they. No China and India will follow suit we promise.

>>11775242
The IPCC cannot be questioned, therefore it must be correct.

>>11775242
Climategate was an attempt to get the mob (the people outside of academia) to persecute climate scientists using a false narrative. Congratulations, it worked on you because you're a useful idiot.

>>11775253
Says the person who gets his opinions from factcheck.org

>>11775222
On 12 August 2009, Olive Heffernan wrote in naturenews that "Since 2002, Steve McIntyre, the editor of Climate Audit, a blog that investigates the statistical methods used in climate science, has repeatedly asked Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, for access to monthly global surface temperature data held by the institute. But in recent weeks, Jones has been swamped by a sudden surge in demands for data". She described how CRU had received 58 FOIA requests between 24 and 29 July 2009 from McIntyre or others associated with the blog. The raw data was restricted to academics, and the unit's director Phil Jones said that the data was subject to confidentiality agreements with various governments, but he was seeking agreement to get the raw data available online. He said that “Data release needs to be done in a systematic way.

Literally just a troll trying to waste actual professional's time.

>>11775269
cont
>the iop said
>On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.[85] The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February. They included submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.[86] An oral evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.[87]

>The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[88]

> Historian Spencer R. Weart of the American Institute of Physics said the incident was unprecedented in the history of science, having "never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance".[36] The United States National Academy of Sciences expressed concern and condemned what they called "political assaults on scientists and climate scientists in particular".[37]

>>11775243
Are you aware that China has the most renewable capacity of any country in the world and they're adding to that capacity faster than any other country? The per capita numbers aren't great, but per capita the US pollutes three times as much as China so claiming that other countries shouldn't have to clean up their energy because China has a larger energy budget to replace is not a valid argument.

>>11775260
I have never been to that website and you're the one using buzzwords that were manufactured to control the opinions of idiots. Guess what that makes you?

>>11775269
This is a fabricated account. The emails reveal this is not what happened. I cannot make you read them, enjoy your ignorance i guess.

>>11775281
I havent used a single buzzword. You are repeating the general consensus was my point. Which makes me think you are commenting on something you know nothing about.

>>11775243

Lol ccp will stop using cement, concrete and steel, too!

>>11775285
Post them then. Brohammy didn't just lead you to water, he got a funnel and poured it into your mouth, but you're still the only one that can choose whether you drink it.

>>11775291
>dude the earth is round
>You are repeating the general consensus was my point. Which makes me think you are commenting on something you know nothing about.

>>11775285
>the entire academic community, investigative committees from multiple countries are all conspiring to sell solar panels
You're literally at fake moonlanding conspiracy levels right now

>>11775291
"Climategate" is a buzzword, you useful idiot.

>You are repeating the general consensus was my point
You are repeating the lie that required a consensus to be formed was my point.

>>11775253

The most concerned parties are scientists. We shouldn't care what a layman like yourself believes. Unfortunately the grant process is heavily politicized.

>>11775300
"Climategate" is not a buzzword, just because it makes you feel uncomfortable

>>11775314
We already established the scientists in question were involved in absolutely no wrongdoing. So comparing it to Watergate is absolutely a buzzword.

>>11775243
>No China and India will follow suit we promise.
That's literally the point of accords, of which the US was has been the only one working to pull out, so only by not helping out would China/India be following suit

>>11775314
buzz·word
/ˈbəzˌwərd/
Learn to pronounce
nounINFORMAL
a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context.
"the latest buzzword in international travel is “ecotourism”"

Climategate is literally a buzzword. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>11775313
>It's all a conspiracy!!1
Where do you buy your tinfoil hats?

>>11775293
https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

>>11775323
Ok i conceed it is a buzzword. What is the problem with this?>>11775300

>>11775318
Are you retarded? Paris Accord is literally a nonbinding resolution that, if followed by all parties, would SUBSIDIZE MORE CO2 EMISSIONS in China and other countries with sewer-tier environmental laws.

>>11775330
Those aren't the emails, that's a narrative supported by excerpts from some emails and written by some rando with no relevant expertise. If the emails were so damning, then you wouldn't need 180 pages of sparse excerpts to make your point. Even the excerpts he presents are incomplete or modified.

2/10 because you made me respond

>>11775336
>What is the problem with repeating a known lie
Gee, I wonder...

>>11775108
Are you ever going to defend the graph in the OP and counter >>11773944 or are you just going to throw a tantrum for this entire thread?

>>11775346
They link all the full emails

>>11775356
yes and? you clearly didn't bother reading them

>>11775356
My favourite email is not in this exchange.
its this
"Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about < 100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the > 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e., we know with certainty that we know fuck-all)."

>>11775346
You asked for proof of my claim. This document it that. You never asked for all emails.

This document portrays very well, without the bureaucratic waffle, the exchange between Mann Jones and Mcintyre

>>11775356
Oh, well in that case, let me just go through all 180 pages of this narrative and open all of the emails so I can read them. Should only take a few hours.

For fucks sake. When I told you to post the emails here I didn't mean post a link so people can download a PDF and then scour it and follow every link to find the emails, I meant post the goddamn emails. You should have no problem doing this and instead you link me to an opinion piece and tell me to do my research? Fuck off if that's all you have to offer.

>>11775345
>would SUBSIDIZE MORE CO2 EMISSIONS in China and other countries with sewer-tier environmental laws.
Simply false

>>11775376
see>>11775371

>>11775371
>You asked for proof of my claim.
>This document it that.
Imagine being this retarded. I guess the communist manifesto is proof that capitalism should be replaced, right?

>>11775380
See
>>11775381

>>11775381
I mean you could actually point out specifically what is wrong with this document. I can point out what is wrong with marx, just as i can point out what is wrong with Mises.

>>11775377
>Simply false
Okay retard.

>>11775391
Or maybe you cant because you never read the short 180 page document

>>11773935
>deniers are so lazy and outmatched that all their arguments can be refuted by ready-made gifs
>they’re so pigshit retarded that they don’t even notice and just keep talking as if they weren’t btfo
>/sci/ is so autistic that it keeps responding and bumping the thread
poor showing all around guys

>>11775391
>I mean you could actually point out specifically what is wrong with this document
It misrepresents the emails. For proof, see the misrepresentations in the document.

>>11775391
I have and you choose to attempt to sidestep it. You want to shift the burden of proof to me, but you haven't fulfilled it yet and I'm not going to do a bunch of make work because some troll on 4chan wants to deny science and present me with something to read.

If you can't lrn2presentdata, lrn2debate instead

>>11775401
>180 pages
>short
I've had textbooks that were shorter and contained more facts. Why would I waste my time crawling through some dudes opinions on a conversation he was not party to concerning a topic on which he has no expertise?

>>11775406
You just slandered the document. You said nothing specific. The whole document involves Macintyre. It is my "post the emails".

>>11775413
It reads like a novel. SHouldn't take longer than 4 hours. Do what you want buddy.

>>11775402
The tragedy here isn't the NPC deniers, it's the fact that the actual climate scientists have their brand owned so hard by idiot politicians that the NPC pro-science fanboys can't tell the difference between a political solution that might help and a political "solution" that is literally iatrogenic.

>>11775416
>The whole document involves Macintyre
Uh huh and it was written by John Costella who was not party to the conversation and has no relevant expertise. These are his opinions about the emails. It says as much in the dedication, the forward, and the introduction.

>>11775420
>Do this makework because I said so
>Should only take 4 hours
Try speaking for yourself

>>11775427
I know all this.

>>11775431
I never told you to do anything. If you want to read the thing it shouldn't take longer than 4 hours.

>>11774348
god I hate faggots who do this.

>>11775432
You do not need expertise in climate science to read emails. None of my comments retain to the climate science methodology so your point it mute.

>>11774474
go back to youtube

>>11775447

Post a cute kitten video link for us

>>11774699
you just combined the two cringiest memes on the internet.

>>11775437
It would be a waste of my time given the issues I found in the first couple pages. Would you like to form your own arguments?

>>11773621
To anyone with any understanding of engineering, the proposition that Earth’s climate can be modeled with any real predictive power, using the computing technology of 2009, is preposterous. Nor is it that computers need to get ten times as fast. They need to get
10^10 times as fast—at least. Possibly
10^20 or 10^30. With actual, real Earth computers, chemists still have great difficulty in constructing predictive models of individual molecules.

As a friend who teaches statistics and works at a bioinformatics company described it, prescribing any public policy based on the results of GCMs is like prescribing a drug on the basis of the chemical’s behavior in a computational model of a cell. We have models of cells, just as we have models of Earth’s atmosphere. Again, it would be going too far to describe these models as worthless. But no one but a damn fool could regard them as accurate.

>>11774764
guys, stay inside! its too dangerous to go to your parents funeral right now....
whats that, wanna loot a Walmart? well, systematic racism...

>>11775458
I have formed them. You asked for evidence. I provided it. You didn't want to read it and thats ok.

>>11775396

Noooo the CCP is very clean, regulated just like Europe and North America.

>>11775432
Then you should also know that uneducated opinions are not valuable

>>11775474
Hes hardly uneducated

>>11775422

Dude just btfo of the entire discussion. Thank you and goodnight.

>>11775460
>To anyone with any understanding of engineering, the proposition that Earth’s climate can be modeled with any real predictive power, using the computing technology of 2009, is preposterous. Nor is it that computers need to get ten times as fast. They need to get
>10^10 times as fast—at least
I have no real understanding of engineering. Can you give me the quick run down as to why that is? My layman understanding is that if you know that an X amount of change in Y variable will result in Z changing by a certain amount, then isn't that enough to get an idea of how things will go? There might be some uncertainty as to how it'll shift, but isn't that dealt with by having a range of values to reflect the uncertainty?

>>11775464
Presenting someone elses opinions does not qualify as forming an argument

>>11775476
He's entirely uneducated on the topics he's choosing to speak on. Do I need to explain to you what an "educated opinion" is?

>>11775484
See>>11775464

>>11775486
Are you educated enough to speak on the matter by your own definition of an "educated opinion"

>>11775479
He's speaking out of his ass. Climatologists do a more complicated version of what you're suggesting rather than try to simulate every particle and their interactions with the environment like he's implying.

>>11775490
That's still not an argument, bruh

>>11775498
Yes. I've been studying the topic of climate science for years both in an academic setting and independently. And by "studying" I don't mean reading blog posts and watching YouTube videos.

>>11775479
The problem is the interconnectivity of the system. Sure X amount of change in Y may change Z. But X also changes A, B, C, D by G, H, I...
The problem with climate simulation is the exact relationships between these variables are not understood. There may well be some we do not know about.

How much computational power does it take to resolve a simple quantum 2 electron problem in computational chemistry (The answer is it scales N^4, where N is the number of atoms). Now with earth we have a system of... well you can appreciate it is many interacting variables.

So these hypothetical "accurate" computations are going to scale... what N^10...N^12? Now to give you a feel. The simple chemistry calculation i mentioned earlier has an upper limmit of N=150 (150 atoms) before MODERN computers just take too long/ require too much computational power to be viable.

Its nice to have models of climate. Should we invest trillions based on the results of these simulations...no.

>>11775515
So have I

>>11775517
>Climatologists need to simulate every particle
Called it

REMEMBER WHEN JUST LAST YEAR THE AMAZON WAS BURNING AND IT TURNED OUT THE FIRES WERE THE LEAST INTENSE FOR 20 YEARS?
REMEMBER WHEN THE OZONE HOLE WAS GOING TO KILL EVERYONE AND IT JUST STOPPED EXISTING?
REMEMBER WHEN CLIMATE CHANGE WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE WORLD COLDER AND THEY JUST CHANGED THEIR MINDS TO WARMING?
REMEMBER WHEN ACID RAIN WAS GOING TO MELT OUR FACES AND IT DIDNT HAPPEN?
REMEMBER WHEN VOLCANOES PRODUCED A FUCKTON MORE CO2 THAN ALL HUMAN CIVILIZATION?
REMEMBER WHEN THERE WAS ACTUALLY RECORD AMOUNTS OF ICE IN THE ANTARCTIC JUST A COUPLE YEARS BACK?

>>11775520
And that's why your best argument is some random dudes opinions on some emails? GTFO with your LARPing ass.

>>11775522
I didn't say that

>>11775524
>Remember when I misunderstood what I read in the news and didn't follow up on it ever again?

>>11775524
damn literally everything posted is a a lie impressive.

>>11775526
"My best argument" regarding McIntyres excanges with Jones and Mann, yes this is a good resource.

Im not arguing all of climate science is wrong or evil or unscientific.

You've invented an argument in your head. You sir are the one larping

>>11775528
You sure implied it. Do you have something real to base your argument on or is it pretty much just "complex systems are complex and I don't understand this one"?

>>11775534
>Im not arguing all of climate science is wrong or evil or unscientific.
>I'm just arguing that climate scientists lie and falsify data
>Which is wrong and unscientific
Sure, kid

>>11775517
>The problem is the interconnectivity of the system. Sure X amount of change in Y may change Z. But X also changes A, B, C, D by G, H, I...
I see. So you're saying that these models are inaccurate because the effects of the changes themselves change in ways that we cannot reasonably predict and for which applying uncertainty ranges is meaningless. In this context, can you give examples of some of those A, B, C, etc factors that might invalidate those models? Like, what would increasing carbon dioxide change that would affect the changes further carbon dioxide increases would have (hopefully that made sense)

>>11775522
What I am saying is building a model that would ACCURATELY predict any REGIONAL variation in temperature such that a reasonable response can be implemented is not an option at the moment.

Current model approximate 200 cells with an N^2 model that has ocean depths set at maximum 50m, not modelling currents and variable albedo effects.

If i modeled a drug in comp chem using an N^2 model for 200 atoms and using this say i have conclusively predicted the properties of the drug i would be laughed out of my department.

>>11775540
No Im arguing Mann Jones et al manipulated their data. And this might not be a phonomena local to UEA considering the grant application process/ the puss to publish etc...

>>11775515

Any relevant coursework?

>>11775548
You don't need to accurately predict regional variations in temperature. That's called weather. Climate is the patterns of weather over time. If you understand the feedback loops you can build an accurate model with a reasonable margin of error.

>>11775548

Funny that the same laughable statement regarding climate and temperature time series data and forecasting will get you an award lol

>>11775554
>No I'm not saying that
>I'm saying exactly that
Wew, lad. You can't even prove the data was manipulated. The best you have is an opinion piece about an email exchange.

>>11775556
Obviously. That's what "academic setting" means.

>>11775546
Cloud cover, ocean currents (both vertical and translational), salinity of the oceans due to there currents (this varies the temperature ice melts at), ice cap cover, desertification decreasing CO2 intake from plants, Increased CO2 concentration increasing the concentration of vegetation in the sub-arctic/ temperate regions. Broader ecological effects (eg plankton, algae could play a major role in the evolution of the climate, as they have done before)

Im not saying we do not have models of how these variables change, or even how some affect others. But we are no where near knowing how "the system" affects "the system"

I'd also like to point out i am not arguing in one direction. Im not trying to "prove" the average global temperature will be lower. Im saying it could be lower, higher, or spot on what has been predicted. But it will be through change. Not through the predictive validity of the simulations.

>>11775566
Read McIntyres work and you'll know it was manipulated.

>>11775575
Because they didn't include the tree ring proxies that didn't line up with the thermometer measurements? That's reaching.

>>11775581
That is a gross simplification and you know it.

>>11775565
Should've gone into climate science...I'd've gotten more rewards!

>>11775563
Well you kind of do to have any useful predictive validity. I could say the mean temperature will rise be 2 degrees - this means very little. If it rises 4 degrees over the poles and decreases in the sahara we have a problem.

If it decreases a degree over the arctic and rises elsewhere... less of a problem.
My point is the isothermal graphs produced by these simulations are going to be inaccurate. This is not a heretical statement. This is the understood state of affairs in climate modelling

>>11775563
>If we understand the feedback loops
We do not. We have some models for them... will they prove accurate? As is>>11775548
modeling just 2 feedbacks (i model solutions to the schrodinger equation, which is similar, essentially this with 2 electrons) to infinite accuracy is actually impossible.

I simply cannot comprehend how climate scientists have found a way to model even 4 interacting variables accurately. If they did I wouldn't be using the approximations I use on a daily basis in chemistry.

>>11775591
Then explain it.

>>11775277
>The per capita numbers aren't great, but per capita the US pollutes three times as much as China

Are you aware you're a cocksucking shill? The US's per capita carbon footprint has went down to 10% over the last ten years and it would have dropped even lower if we didn't let Greepiece of shit talk the country out of using more nuclear power.

Meanwhile, China is building more coal burning plants.

https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

It's shit like "NO NUKES EVER!!!1111oneone" and "CHINA DINDU NUFFIN'" and the Green New Deal (which was communist red with a fresh coat of green paint) is why AGW proponents are lying conniving motherfuckers trying to pull a fast one on the world.

You do more to discredit climate change science through you utterly inexcusable faggotry than those big bad climate change deniers could ever hope to accomplish..

>>11775612
You are arguing UEA did one experiment slightly mischeviously. The scope is large.

Mcintyre repeated may of Manns analyses (using his own and Manns methodology) and found they were not in accordance with Manns published results
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf

It is also true of several temperature reconstructions of the MWP and the mid 20th century
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.workshop05.pdf

Its not just excluding tree rings... its excluding ice cores, rings, even thermometer readings when not retrieving the desired hockey stick from the data. This Hockey stick has been front and centre of the IPCC. They still quote mann to this day.

>>11775277
>Are you aware that China has the most renewable capacity of any country in the world and they're adding to that capacity faster than any other country?

Are you aware you're a cocksucking shill with a stomach full of President Xi's dick snot?

>The per capita numbers aren't great, but per capita the US pollutes three times as much as China

The US's per capita carbon footprint has went down to 10% over the last ten years and it would have dropped even lower if we didn't let Greepiece of shit talk the country out of using more nuclear power.

Meanwhile, China is building more coal burning plants.

https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

It's shit like "NO NUKES EVER!!!1111oneone" and "CHINA DINDU NUFFIN'" and the Green New Deal (which is actually just communism with a fresh coat of green paint) is why people think AGW proponents are lying, conniving motherfuckers trying to pull a fast one on the world.

You do more to discredit climate change science through you utterly inexcusable faggotry than those big bad climate change deniers could ever hope to accomplish.

>>11775603
>>11775611
You're grasping at straws. You don't need to know the weather, just how the patterns of weather will change over time. The models have proven accurate time and time again, and the newer models are even more accurate.

>I simply cannot comprehend how climate scientists have found a way to model even 4 interacting variables accurately.
By analyzing trends. Same way it's done in chemistry. Take the Maillard reaction as an example. Thousands of interacting variables leading to a predictable outcome.

>>11775638
This. If its the climate we are worried about per capita doesn't really matter... It should be the discrete quantities of CO2 that matter. And in that China/ India/ Brazil/African nations are only going to increase the global output.

>>11775638
I'm not saying they're doing it because it's the right thing to do. They think that reliance on fossil fuels makes a country weak and they don't want to remain weak. I also said that the per capita numbers weren't spectacular, but saying "if they aren't doing it then I don't have to either" is a child's argument, especially when the people you're pointing at are in fact, doing it.

The rest of your post is baseless projection. I never said anything about China's president, their policies, nuclear energy, or China's continued energy growth.

You are at best a reactionary, and at worst a useful idiot. Congratulations.

>>11775243
>>11775277
>>11775318

When the US and Europe were industrializing in the 19th century, all they had was fossil fuels. Now we have nuclear power. So what is China's excuse for building more coal plants?

>>11775682
Because nuclear is super expensive and they have the majority of the world's coal reserves. Why do you run your car off of gasoline? Is it because your country subsidies gasoline so it's cheap?

>>11775654
But thats not predictive validity. Thats saying...assuming these trends continue (which we do not know) or vary as (some way no more computationally intensive than N^2)...we will observe x.

That may hold for a few years. But predicting decades into the future...no this will not work. Same reason I cannot test a drug on a computer- what if we miss something. A drug may look great but have horrible results because of something we didn't predict (thalidomide and chirality).

Analyzing trends is an approximation. yes I use approximations, but i do not then claim my results are accurate enough to produce a drug en mass.

>>11775682
Cheap, easy to extract, many other applications (iron extraction), we can use the industrial waste in construction. Does not require teams of nuclear engineers just in case something goes wrong, easy/cheap to train the work force to work in a coal plant,

>>11775688
And yet they successfully do that, that's the difference between memes and reality.

>>11775654
again see>>11775152

>>11775699
I'm not saying they haven't made models that work on the timescale of a few years. I'm saying it is not correct to state these models will hold for 100 years, which is the predictive power you need to do anything meaningful about climate change

>>11775654

Modeling chemical kinetics in controlled systems with volumes measured in mL is not the same, friend.

>>11775708
wrong

>>11775708

The summary of this thread is simple. The general public has to much faith in our capabilities as scientists and assume that computers are magic.

>>11775688
>saying...assuming these trends continue (which we do not know) or vary
That's not what climatologists do. They analyse the interactions between the feedback loops of the system in order to estimate when those trends will change. That's why there's uncertainty in the model. They don't need to know that a particular trend will begin to reverse on the second Tuesday of March 2054 at 10:54 pm, they know that it will reverse when certain conditions are met and the use the model to predict when those conditions might occur and how it will affect other parts of the system. Climate is a much less chaotic system than weather.

>>11775686
>>11775692
The upfront cost of nuclear is high. Once the plant is built, operating cost are much lower and certainly lower than solar and wind.

>>11775712
I sure wish I knew how these climate scientists are getting more predictive models of the entire planet than i am with approximations of 40 atom molecules.

>>11775723
Too bad that the initial cost is so high that it makes the average cost of energy over the entire lifespan of the plant higher than almost any other energy source.

>>11775725
Like I said, it's because they don't need to simulate every particle and climate is a less chaotic system than chemistry or quantum physics. Are you slow?

>>11775725

Climate scientists should redo all models for actuaries, too.

>>11775736

Less chaotic lol take a nap dude

>>11775720
I never said they required that resolution, you do not understand my argument. Im saying to accurately model the climate system we need to model a sufficient number of variables to a specific resolution. You cannot model ocean upcurrents presently, or even currents in a system with temperature and salination and desertification/ vegetation...
It is physically impossible to simulate this atm.

You say they use trends. Well i have news for you friend. We do not have enough data to model trends between 5 variables in climate. Maybe enough for two or three. It might give you some predictive capability, but not enough to know the effects of a human imposed climate policy.

>>11775729
Solar and wind are even higher than nuclear.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/05/frances-nuclear-buildout-was-more-cost-effective-than-2018-2022-solar-and-wind.html

>>11775746
Your only argument is that "i can't understand this therefore it's impossible" which is wrong.
>You cannot model ocean upcurrents presently, or even currents in a system with temperature and salination and desertification/ vegetation...
Don't need to do this to model climate

>>11775745
How are you criticizing predictive models when you don't know about predictive horizons and chaos in systems?

>>11775736
Quantum physics is not chaotic which is exactly my point. The only way i can model chemicals is COPIOUS amounts of data collected for the required approximations. Saying we have something comparable for climate is laughable

>>11775756
No it isn't. read>>11775460

>>11775755
No they're not

>>11775759
>Quantum physics is not chaotic which is exactly my point
So you just don't understand what constitutes a chaos in a system. Do some learning and come back.

>>11775763
Yes that post boils down to "I think it's impossible hence it must"
You are just fundamentally uneducated and quite likely some form a mutt to not understand this concept by now.

>>11775756
You proved my point. We do not know to what resolution we need to simulate a system to get predictive models of a climate long term.

I can think of lots of ways ocean up-currents might be important to climate long term.

Sure you can just extrapolate the data we have, but that isn't science. You need a hypotesis, a null etc If I predict "Australia is going to have more bush fires" pretty useless
"Australia is going to have to increase expenditure of the emergency services bu x because of y extra bush fires per year on average" is useful

>>11775767
No your just repeating the trope climate scientists have given any real predictive validity by their models. Please show me one climate model prediction that was proven correct more than 2 year in advance

>>11775773
Something useful, tangible, that a government employee could use to inform policy

>>11775767
I understand the concept. Im saying if i was an engineer, and i offered a product with the reliability of a climate model, my career would be in jeopardy

>>11775764
Actual cost comparison between France's nuclear grid and Germany's renewable boondoggle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crooked cost estimates from renewable shills.

>>11775768
>we
No you don't know, that's the difference
Again please stop pretending that things you don't personally know don't exist / are impossible to know.

>>11775773
Pick any model shown in the thread, climate models have been proven to be quite accurate.

>>11775781
You clearly don't when you keep repeating "I don't understand therefore impossible"

>>11775784
I mean the fact france is currently phasing out nuclear in favor of renewables should tell you everything

>>11775784
>Implying a cherry picked instance in a country with 2-3 solar insolation hours is representative of the average cost
If you were right then you wouldn't need to pretend my source is "crooked" or made by "shills"

>>11775789
Maybe you could actually provide me with a useful prediction that could be/ has been used based off a climate model.

I have explained why average temperature is not a useful model.

You can extrapolate data and hope current systems we do not understand continue to operate. But this does not prove the predictive validity of a model. Just that the model holds...until it doesn't.

>>11775809
No you have projected your inability to understand. If you want predictions then read the relevant science instead of "geee whiz I'm low IQ and don't understand that means it must be impossible"

>>11775793
>I mean the fact france is currently phasing out nuclear in favor of renewables should tell you everything

That politics trumps reason?

The cost of the French power grid is far less and offsets more CO2 than the German grid even if the current French government rather pander to Greenpiece of shit's army of useful fucktards than have a functioning, carbon neutral power grid that doesn't cost them more to do less.

>>11775632
>You are arguing UEA did one experiment slightly mischeviously.
No, I'm not. Learn how to read.

>Mcintyre repeated may of Manns analyses (using his own and Manns methodology) and found they were not in accordance with Manns published results
McIntyre's analysis has been thoroughly refuted by several scientists:

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/25669372/61_Huybers_GRL2005.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL022753
https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

>Its not just excluding tree rings... its excluding ice cores, rings, even thermometer readings when not retrieving the desired hockey stick from the data.
Wrong.

>This Hockey stick has been front and centre of the IPCC. They still quote mann to this day.
It's been replicated by many different methods. So not only are your criticisms of Mann wrong, they're also moot.

>>11775811
You must have one little prediction you can tease me with.

>>11775811
I think you overestimate the amount of data we have available on the climate, our understanding of feedback, and you do not understand how feedback is modeled.

>>11775815
These are not thorough refutations. To quote just one of your own sources:

" In summary, MM05 show that the normalization employed by MBH98 tends to bias results toward having a hockey-stick-like shape, but the scope of this bias is exaggerated by the choice of normalization and errors in the RE critical value estimate. Those biases truly present in the MBH98 temperature estimate remain important issues, and corrections for these biases will be taken up elsewhere."

>>11775826
It's getting warmer and sea level will rise, see more @science

>>11775829
Yes you don't understand those things so you think they are impossible to be know, that is well established.

>>11775829

Bro seems like we're just terrible scientists. We should have studied whatever these guys did, maybe then we'd be informed.

>>11775838
No i mean something useful you idiot. Something predictive... 4mm+/-2mm, 4 degrees +/- 0.5, where are these going to occur. Which countries should prepare for it? etc etc.
You really are braindead if you do not know how a climate simulation is done. A certain number of cells (N), with properties (land, water, temperature etc).

If you are arguing about climate models that is not my point. I have stated simulations throughout. You just cannot read. We cannot apply the models to simulations to yield an accuracy which would result in any reasonable predictive power. As you have proved, the best we have is its getting warmer ON AVERAGE, but not everywhere uniformly and sea levels are rising. Great. Well done.

>>11775837

Shame on you, actually reading the paper! Corrections for biases will be taken up elsewhere! Tar and feather those who dissent!

>>11775799
>>Implying a cherry picked instance in a country with 2-3 solar insolation hours is representative of the average cost

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/News/0120_e_ISE_News_Electricity%20Generation_2019.pdf

46% of Germany's grid is powered by renewables. That's hardly cherrypicking a country that didn't really try making renewables work.

Meanwhile, 87% of France's power grid is nuclear and they spent less on theirs.

>>11775847
You are terrible scientists. You think you can just extrapolate into the future without understanding the interactions fundamental to your field. Learn to walk before you can run. Your models will work...until they don't

>>11775852
Listen my low IQ friend, i'm not a climate scientist, if you want actual numbers then simply read one of the many science publications on the topic. It's not hard.

>You really are braindead if you do not know how a climate simulation is done.
Yes I know and climate scientists know, you on the other hand seem to have issues.
Again simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is impossible. This is usually a concept children learn with the peekaboo game, try that with your parents

>We cannot
*I cannot, scientists obviously can.

>>11775837
It is indeed a thorough refutation. McIntyre's analysis is ironically flawed by a biased methodology. Mann's results have been replicated numerous time by more modern methods.

>>11775863
>Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand what solar insolation is or how it's measured.
Germany is not representative of the average cost of solar.

>>11775868
You're arguing about things i didn't state. You're trying to compartmentalise me into your "climate denier" box. I know the earth is warming and sea levels are rising. I know droughts/ bush fires are increasing and ice caps are melting.

But are there useful numbers for different parts of the planet pertaining to these effects in the mid-term future (50 years) No. I have looked before. I couldn't find them.

>>11775868

Correction, you're not any kind of scientist.

Constant analogies imply a pitiful understanding.

IOPs original statement on the climategate emails:

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

>>11775893
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

>>11775887
>You're arguing about things i didn't state.
You stated
>We cannot apply the models to simulations to yield an accuracy which would result in any reasonable predictive power
Which is objectively wrong. What you meant to say was "I cannot and therefore it must be that no one else can" or shortened to "I cannot"

>I have looked before. I couldn't find them.
Finally you are honest, at least you didn't add that therefore they can't exist. They obviously do and your research quality speaks for itself, try IPCC reports, they have wide variety of information in beginner format should be suitable for you.

>>11775890
Do you even know what that is?

>>11775895
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

>>11775896
Still waiting on those useful predictions my friend

>>11775900
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

>>11773935
I couldn't help but notice the measurements line up with the models but only which in the negative margin of errors, which shows a trend that the models are overestimating the rate of warming.

Also, we have people who still claim the Medieval Warm Period was isolated to only Western Europe despite numerous temperature proxies showing that the MWP was global in scope.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mapping-the-Medieval-Climate-Anomaly

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&hl=en_US&ll=16.104045987510023%2C1.8272485000001097&z=2

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

>>11775902
Are you as blind as you are dumb?
IPCC reports, do you need me to link it for you too?
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

You can pick which ever topic interests you there.

>>11775904
How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

>>11775908
No please explain to me a single prediction we can use. You do know this field right. I just want one number for one region that can be used to encourage a reasonable response

>>11775902

I predict he doesn't get laid this week

>>11775916
See
>>11775908
Plenty of stuff like that right there, can't get better science than that.

It almost seems to me that you aren't interested in the actual science and are simply pretending to be retarded.

>>11775921
No im not trailing through reports. I just want one little quantifiable prediction. Is that so hard?

>>11775925
Listen I provided you the predictions, I'm not your dad and it's not my job to make sure you eat your vegetables and read your science. This is 4chan, I can simply mock you for being uneducated.

>>11775925
Something like "Drought rates in Australia will increase on average by x% by the year 2060"

>>11775930
I'm mocking you buddy. The best you can do is wail that i dont understand and the link the IPCC. Well done.

>>11775925

I'm looking through them. Zero actual verifiable predictions. It's basically astrology.

>>11775936
Too scared to actually read science? Might have to resort to the ol "I can't understand therefore they can't be real" argument soon again

>>11775942

Do your homework and go to bed. Teenagers need sleep to grow.

>>11775940
I know thats what i meant when i looked it up before. Im a scientist. I care about predictive validity. IPCC offers very little apart from mean global temperature and sea level, maybe some on rates of ice cap melting. But nothing concrete, nothing to say "hey guys your model is actually wrong look at x"

>>11775940
>Zero actual verifiable predictions
You can't verify a prediction ahead of time

>>11775942
No i have read them. Please link one verifiable prediction in this garbage excuse for scientific reports.

>>11775944
Yes that is your homework, read the actual science.

>>11775953
see
>>11775908

>>11775948
No but we can verify it....wait for this... its gonna blow your mind.......in the future.

>>11775948

Captain obvious here.

How about a prediction from 5 years ago? Can we verify that? Or maybe a prediction that could be verified in the future. You know, science.

>>11775957
Do you know what they classify as high risk? They keep mentioning it without any quantifiable reference?

>>11775963
Woah there. I dont think time dependent variables is something climate scientists understand yet.

>>11775958
And so far... and this is going to blow your mind... every past prediction has been verified. Crazy, huh?

>>11775964
Maybe reading the papers will provide the definitions used, that is pretty standard. If your reading comprehension fails you, you can always just message the author and ask what they meant by that.

>>11775974
I thought you knew about this topic. There is no definition i can find.

>>11775963
All the good ones have been. I thought you said they weren't verifiable? If we're verifying past climate predictions then surely the current predictions can be verified.

>>11775975
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/

where is the definition of high risk in this report?

>>11775975
Yes, for the definitions see the paper you are reading. I'm not your dad try to remember that, asking for help is fine but it's pretty embarrassing.

>>11775979
I just would like to be directed to one quantifiable, verifiable prediction in this whole report. I will renounce everything i have said if you provide one

>>11775985
>I will renounce everything i have said if you provide one
So far what you have said is "I don't understand therefore it's not true"
I don't really mind if you refuse to renounce that lmao

You can have what ever opinion you like, just know that world exists outside of your memes. As for the "high risk" heres a tip, don't look at the summary for politicians if you want to know the details.

>>11775979
I found their definition

"High risk indicates widespread impacts on larger numbers or proportion of population/area, but with the potential to adapt or recover"

sounds scientific to me

>>11775978
Risks to land-related human systems and ecosystems from global climate change, socio-economic development and mitigation choices in terrestrial ecosystems As in previous IPCC reports the literature was used to make expert judgements to assess the levels of global warming at which levels of risk are undetectable, moderate, high or very high, as described further in […]
Risks to land-related human systems and ecosystems from global climate change, socio-economic development and mitigation choices in terrestrial ecosystems As in previous IPCC reports the literature was used to make expert judgements to assess the levels of global warming at which levels of risk are undetectable, moderate, high or very high, as described further in Chapter 7 and other parts of the underlying report. The Figure indicates assessed risks at approximate warming levels which may be influenced by a variety of factors, including adaptation responses. The assessment considers adaptive capacity consistent with the SSP pathways as described below

>>11775978
>>11775992
I bet it's really embarrassing when you out yourself as being illiterate

>>11775990
You dont know, do you.

>>11775993
Heres the definition in chapter 7 m8>>11775991

>>11775977

Please name one of those good ones. Eg, in year x, predictions about year x+n are made, x+n<2020

>>11775997
Which is not sourced or quantified.

>>11775994
Know what? I know to expect vague language from a summary to politicians. I also know that I'm not your dad.

>>11775998
Wait Ill save him the trouble
>heres a link to an entire IPCC report derp derp derp

>>11775973

Every prediction has been verified lol said no scientists ever

*except Einstein

>>11776000
So you linked something without quantifiable predictions.

>>11775973
WOW EVERY PREDICTION. WOAH. THIS MEANS CLIMATE SCIENCE IS MORE PREDICTIVE THAN PHYSICS. SOMEONE TELL THE PRESS

>>11776007
No you picked the summary for politicians and then got mad when it summarized.

Remember this is beginner stuff, we are trying to move you from 5 months old who thinks things stop existing when you don't see them to like I dunno 10 years old for that policians summary and you still took it too fast. It's ok to stop raging and just read.

>>11775997
Uh huh, try starting from "Assessing risk"

>>11776015
Maybe if you just stated one verifiable prediction instead of saying
>derp derp IPCC derp derp
we wouldn't be in this mess.

But you can't because there aren't any are there

>>11776015

Constant analogies lol zero comprehension

>>11776005
>>11776014
Can you list some climate models that have been wrong? I'll can wait

>>11776029
Well most scientist before the IPCC began assumed implicitely that higher temperature would be favourable. Which is why they labelled periods of high temperature "optimums"

>>11775997
>>11776023
Following an approach articulated in O’Neill et al. (2017), expert judgements were made to assess thresholds of risk (O’Neill et al. 2017a). To further strengthen replicability of the method, a predefined protocol based on a modified Delphi process was followed (Mukherjee et al. 2015). This included two separate anonymous rating rounds, feedback in between rounds and a group discussion to achieve consensus.

Like super embarrassing. If you can't even read then why am I wasting my time arguing with you?

>>11776024
Reading science is maddening isn't it. And there is no mess, you are just butthurt you are finding about new stuff. It's ok, it happens. Stop raging, start reading it will make your life better.

>>11776025
That is literally 100% what happened though, there is no analogue there. I wonder if you know what an analogue is.

>>11776036
Believe it or not, that's not a model.

Lol at all the virgins in this thread

>>11776029

Scientists - there have not been predictive claims to verify.

Layman - wELl tHen ShOw mE oNe thAT Was wROng?

Next he'll ask scientists to disprove the existence of God. Nbd.

>>11776050
heh

>>11776040

Lol analogies, not analogues.

>>11776040
I'm used to being linked to an actual paper/ analysis with an actual prediction and confidence interval. Not some flashy website with word salad. (I had heard of the IPCC before, ive seen this stuff before, there is no verifiable prediction, its a job for geography majors)

>>11776063
Which I did, it's not my problem your reading comprehension is too poor to understand the material.

>>11776050
>"Scientists"
Lol ok. BTW your claim wasn't that there have not been predictive claims made, which is silly and inaccurate. Now did you have a climate model that failed to meet it's predictions?

>>11776050
>>11774348
This namedrops two dozen models all of which make predictions. You are free to go over them if you like and find out one what was wrong.

>>11776068
Do you have a climate model that gave us a useful verifiable prediction. Burden of proof is on you.

>>11776068

They don't make verifiable predictions, brainlet. You can't miss a prediction you don't make.

>>11776063
No you aren't. I've had to point you to the definition of risk twice. LARP harder.