/sci/ - Science & Math

So I guess this climate catastrophe is a non-issue?

>How likely is it that the global warming catastrophe will occur in the next 50 years?
It's happening now.
> Who will be likely negatively effected by it?
Coastal cities and islands

>>6342969
>It's happening now.
This is it? Doesn't seem very catastrophic.

>>6342964

Yes.

The world goes through phases of warming and cooling. Theres nothing we can do if the next Ice Age decides to come around.

>How likely is it that the global warming catastrophe will occur in the next 50 years?

Extremely unlikely. IPCC projections are 1) based on sheer conjecture, and 2) don't take into account our capacity to adapt to new conditions.

For example: one of the biggest threats posed by GW, according to the IPCC, is that rising temperatures will lead to lower crop yields. The argument is that every crop has an "ideal temperature" at which it grows, and as temps increase crop growth will decrease because they no longer grow in their ideal temperature.

But of course, there are many ways that humans can respond to this. We can: 1) grow crops in new areas with temperatures closer to the crop's ideal temperature, 2) artificially select crops to grow in higher temperatures, and 3) improve existing agricultural techniques, or develop new ones, to offset any possible limitations posed by climate change.

>>6342979
1,833 people dies in Hurricane Katrina.
$105 billion economic damage.

coral reefs are beyond the point of no return and will probably go extinct (along with everything that lives in that environment).

polar bears aren't able to hunt on the shrinking ice sheets.

An island nation's government (can't remember the name) is getting ready to move it's entire population off the island as it will be inhabitable.

>>6343022
Of course projections of lowered yields don't take into account that you can adapt but the point is you would have to take action to sustain the population.
Notice when they talk about sea level rises they don't assume billions will drown. Nowhere in the report was it claimed you could do nothing but the point is that there are many regions of the world which don't have access to agricultural technology like ours and will suffer if no one helps them.

The economic impact of having to take such serious action would reinforce the idea that climate change is a serious problem.

>>6343033
And that effects me negatively how?

>>6343045
damages global economy making prices rise.

>>6342979
>Doesn't seem very catastrophic.

The extinction of the dinosaurs probably wouldn't have seemed catastrophic at the time, either. If it took a few hundred years, you probably wouldn't even realize it was happening.

>>6343045

2edgy4me

>>6343033
>Katrina
That was as much a failing in local, state and federal government response as anything else.

>On April 5, 2006, months after independent investigators had demonstrated that levee failures were not caused by natural forces beyond intended design strength, Lieutenant General Carl Strock, Chief of Engineers and Commander of the Corps of Engineers, testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water that "We have now concluded we had problems with the design of the structure."[152] He also testified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not know of this mechanism of failure prior to August 29, 2005. The claim of ignorance is refuted, however, by the National Science Foundation investigators hired by the Corps of Engineers, who point to a 1986 study by the Corps itself that such separations were possible in the I-wall design.

>>6343054
saucery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#Analysis_of_New_Orleans_levee_failures

>>6343049
But if I'm selling, people paying higher is good.

>>6343050
KT extinction.

>>6343033
>Being on /sci/
>Thinking too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere guided a completely typical hurricane towards New Orleans.
>Doesn't know that polar bears survived the last interglacial, during which there was no arctic ice anywhere but greenland.
just fuck off.

>>6343005
Well, if we completely stopped burning fossil fuels right now, the GMST would only increase 1-2 K over its current level (by 50-100 yrs), as opposed to keeping our emissions rate constant (the so-called business-as-usual scenario), which would increase GMST by 4-7 K in the same time period.
(source: IPCC AR5, from memory)
(My memory may be faulty, but my source is not. The references on each section of the IPCC reports form roughly half of the entire report.)

>>6342933
If you're talking economics and human welfare, the question is will the consequences of global warming outweigh the consequences of adapting our economy to reduce carbon output. That case is not settled, but the bigger problem is that many people do not beleive global warming is caused by humanity.

>>6343142
>but the bigger problem is that many people do not beleive global warming is caused by humanity.
This is a flaw with democracy more than anything else.

>>6343058
but your costs increase too...so profits shrink

>>6343166
confused/10 if trolling

>>6343215
Democracy gives the right to vote to idiots.

>>6343210
So nothing changes?

>>6343142
An increase of 6K (what we expect if we change nothing) will be absolutely horrifying, especially for poorer nations (i.e, Africa). The amount by which we should decrease emissions is not settled, but the fact that we should is self-evident.

>>6343221
no
because the economy doesn't react instantly and when prices go up consumers buy less and save more which hurts GDP.

>>6343224
That can be a good opportunity to buy out struggling companies.

>>6343225
That's a good thing for developed countries like the ones you and I live in, less competition from growing economies.

>>6342933
We can surivive tempurature change, lots will die from famine or something but we will survive, the biggest problem the future has is pollution that poisons everything, chemicals and plastics everywhere ruining everything. There is no coming back from that.

>>6343231
Competition is good
Suffering is bad
Who the fuck taught you economics?

>>6343238
Competition is good for everyone other than the competitors.

>>6343241

Killing off competitors is bad for the people getting killed.
Global warming of, say, 6K would make life difficult for everyone. I think you're missing the point.

>>6343247
That's expecting in >50 years when I'm dead? Not driving my car makes life difficult for me now.

Also don't forget you can cash in big on people's suffering.

>>6343252
2edgy4me

>>6343247
That's expected in >50 years when I'm dead? Not driving my car makes life difficult for me now.

Also don't forget you can cash in big on people's suffering.

>>6343254
>implying edginess is bad
>implying constraining yourself to ethics and self-righteous morality is good

2muchAynR&

>>6343142
NASA changes the temperatures. Its hard to believe someone when they change the data.

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

>>6343045
hahahahaha

prick

>>6343635
NASA does not change the temperatures. In fact, GISS doesn't even deal directly with the raw data, see their FAQ:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

>>6343708
Then why have their published temperatures changed? As shown and documented by >>6343635

>>6342933
>Go back to /pol/.

>>6343635
What are you talking about? Is the figure you're evidence? Where is it from specifically?

>>6342933
ITT ppl dont know we still in a fucking ice age

>>6342933
This is the problem OP. Because you don't care, the problem has to be blown out of proportion to get you people worried.

If we aim to build a country that doesn't create a problem of artificial global warming, even if it's happening or not, we will significantly improve our impacts on the environment and fuel supplies and dependency on limited resources.

I find it hard to believe we will see the impacts within our lifetime. But like they say, we need to care about sustainability and our future generations, and just build a goddamn better world out of the one we have.

>>6345029

>1850
Guys global food production will halt and everyone will starve because guano reserves are being used faster than they can recover. We better war over shit piles so we don't starve first.

>1978
Guys global aluminum production will end because we are running out of Cryolite. Goodby airplanes goodby space age.

>today
threads like this

>500 years from now
lol all them stupid fucks didn't know bout fusion energy and custom biosynthetic hydrocarbons

>5*10^10 years from now
oh noes in the next few billion years we will run out of fusible matter to provide us energy

>5.1*10^10 years from now
Lol those stupid fucks didn't know how to harvest black holes

>>6345074
LOL in 100 years we will stop oil extraction not because we ran out but because its cheaper to just make oil products directly from carbon and hydrogen.

>>6342933
Catastrophe as in The Day After Tomorrow? Not going to happen, at least not in your lifetime.

More likely at some point we're going to realise that it's too late to prevent climate change even if we zeroed our emissions because it becomes a self supporting cycle.

The real catastrophe will come maybe 50-100 years after that. We certainly won't be around, our children and grandchildren might.

Bottom line yes you should care if you give a shit about future generations.

>>6345011
Where do I find information on marine isotope stages? As in what stage corresponds to 200,000-250,000 when homo sapiens first appeared? And how this climate compares to the climate now

>>6343033
Why do people like this think this nonsense helps their cause? Blaming everything on climate change. It just turns people off. People can tell bullshit when they hear it.

>>6343073
4-7 K in 50 years?. Laughable. No wonder climate change action is going nowhere.

>>6345096
>Catastrophe as in The Day After Tomorrow? Not going to happen, at least not in your lifetime.

Can't... stop... laughing.... Hard... to... type...

>>6345074

>muh historical precedent

keep hoping someone develops the technology to save your ass, nerds

I'm building a spaceship so I can fly into the sun

>the problem has to be blown out of proportion to get you people worried

That is exactly this Culture of Lies that has thoroughly discredited 'official' climate science.

>>6345241
make sure you go at night, its kinda hot in the day

>>6345074
Um that's kinda the point.
We need to invest in science and technology to avoid a catastrophe

>>6345279
catastrophe mai lulz

wft gonna happen, fucking florida gets sunk I hate florida

Long term life on earth is better when its warmer. Short term its more cost effective to move / defined with infrastructure than it is to all revert to caveman lifestyles.

>>6345323

>Long term life on earth is better when its warmer.
>I have never read climatological papers

>>6345331
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

yup life on earth shure was shit then wasn't it

>>6342933
No
Because in the past there have been fluctuated warming and coolings without seriously effecting anything. Things will balance out.
But, I also predict that there will be a nuclear power race in 4 years, and that doesn't seem to be too likely any more.

>>6342933
>the global warming catastrophe
Can someone please tell me what is meant by that?

>>6345350
This is false. Sure, when temperature changes over tens of thousands of years, life is not affected too much. But the more rapid temperature fluctuations of the past were accompanied by massive extinctions, and these happened over several centuries. At current emissions rates, temperature change will occur even faster.

The argument that global warming will be ok because people can adapt is invalid. It completely ignores quality of life. You simply can't say that survival makes it admissible. If this were the case, no one would care about helping hungry people in poor countries.

>>6344549
The NASA sources below are where the graphed data come from:

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

>>6345406
The thing is, global temperatures have flat-lined just as CO2 has gone way up. It seems that the science is sub-par; temperatures were supposed to have gone up with the increase in CO2.

>>6343033
>An island nation's government (can't remember the name) is getting ready to move it's entire population off the island as it will be inhabitable.

You mean Tuvalu?

>>6343058
>i can exploit it, therefore it's not a problem

>>6343258
>implying this is /phil/ or /pol/

>>6345597
Nope
Apparently I meant the Maldives:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-castaways-consider-move-to-australia-20120106-1pobf.html

>>6345221
why?

>>6345338
see >>6345406

>>6345566
Those temperatures don't fit the curve very well. The points are so off it can't be used to predict or conclude anything.

>>6345626
Here are temps from balloon and satellite measurements. They compared to 73 climate model predictions

>>6345406
>no one would care about helping hungry people in poor countries.

is pretty much true, we could feed the world but choose not to

only a small number of individuals actually do meaningful work to help "the poor"

also fuck florida

and the dutch have been under sea level for hundreds and hundreds of years, no fucks are given

Higher global temperatures = more convection and more rain. For every 1° rise at the equator there is a 10° rise in the poles. There used to be cold blooded animals living year round above the arctic circle. Temperate forests covered entire contents and few deserts existed.

Certainly temperature rise of a few degrees over a few hundred years is nothing compared to some of the wild down swings the planet has endured.

Life likes warmer earth. Every time in geological history when you see increased temperatures you see more life.

also we are still leaving a fucking ice age, its going to get warmer bitch deal with it

>>6345406
fucking quality of life when they want to tax the hell out of carbon

Fuck you bitch, I already pay too much taxes and it is affecting my quality of life you want to make things even worse, please die in a fire.

>>6345661

There has been no global warming in 17 years. Yet they want to tax carbon....

Never mind that temperatures have flatlined as CO2 went way up. And all the climate models failed.

>>6345645
>Here is a sourceless graph
How do you know those temperature measurements are comparable with those measurements? Does it not strike you as suspicious that only two measurement sets are shown which show no relation to other measurements?

Just because you have a graph doesn't mean it means shit.

>>6345674
You're graph shows no warming in recent history, clearly at odds with most data sets. The graph is clearly bullshit.

You can't use a bullshit graph to prove all the climate models failed.

>>6345689
Here is a graph from the United Nations IPCC AR4. More recent temps have been added. Do you believe the UN IPCC.

>>6345721
You've neglected experimental error bars. Without them you cannot state anything is ruled out.
If we imagine error bars of equal size to previous years you can see that the observations are in the range of the predictions.
The graph nicely shoes climate models have not "all failed".

>>6345733
Shows*

>>6342933
It's not going to happen in one giant catastrophe. It's going to be much slower, not as deadly as the media often projects (but still worrisome), and will essentially be a bunch of smaller-scale catastrophes wrapped together along with major impacts on human society and lifestyle.

>>6345733
Just mostly failed

>>6345740
No, you're just bullshiting now. With equal error bars the observations are consistent with 3 of the 4 models on the plot.

>>6345761

That's a huge stretch. The "prediction range" is huge - nearly a full degree. If you want to go that way, then there is almost nothing that doesn't fit the "prediction."

The graph shows that global temps within error, flatlined for more than a decade. Which means that the models do not distinguish between AGW/Climate Change and normal climate variability. In other words, the models make no substantive prediction.

So yes, I would agree that to the extent that the models do not distinguish from normal climate variability, they make correct predictions.

>>6343033
>polar bears aren't able to hunt on the shrinking ice sheets.
The same shrinking ice sheets that trapped a global warming research ship and 3 ice breakers?

>>6345773

Jesus Christ. Polar bears are in the Arctic. The research vessel that were trapped happened in the Antarctic. Earth's jetstreams and oceanic currents are not symmetrical.

>>6345779
Not the point. AGW/Climate changed predicted that the Antarctic would shrink. Their prediction magically changed when it failed.

>>6345769
It's not a huge stretch, you agree agree with me.

>If you want to go that way, then there is almost nothing that doesn't fit the "prediction."
This has nothing to do with the claim that the models all failed.

>Which means that the models do not distinguish between AGW/Climate Change and normal climate variability.
Only if you confine your view to 10 years.

> In other words, the models make no substantive prediction.
The models make predictions, what timescale they need in order to be clear is a different question. If the IPCC wants action and they do they understand that they need clearer evidence.

I don't claim that the evidence is convincing, I simply despise people posting the bullshit Spencer graph and boldly announcing that all climate models have failed.

>>6345784
Antarctic Sea Ice would shrink...

>Observed annual and decadal global mean surface temperature anomalies from 1850 to 2012 and map of the observed surface temperature change from 1901 to 2012.
>Source: IPCC AR5 report, working group 1
>https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/graphics/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-1.jpg

The file is too large, follow the link.

>>6345784
Antartica is loosing ice volume.

>>6345788
You're really are pushing it...

This ain't BS. The majority of predictions said there would be significant warming as the Spencer graph shows. So now predictions are allowed Huge Ranges, meaning they have no substance as a flatlined temperature is just fine. After all, CO2 concentration increased from about 350 ppm to about 400 ppm. And we're told CO2 drives temperature.

>Which means that the models do not distinguish between AGW/Climate Change and normal climate variability.
>Only if you confine your view to 10 years.
It not the TIME its the change in CO2 concentration which was significant.

So here's a fundamental and accurate statement: "All climate models that distinguish from normal climate variability have failed."

And yet were're supposed to take their word that something terrible is going to happen if business as usual keeps going.

A theory which does not make a substantive prediction - one that is falsifiable is not science.

>>6345812
>The majority of predictions said there would be significant warming as the Spencer graph shows.
No, you completely misuderstand the point of confidence intervals. The point solely to give bad models breathing room, it is literally how accuracy you can make predictions. Drawing a line down the maximum probability is utterly meaningless at assessing a model.

>So now predictions are allowed Huge Ranges
Confidence intervals always existed, Spencer just ignored all scientific rigor to paint himself a picture.

>meaning they have no substance as a flatlined temperature is just fine
Climate models make predictions beyond global temperature.

>It not the TIME its the change in CO2 concentration which was significant.
It is the TIME because climate is long term changes not affected by small scale effects. CO2 is not the only effect at play, climate models take other factors into account.

>"All climate models that distinguish from normal climate variability have failed."
Flat out incorrect. You assume one graph is the sole measure of all climate models. You assume normal forcings account for the current trends. You ignore past data.

>A theory which does not make a substantive prediction
Again ignoring what I already said.

>>6345833
>The point isn't*
>accurately*

>>6345833

At this point you're grasping at straws. If a theory has huge confidence intervals, it has little predictive power.

So lets get this straight:

Significant temperature increase: AGW/CC is true
Temperature flatline for 17 years during a large CO2 increase >> 6345566: AGW/CC is still true.

Not much of a theory.

>>6345853
You said that already, I responded to it and raised counterarguments, this is how debate works. Intentionally misquoting me and the ignoring everything I say is not a response.

its happening, but all the people who point to things like hurricane sandy and katrina ans yell "GLOBAL WARMIN!" are idiots, it doesnt happen that quickly

>>6342933
>trying to determine if I should care
if you don't know whether you should care, then you don't
QED

If scientists were all in agreement that global warming was nothing serious then they would have a hard time getting grants to study it. By making it a huge add deal they are ensuring future revenue. Any scientist that publishes a dissenting report is ostracized. It's a win win for gowin with the flow and a lose lose for thinking critically.

>>6343039
>there are many regions of the world which don't have access to agricultural technology like ours and will suffer if no one helps them.

Whoopy shit.

>>6346000
> then they would have a hard time getting grants to study it.
are you series? since when does grant money have anything to do with that? you get grant money when you have enough publicity and convince people its needed. or are you telling me homeopathy is not real because they get millions of pound in grant money?

>>6345792
wow, that was hard

>>6346000
This is right. Scientists (Aka whores) hype the threat of climate change to keep the grant dollars flowing. What is funding now in the US? 5 billion per year? It's absurd. Those science dollars would be much better spent elsewhere.

>>6342933
There won't be one global warming is a farce.

The earth is several thousand years geologically over due for an Ice Age. If anything human derived global warming has delayed this and thats it. If solar activity were to drop extremely low, as it has over the past 6 months or so, but remain there for say 2 or 3 years even with human derived global warming an Ice Age would likely set in.

Otherwise if the sun goes back into an active cycle as it was before than yes, there is human derived warming due pretty much exclusively to greenhouse gasses, and the worst effect are honestly the Ice caps might be devoid of ice in the summer in a few years. So sea level rise from that lots of coastal areas like New Orleans certain towns in Europe, that honestly shouldn't be inhabited anyway, go underwater. Really not a big deal because you can just move people and setup shop elsewhere. Also youd potentially have larger/more destructive Hurricanes/typhoons but its very hard to say whether this would occur or not. Polar storms would likely be weaker in nature.


In other words there wouldn't "be" a global warming "catastrophe" The effects are honestly minimal at best. Anyone who actually believes there would be a "catastrophe" is someone who watches day after tomorrow and believes it to be based in reality, which sadly is like 65% of America these days it seems like.

More likely than not though all we humans have done is delay what was an impending Ice Age. The sun is currently in a quit nearly hybernative period with almost no sunspots, wind down began early last year and has continued to this day. If that was to continue and not reverse itself you could expect temperatures to really start falling late summer of this year.

>>6346575
*quiet
*effects

My hands are not awake this morning.

Considering the diagram above, the general global surface temperature development is again seen to deviate from the CO2 rise since the turn of the century. In addition, another period of visual deviation is now seen before 1977, reaching back in time at least to the beginning of the modern atmospheric CO2 measurements in 1958. Apparently, the period of positive correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are limited to the approximate time window 1977-2001.

Consequently, the complex nature of the relation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 therefore represents an example of empirical falsification of the hypothesis ascribing dominance on the global temperature by the amount of atmospheric CO2.

Clearly, the potential influence of CO2 must be subordinate to one or several other phenomena influencing global temperature. Presumably, it is more correct to characterize CO2 as a contributing factor for global temperature changes, rather than a dominant factor.

The breakdown of the positive temperature-CO2 relation since about 2000 (diagram above) have now lasted 10-11 years. This suggests that the recent global temperature development might deviate significantly from previous short-lived (2-5 years) periods of cooling derived from oceanic and volcanic activity as seen several times between 1975 and 2000.

There are two possibilities:
1) Global air temperatures may again begin to increase in a short while.
2) The recent development may represent the beginning of a more thorough and long-lasting cooling, perhaps similar to the cooling period after 1940. As usual, time will show what is correct.

src=climate4you.com

There's a catastrophe happening in California right now, its experiencing the worst drought in its history. Crops are failing, hydroelectric power is at risk, drinking water is running low and fire season didn't end.

When you consider that over half of the produce consumed in the US is grown in the California, that starts getting a little scary.

>>6346698
Isnt it theorized that a good portion of the co2 is now being absorbed by the oceans, potentially causing the differentiation?

>>6346717
California only make shitty produce anyways. I'll live without raisins and blueberries.
Now if bananas and apples were at risk, I'd consider this an issue.

>>6346755
>shitty produce

>California grows over 200 different crops, some grown nowhere else in the nation. Crops include grapes, almonds, strawberries, oranges and walnuts

>California produces almost all of the country's almonds, apricots, dates, figs, kiwi fruit, nectarines, olives, pistachios, prunes, and walnuts. It leads in the production of avocados, grapes, lemons, melons, peaches, plums, and strawberries.Only?Florida?produces more oranges.

>The most important vegetable crops grown in the state are lettuce and tomatoes. Again, California leads the way. Broccoli and carrots rank second followed by asparagus, cauliflower, celery, garlic, mushrooms, onions, and peppers. Only Texas grows more cotton than California.

>Livestock and livestock products include milk, beef cattle, eggs, sheep, turkeys, hogs and horses. Dairy products are California's most valuable products followed by cattle and calves and chicken eggs.

http://www.netstate.com/economy/ca_economy.htm

Try to be a little less stupid

>>6343022
The problem with growing the crops in different places is that literally everywhere the temperature extremeties are becoming more severe. Logically, you're right, but there's more going on

>>6346754

There seems to be a connection between sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 content, but not in the way proposed by the 'climate driver' hypothesis (see pic). I'm looking for something covering a longer time period...will post it

>>6346717
Plagues of locust, frogs, etc. Plus plenty of smiting on the way... repent! repent!!

>>6345323
If florida "sinks" (you fucking retard) then all those people will obviously move inland, cramping living space like nobody's business. And it isn't the global warming we need to be worried about, It's the overall climate change. I don't know if you've noticed but the temperatures have been hitting some unpleasant extremes the past couple of years.

>>6346840
>if Florida floods, those people will move inland, creating another housing boom

>>6346844
Dude, less land is a bad thing, this isn't /pol/ so get the fuck out of here with your economic implications.

>>6346830
Found it. It looks like we're now in a comparatively cold period even though the CO2 content has been increasing for the last 6 kyears. Unfortunately I failed to note the source of this graph :(

>>6346717

Yes, what is happening in California helps us understand the difference between Climate and Weather.

>>6347662
Source:
http://www.weatherstreet.com/CloudsPrecip.htm

>>6347662
The added text to that chart is bad and whoever put it there should feel bad

>>6346000
The uncertainty of climate forecasts is vastly understated and since the uncertainty is so high, all the climate doomsday shit you hear is overstated

>>6346830
Note that those graphs don't disprove CO2 is a climate driver. They show CO2 lagged behind temperature in the past but that isn't to say it can't be the driving factor now given that it's a completely different forcing mechanism.

>>6346698
If you read the IPCC report you would see nobody talks about CO2 being dominant in global temperature. They do talk about it being the dominant radiative forcing mechanism since 1750.

You're debating misconceptions not science.

>>6346717
Cali here, drought just ended.

>>6347809

Let me get this straight. Once upon a time CO2 was supposedly the dominant "forcing mechanism" for global temperature.

Then the temperature stopped going up even though CO2 kept going up.

So now CO2 is the "dominant radiative forcing mechanism" which is IPCC deliberately obfuscatory tech-speak for "the CO2 was a radiative forcing mechanism that snuck all that heat from the atmosphere - through the ocean surface water and into the deep water. Without any temperature spiking."

This, of course, is physically impossible. You've really got to stop taking the IPCC as gospel. Arguments from authority =/= scientific accuracy.

Anyone else remember when the ozone layer was being depleted?

>>6347872

Case in point, Hansen 1988... CO2 driving temperature, 3 different scenarios of CO2 emissions.

>>6347872
>Then the temperature stopped going up even though CO2 kept going up.
Doesn't matter, this is since 1750. The fact temperatures have stalled in the last 10 years is irreverent. CO2 is the factor which drove the most change since 1750. You literally have no argument.

You are again debating your own misunderstanding rather than science.

>>6347916
>A graph with no confidence intervals or error bars.
>Reliable in any way
Pick one.

>>6348641
>>6347916
The graph is by James Hansen, he was head of NASA GISS. If you think his science is bad, you'd best tell NASA what is unscientific about it.

More importantly, you continue to quote the IPCC like they are gospel.

(paraphrasing) "IPCC says CO2 was the primary driver since 1750." Clearly the structure of CO2 didn't change at 1750. So what changed? Most scientists (pro or con AGW) agree that the big change happened at the industrial revolution; early 20th century.

But what is really disturbing is your complete lack of scientific evidence. You simply quote and state authoritatively. The result is dogmatic assertions devoid of substance.

>>6350036

Worse yet, you said in >>6346698
>nobody talks about CO2 being dominant in global temperature. They do talk about it being the dominant radiative forcing mechanism since 1750.

Yet in >>634861 you said:
>The fact temperatures have stalled in the last 10 years is irreverent. CO2 is the factor which drove the most change since 1750.

So by your own words CO2 is the factor that drove most temperature change. Yet earlier, you said, "nobody talks about CO2 being dominant in global temperature."

So which is it? CO2 is a big driver of global temperature or it is not; after all nobody talks about it anymore.

>>6350036
>The graph is by James Hansen...
Blatant appeal to authority. If you don't have error bars and confidence intervals you cannot compare observations to theory. The graph may have had other uses but it cannot be used for this.

>More importantly, you continue to quote the IPCC like they are gospel.
No, I said you were misrepresenting their claims. To prove that I need to quote what they actually claim. I never said they were correct.

> "IPCC says CO2 was the primary driver since 1750." Clearly the structure of CO2 didn't change at 1750. So what changed? Most scientists (pro or con AGW) agree that the big change happened at the industrial revolution; early 20th century.

Again you misunderstand the point and misquote me. What they stated was that CO2 was the dominant factor in radiatve! forgings since 1750. That means if we look at only the changes since 1750, the changes in CO2 will result in the largest change to the radiation balance of the atmosphere.

Now you're trying to claim that the stall in temperatures proves this false, which is nonsense. It says it is the dominant factor in changing the radiation balance, it does not say it is the only factor affecting temperature. Other factors are at play here, that is made clear in the report.

What's really disturbing is we haven't talked about evidence because I haven't had to. I said you misrepresented them, my evidence was the quotes. I later said your graph doesn't prove what you think it does, my evidence is logic.

We haven't discussed evidence. I'm not making claims to authority because I'm making no claims about science. I have no claims to back up, there is no scientific evidence relevant to my claims. Tell me what claims you think I have made that require evidence.

That's a cheap deflection. I find it funny you accuse me of appealing to authority with that opening line.

>>6350055
>So by your own words CO2 is the factor that drove most temperature change.
A mistake. I should have been more specific with "change". CO2 drove the largest change to the radiation balance, not temperature.

>>6350055
Oh I should also point out I said "nobody talks about CO2 being dominant in global temperature." because it's true. This is not contradictory to the claim "CO2 is dominant in temperature changes since X."

>>6350077
Yawn. Your refusal to provide any evidence to back up your assertions is indicative of the state of the "science" of AGW/Climate Change.

BTW, the Hansen graph illustrates that climate scientists did believe that CO2 drove temperature. Your mealy mouthed (paraphrasing) "CO2 drives something that happens to highly correlate with temperature except when it doesn't," Is disingenuous.

You, of course, are trying to have it both ways by stating things in an ill-defined manner. There's a reason it is called Anthropogenic Global WARMING. And there's a reason they changed the name to Climate Change. It had STOPPED WARMING.

Not providing evidence, trying to tie CO2 to temperature will simultaneously saying its not tied to temperature is the hallmark of a sloppy belief system.

In short, a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. I see no evidence that AGW/Climate Change is falsifiable.

>>6350147
> the Hansen graph illustrates that climate scientists did believe that CO2 drove temperature. Your mealy mouthed...
What's disingenuous is claiming that a graph like that shows CO2 isn't a driver. All you need is a second forcing mechanism in the opposite direction. The graph doesn't tell you shit, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

>Not providing evidence, trying to tie CO2 to temperature will simultaneously saying its not tied to temperature is the hallmark of a sloppy belief system.
I never made that claim. I quoted what the IPCC claimed, note I never claimed they were correct. What was important was their wording, not their conclusions. You were misrepresenting them.

>I see no evidence that AGW/Climate Change is falsifiable.
The model has confidence limits as you have seen. If it has confidence limits it has a statistical framework. If you can exclude it to 95% that would be sufficient as far as most scientific practice is concerned.

So you have avoided the point of actually demonstrating I made any claims that require evidence and asked me to prove ones I didn't. This is nothing but shameless deflection on your part.

>>6350182

Again, you refuse to provide any evidence... Instead, you refer to a "predictive" graph that has such a huge range in confidence intervals that it is consistent with both natural climate variability and AGW/CC. In short, it predicts nothing. Something highly indicative of unfalsifiability.

And now you're hiding behind the IPCC, claiming that your beliefs are not related. More appeals to authority without any willingness to back it up.

And finally, what does >claiming that a graph like that shows CO2 isn't a driver.
mean?

The claim is Hansen 1988 says that CO2 IS a big driver of temperature.

Don't believe a word I say, fine. READ THE PAPER!

Again, a theory whose confidence intervals are so large that they encompass natural climate variability and as well as significant anthropogenic temperature changes is otiose.

I consider this conversation finished because you hide behind the IPCC and refuse to provide evidence for your belief system.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." - Richard Feynman

>>6350182
This nigga is straight rekkin the denier. I'm impressed

>>6350203
>Again, you refuse to provide any evidence
Again, I have nothing to prove.

>In short, it predicts nothing. Something highly indicative of unfalsifiability.
No, it makes predictions. You see the graph rises, in time it will not be consistent with both. Secondly one graph is not the only measure of a model, that's pure fabrication.

>More appeals to authority without any willingness to back it up.
You're a liar or moron, I'm not sure which. I quoted the IPCC to show you misrepresented their claims. That is not an appeal to authority, learn what that means.

>claiming that a graph like that shows CO2 isn't a driver.
mean?
It means you claimed the stalling of the temperature proved CO2 wasn't dominant this is false. Hansen's paper is irrelevant.

I'm not hiding behind anything. You're misrepresenting what I said entirely. I have not made appeals to authority, you have. I have not made claims about the nature of climate change, you have. You're a total hypocrite.

.
.