/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6384308
notice how the temperature is higher around the cities.. Jacksonville, new Orleans Orlando. wonder who is causing that

50°C ??

Fuck, we really need to stop global warming.

>>6384313

that yellow is 60 degrees

its 60 in miami right now

which is below most of florida's sub-tropical zone and isnt supposed to be affected by cold temps

the averages for central florida is 80/60 for this time of year, so the entire state is 10 degrees below its normal average over this last week and most of the winter

it doesnt matter how much "hotter around the cities"

I genuinely can't tell if this thread is serious or a parody.

>science and math
>Not one day goes by without a weather v climate debate

How can people on this board call themselves scientists and still hold opinions that fly in the face of 99.9% of climatologist's research?

The reason this winter has been cold in North America (note, not anywhere else) is because the polar vortex destabilized, as a result of arctic warming.

>>6384322

>not anywhere else

england has had severe weather this entire past few months

>>6384317
maybe not to you, but to the people in the cities its pretty important. For example i am in one of the cities and it feels perfectly warm right now almost like spring. I know if i drove to the country side it would be cold as fuck

>>6384328
>mfw england thinks it counts

>>6384334

>my 1 area is fine so who cares :3

its normally 70 degrees this time each day as soon as the sun rises, yet its 55 and the high is only 69

>>6384337
>yet its 55

waaaaaaaaah

>>6384336

they get all the hurricanes and shit that come off of africa, usually go up around mexico/south east america and then circle down on them

but since its been so fucking cold over here, they've been curving out in the atlantic and back up to the UK

of coarse weatherfags actually tried to blame this on global warming as well, and then in the same sentance saying how it would take years to study and figure out why there was no hurricanes near america right after stating it was "DEFINETLY MUH WARMING"

>>6384340

thats not a slight cool breeze, its fucking 20 degrees difference

and its been happening every week.

the weather's 10 day forcast is just the monthly annual averages after the first 5 days, they've said 80/60 all winter long, meanwhile as the next day comes by whoops its fucking barely getting above 70

oh look tonight its a low of 50

>totally normal

all this cold weather is from those storms up north and the jet stream being lower than usual

>>6384344
>50 degrees is "cold weather"

Aw, were you chilly walking around in shorts and a t-shirt? My god you floridians are faggots.

>>6384345

>its 20 degrees colder everywhere in north america right now

>M-MUH WHY ARE U COMPLAINING
>lets keep strawmaning and avoiding the topic
>move the goal posts cause its warmer there than it is here so whats the big deal? :^)

>fags thinking global warming/climate change exists
>don't realize it's naturally occurring
>the earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years

>>6384352
>avoiding the topic

What topic? I'm just calling you a pansy.

>>6384337
I don't know if you are retarded or what? You completely miss the entire point.

>>6384356

If it's "naturally occurring" then it has to exist, retard. At least keep your anti-science positions straight.

>>6384356
>It happens in nature
>It can't possibly be accelerated by humans, despite knowing that increased greenhouse gasses in the air does trap more heat, and that human activity has greatly increased the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air
>A significant shift in climate won't cause major problems
>I know 99% of climatologists agree that human-caused climate change is happening, but I know better than them

>>6384308
>tfw when live in coral springs
>tfw spring break starts tomorrow
>tfw 80 degrees

Stay cold, Northfags

>>6384356
>>6384364

Fags dont know bout my complete apathy over climate change.

Let come that which is coming.

Trying to change global temperatures to pre industrial levels is completely retarded. Just be adaptive to whatever the hell is happening.

But you try to tax my carbon and I'm going to war with you.

>>6384698

Stay weak, knights of summer.

>>6384703
>Just be adaptive to whatever the hell is happening.
Tell that to the third-world countries who can't.

The only two countries which are experiencing below average temperatures are the US and china.

Heard it on the radio yesterday.

>>6384703
>But you try to tax my carbon and I'm going to war with you.

I'm super scared.

>>>/pol/

It's cold in the winter, that has nothing to do with global warming.

Ask Australia how much colder than average it is. 2013 has been their hottest year on record, and 2014 started with even more record setting heat.

>>6384709
>Tell that to the third-world countries who can't.
I'm telling it to third-world countries who have no choice.

LOL can't adapt are you a fucking creationist?

We are humans we adapt. If you can't adapt then you need to die.

Third world countries have no one to blame but themselves for being third worldly. Fucking corrupt dictators and warlords everywhere. I'm sure they are 1000% more afraid of getting shot or hacked to death than they are of global temperatures rising 2°.

>>6384714
>global temperatures rising 2°

Are you seriously retarded enough to think "global warming" just means everything will be 2 degrees warmer?

>>6384725
NO

You infer things that don't exist. Like a typical climate scientist.

Ok average global temperature rising by some some amount over several decades.

I remember hearing something like for every 1° rise near the equator it will rise 10° in the arctic and antarctic. This sounds like a really good deal to me. Fuck you in the face god damn ice sheets.

>average global temperature rising ..

see pic [emphasis mine]

>>6384750
>fuck coastal cities
>fuck people affected by drought

>>6384847
the final sentence on this says "it'll either get warmer or colder"

>>6384313
Notice how people settle in warmer areas.

>>6384864
correct

>>6384847
The end fucking says "This is either a brief cooling period, or every climatologist in the world is wrong."

>every climatologist in the world is wrong

Dollarium-activated CO2 is a highly suggestive substance.

>>6384925
Even those without careers dependent on climate change agree, and there's far more money in "carbon fuels are totally fine".

>>6384698
i can't believe there's another anon from coral springs that browses /sci/
i'm gonna enjoy that break, too

>>6384859
>drought
Climate models predict less of it not more with global warming.

The dutch, living under sea level for a thousand years... You think a modern city can't cope. All my lulz.

>>6384998
"Cope" as in "still exist"? Sure. "Cope" as in "not deal with massive property damage"? Not as much.

>southerners complaining about 50 F
>was -13 F outside this morning

>>6384998

I don't even like almonds.

>>6385036

Cold weather in the south feels colder because we actually have a fuck ton of humidity. I was in upstate New York for much of the winter and when it was minus 28 degrees it was tolerable. Down here in Florida where it is in the 30s and 40s it is horrible. The cold hurts like a mother fucker in ways that it doesn't up north.

>>6385106

California intentionally started mismanaging their reservoirs in order to jack up prices and get people to depopulate the state in preparation for Agenda 21.

>>6385192
>>6385179
>>6384308

I hate florida and california, please global warming flood them out.

>>6385179

floridafag here. i think you're just a pussy

>>6384321
What do you mean?

>>6385179
This is bullshit. I've lived for ages in places where the winter temperature will remain above zero and stay fucking wet all the time and places where it's -5->0 and then <-10 and trust me 5C and wet is a walk in the park compared to even 0C.

>>6385265
Not the guy you're responding to, but there is no "debate" among climatologists as to whether or not humans are causing climate change; they all have come to the conclusion that it's pretty much undeniable.

>>6384317
COOL STORY BRO.

GLAD ITS ONLY COLD IN THE AMERICAN EAST COAST.

MEANWHILE, THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WARM AND LACKING THE MOISTURE THAT YOU FAGGOTS GOT. EVEN THE AMERICAN WEST COAST IS HAVING A FUCKING DROUGHT.

RAGE/10

>>6385192
>Agenda 21
>the government can forcibly take your land to "help the poor"
Taking private land to build shitty railroads is one thing, this is ridiculous

>>6385364

Nonsense...

BTW, Once upon a time, the "consensus" said that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

>>6384950

You've got to be kidding. Show me the job listings for all these "carbon fuels are totally fine" jobs.

>>6385570
... this is a troll right?

>>6385591

Nope, show the data.

>>6385604
Well lets see; any job that involves the locating/selling/transport of fossil fuels for starters. Anything business that relies on cheap power generated by conventional coal powered power stations, mass farming with regards to animals (methane), the fast food/resturants/supermarkets that sell that product. But you are right, there is barely any jobs to be lost in these fields...

>>6385591

The funding for Climate Change Believers is enormous

>>6385608

We're talking about Climate Change/Global Warming RESEARCH. The vast amount of money goes to research which confirms a pre-determined outcome.

>>6385615
>>6384925

>>6385615
You realize Royal Dutch Shell made 467 billion dollars last year alone right? That dwarfs the entire US funding towards climate research the same way the US defense budget dwarfs the entire planets

>>6385628

You're missing the point. All the $$$ towards the supposed "consensus" is one-sided. Literally a 100 to 1 ratio. Thus agreement by science is bought and paid for by Government and Environmentalist interests.

Do you actually think that Royal Dutch Shell funnels lots of money to "deniers?" If so, please document it.

>>6385636
So there's a vast conspiracy where numerous scientists disregard their usual interest in impartially determining the results of an experiment?

>>6385640

Ah, the old "you're a conspiracy nut job so you're false" argument.

THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY
THERE IS NO HOAX

What there is, is people pursuing their mutual self-interest.

>>6385647
Ah, so when companies that have far more money have an interest in claiming that climate change is a hoax/there is no consensus, thats alright then?

>>6385647
It's in scientists' self-interest to conduct valid research. Yes, there has been a lot of flawed or falsified research done in the past for monetary reasons, but it's highly improbable that such a large and disparate group of people have managed to very publicly mislead the entire scientifically literate community. It is extremely unlikely that no one who understood what was going on and had evidence to the contrary would speak out against such a farce.

>>6385660
Hell, wouldnt russia or china fucking jump on the americans, if it was somehow a big conspiracy by the US/the west?

>>6385666
Exactly. Peer review doesn't catch every little hoax or fudged result, but anything that big would be swatted down as obvious nonsense.

>>6385660

In a word, NO.

You make it out like there is careful objective experiments to test AGW/Climate Change.

Can you name a single experiment, which correctly demonstrated a quantitative, causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and AGW/Climate Change?

I don't know of a single one. I know of computer models and after-the-fact "predictions." More importantly, there are enormous amounts of data to play statistical games with -- to get the answer that will preserve your funding.

>>6385662

Please give a specific citation where Royal Dutch Shell has claimed that Climate Change is a hoax.

>>6385674

The effects needs to be causal, and predicted (not after the fact) and substantive.

Substantive = clearly distinguishes from natural climate variability

>>6385674
>Can you name a single experiment, which correctly demonstrated a quantitative, causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and AGW/Climate Change?
that's an unreasonable, impossible hurdle to set for climate science research

it also betrays a deep gap in historical knowledge - there have been plenty of times when we've acted on plausible risk without a clear mechanistic explanation. smoking and its relationship with lung cancer is a good example.

>>6385683

You're back peddaling awfully fast. You've already gone from describing AGW/CC as a rigorous science to it being a risk hedge.

The cancer reference is classical ad hominem. There has been global warming for 400 years. A correlational assertion (like smoking and cancer) doesn't do it for AGW.

>>6385683

So you're admitting that there is no predictive, causal evidence for AGW/CC?

>>6385694
>humans have always gotten cancer, but smoking increases the likelihood
>the climate has always changed, but the production of green house gases through both natural (volcanic events) and human drives (use of coal) increase the speed of said change

your right, the smoking and cancer example doesnt work for climate change at all

>>6385694
i'm a different anon, anon. i'm not backpedaling, i'm entering.

>>6385702
there is no mechanistic experiment which can be performed

there is, however, decades of research which has produced so much inductive evidence for anthropogenic climate change that it is wholly unreasonable, to an insane degree, to denounce it

>>6385674

Here is an example of a quantitative, predictive relationship between Anthropogenic CO2 and AGW. It was made by James Hansen, former head of NASA GISS and considered to be one of the foremost Climate Changes scientists in the world.

Its from Hansen 1988.

See the predictions from his graph and note the red line depicting the actual temperature data -- showing that he failed.

>>6385636

>Thus agreement by science is bought and paid for by Government and Environmentalist interests.
The US government spends tens of billions of dollars annually on oil and gas subsidies.

>>6385694
>The cancer reference is classical ad hominem.
do you even know what ad hominem means?

i mean, i ask for politeness's sake, but it's very clear you don't actually know

>>6385712
>25 year old research from the beginnings of the entire field of research wasn't the ebst
>all research performed since then is faulty

>>6385711

This is simply not true. There is only failed predictions which are justified by after-the-fact explanations.

In fact, no plausible observation can contradict AGW/CC. Which means it is unfalsifiable. If that is not the case, please give me a plausible falsifiability criterion.

>>6385717
Fucking easy; that the increase of green house gases in our atmosphere does not correlate with temperature shifts

>>6385714

In a nut shell, "you're evil, therefore what you say is false."

Like your like evil tobacco companies, therefore what you say is false.

>>6385179
Yeah try living in michigan with the same humidity and still -30 degree weather.

>>6385726

By your falsifiability criterion, AGW/CC has now been falsified. See pic.

>>6385728
but your the one who brought them up in the first place? Also, fallacy fallacy= just because something is a fallacy, does not make it necessarily wrong

>>6385736
can we get a source?

>>6385744

Data sources are given on both y-axis.

>>6385734

I guess someone else brought up the cancer thing, it wasn't me.

>>6385748
From remss; "Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.


But....

The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict."
The source then goes into why these issues occurred, pointing out, again, that there is a change occuring

So you fucking cherry picked like a creationist

>>6385755

Exactly as I said, after-the-fact explanations of why the predictions failed. I falsified your criterion, so you moved the goal posts. (BTW, your creationist insult is pathetic.)

AGW/CC definition of Cherry Picking:

"Data not supporting our theory"

You have once again demonstrated that AGW/CC is unfalsifiable.

What is the plausible falsifiability criterion?

You have again

>>6385765

"You have again avoided a genuine answer."

>>6385755

35 years goes back to about 1978. That is roughly the bottom of a local minimum in the global temperature curve.

I suppose that is not Cherry Picking?

>>6385765
Didn't that show that there was human-caused climate change though? Just because the models incorrectly predicted how fast it would occur doesn't change the evidence that the effect exists.

>>6385778

Huh? The temperatures were statistically flat for 17 years. Seems like plenty of time, considering a significant rise in CO2.

But here's the important thing. Suppose that the global temperatures had corresponded to the predicted temperatures. That would have "proved" that AGW/CC is true.

But the global temperatures did not correspond to the predicted temperatures. So what happens, "The models are wrong!"

Its heads you win, tails I lose. If the predictions are correct the theory is proven, if the predictions are wrong, its because the models need more work. AGW/CC is still considered to be true.

This is the ESSENCE of an unfalsifiable belief system.

>>6385778
The link I pointed to showed that the only explanation for current temperature changes was human interaction, a fact this guy keeps ignoring

Maybe we should pump more co2 into the air in order to get more data. If it turns out it definitely causes temperature change we do something about it and if not then we rejoyce in our delicious new atmosphere.

>>6385789

Which link are you talking about?

>>6385792
I posted this >>6385755 from the source of >>6385736, pointing out the obvious cherry picking

>>6385808

I dealt with this here
>>6385765

Again, an after-the-fact explanation of why a prediction failed is meaningless. I have perfect predictive accuracy for what the stock market did yesterday.

And ironically, this explanation is itself an example of Cherry Picking, see here:
>>6385767

BTW, saying
>attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

proves nothing, as it is an after-the-fact statement (without explanation).

In summary, this is an excellent example of the unfalsifiability of AGW/CC.

>>6384714
>Third world countries have no one to blame but themselves for being third worldly.

>>6385270
I know that when at certain times when it snows heavily here in upstate New York, it literally feels 10 degrees Celsius colder.

>>6385179

Bullshit, I went to south FL this winter break, I went out with a shirt and shorts to walk my dog at 5am

>>6384308
So once again some idiot in the internet confuses regional climate with a global phenomenon..

I for one am thankful for the polar vortex destabilizing.
It's been a surprisingly warm winter here in South Korea

>>6384308
>people still think global warming is a thing
Oh I'm sorry isn't it called climate change now? Talk about the biggest tax scheme ever

>isn't it called climate change now?

>>6385785
>Its heads you win, tails I lose. If the predictions are correct the theory is proven, if the predictions are wrong, its because the models need more work. AGW/CC is still considered to be true.
That's because you're making a very specific claim (that human-caused climate change isn't happening at all).

The idea that somehow ALL the research has been fudged to support global warming requires a complete absence of resistance to the idea, which is absurd when there are huge lobbies and entire nations who would much rather see evidence to the contrary.

>>6385557
That consensus was not based on scientific observations.

>>6386261
>human-caused climate change isn't happening at all

it is happening, see pic for details

>>6384308
Your chilly day doesn't matter as nearly everywhere else on the globe is overly warm.

>>6385557
> BTW, Once upon a time, the "consensus" said that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

I assume that in the interest of consistency you're willing to apply that sort of reasoning to other issues. Like, for example, the germ theory of disease? After all, that is the current consensus among scientists. So by your reasoning, we should discard the idea that some diseases are caused by microbes because that is the consensus, and at one point in the past the consensus said that the sun revolved around the earth.

>>6385628

wat? RDS-B Market cap is 245B P/E of ~15. Calc: They made ~16B.

>>6386261

Name the specific publication and demonstrate their financial connections to the "huge lobbies" that insist that AGW/CC is false/hoax etc.

This is a strawman argument. The spending for the warmist agenda against the skeptic agenda is literally 100 to 1.

Funny how when specific claims fail, they are dismissable. Inevitably they are too specific, too vague, too old etc. They are never just plan wrong. If the claims had worked it would be "global warming/climate change is proven!" Everything you say fits into the "heads you win, tails I lose scenario." Prove me wrong by providing a plausible falsifiability scenario.

>>6386261

And stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that all the research was fudged. I said it was unfalsifiable.

>>6386335

I am saying that an appeal to popularity, that is, the "consensus" is not a scientific argument. Nor are any forms of authoritarian referencing.

The only scientific arguments are rigorous testing with Mother Nature being the evaluator. Mother nature is the final arbitrator of scientific truth.

BTW, the consensus it self is an artificial construct.

The Cook "consensus" study looked at about 12,000 publication abstracts. Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong. None of the categories endorsed “catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material.

>>6386632
>BTW, the consensus it self is an artificial construct.
Why are people so fucking anal when they argue against global warming?

Every other scientific find is accepted when the vast, vast majority of scientists agree with the finding. Why is this fucking different?

And don't even fucking get me started on people who say "it's cold, lol@global warming" when in reality it we HAVE been having hotter summers and cooler winters, also known as climate change.

>>6386637

You're dodging the point. The belief system is unfalsifiable. Please give me a plausible falsifiability criterion. What you're just doing is an appeal to popularity.

>>6386640
>What you're just doing is an appeal to popularity.

Not that anon, but what the fuck do you want him to do? None of us are doing climate research. All we can do is look at what existing research says, like we would about literally any other subject.

>>6386632
>>I am saying that an appeal to popularity, that is, the "consensus" is not a scientific argument. Nor are any forms of authoritarian referencing.
appeals to authority are valid inductive arguments if you are citing a specific statement from a recognized authority in the field, which is describing a position the field generally recognizes as true

>>6386620
The lack of reports that contradict human-caused climate change cannot be explained by lobbying alone. It's virtually non-existent even among those with no financial stake in the matter.

>virtually non-existent

for those who do not want to know

>>6386707
A lack of climate change is more easily accepted by people, because it's what they want to hear.

>scientists make accurate measurements of energy entering the Earth's system
>scientists make accurate measurements of energy leaving the Earth's system
>hey, there's a heat gap here
>well, the last decade we didn't see a heat rise in our surface temperature measurements
>it could be somewhere else that we're not measuring
>or maybe all of our estimates are wrong!
yeah it's definitely the last one

>>6386683

Huh? What is this:
>>6385557

Or this:
>>6385736

Oh, that's right, no observation or evidence could Falsify AGW/CC. Nevermind that it's been warming for 400 years. Never mind those failed predictions.

Provide a plausible FALSIFIABILITY criterion or admit that your belief system is a pseudo-science.

>>6386721

This is calculated from a relatively small set of ocean thermometers. Where are your error bars? Hint, the error bars in temp readings are much larger than the hundredths of a degree changes in temps. And how can you generalize to the vast volume of the ocean. Hint: You can't.

And as long as you're going, please provide a scientific explanation of how the atmospheric CO2 created that heat increase which went into the surface waters of the ocean and then into the deep ocean without spiking the atmospheric temperatures or the ocean surface temperature.

>>6387293
It's a known fact that CO2 and methane trap heat. It's known that human activity has released a significant amount of these gasses into the atmosphere.

Global temperatures have risen drastically since the industrial revolution, when these gasses first started being produced in significant amounts by humans.

Temperatures have held relatively steady for around 10 years, but that's too small of a sample size to say that the overall trend isn't very strongly in favor of warming.

>>6386682

That assumes a labeled authority is an accurate authority. For science, accuracy is judged by Mother Nature. Thus, the assumption of accurate authority is sometimes not true. In the case of science, an excellent and applicable example is Lysenkoism. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>6387305

Methane is short lived, leaving CO2.

And for CO2, its not as simple as you put it. You've said the equivalent of "gravity pulls things down, so nothing can go up."

Let me put it this way. For the time being, assume no positive or negative feedbacks....

Now draw a graph (in your mind or on a piece of paper). Let the x-axis be the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Let the y-axis be the change in temperature.

What is the shape of the graph?

>>6387305

If the advent of the industrial revolution doesn't correspond to a big jump in global temperature would that falsify your belief in AGW/CC?

>>6387313
It's a pretty fucking strong correlation if you look at ocean temperatures instead of atmospheric ones.

>>6387313

>>6387293
Lets measure deep sea temperatures and then take those into account.

If they don't account for the lull in surface warming, then you're right.

>>6387305

Why is 10 years; actually 17 years too small a sample size? It was plenty large when the predictions are made.

If the prediction had held true, it would be significant "proof." But it didn't so it is just "cherry picking."

Nothing can falsify AGW/CC. And see the graph to the left why no temp increase from about 1940 to 1980, (big industrial increase) despite a huge increase in CO2. Does this falsify your belief in AGW/CC, even though you implied it would? Of course not, because nothing could.

>>6387330

Its more complicated than that.

The answer is the shape of the graphed line is logarithmic. See attached article ref (best I could find, basic observation goes back to 1890 or something).

The point is, absorption of EM/light is quantitized (quantum mechanics in action). Once those wave frequencies are absorbed, CO2 can do nothing more.

In reality, what goes on is diminishing returns. So as CO2 concentration goes up, there is less increase in temperature. That means that CO2 has to be DOUBLED to get a mere 1.2 degrees C increase in global temperature.

Now AGW/Climate Change asserts that there is positive feedback leading to significantly more temperature increase. Skeptics say no feedback or negative feedback.

The fundamental hallmark of Positive feedback is increased water vapor which will manifest itself as a "hot spot" in the troposphere over the equator.

That hot spot was never found and that is when I stopped believing in AGW.

YES, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it is a very WEAK greenhouse gas. There appears to be negative feedback leading to a mere 0.5 degrees C increase when CO2 concentration is doubled.

>>6387356

CO2 Increase happens 800 years AFTER temperature increase.

South Carolina here.

So far we have had THREE instances of 80+ degree weather in the past month.

>>6387344

See here:
>>6387301

>>6387375
>In reality, what goes on is diminishing returns. So as CO2 concentration goes up, there is less increase in temperature. That means that CO2 has to be DOUBLED to get a mere 1.2 degrees C increase in global temperature.
And we're getting that, because the rate at which emissions are increasing is exponential.

Water vapor isn't the only feedback loop - the lack of reflective ice results in more heat absorbed by the oceans.

>>6387377
Because the initial CO2 release was triggered by warming of the oceans. This started a feedback loop which caused temperatures to rise much more.

>>6387377
Historically, and given no artificial forcing, and given the time range you have there (230k - 255k, roughly only 1/10th of history since 255k years ago) then you're correct.

This is because when temperature increases past a certain point, the number of CO2 sinks decreases. And while your hypothesis doesn't account for the decrease in CO2 around 230Kya, the hypothesis is irrelevant (although the decrease in CO2 is likely due to the ocean) The CO2 increase isn't being forced by temperature now, rather, CO2 is being forced by humans. It's a fact that CO2 increases thermal forcing on earth -- and it's a fact that the amount of increase in CO2 is enough to significantly force the temperature of earth to rise, and it has.

see more here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

>>6387387
>Because the initial CO2 release was triggered by warming of the oceans. This started a feedback loop which caused temperatures to rise much more.

The original theory said that CO2 drove climate, but it was found that temps go up 800 years earlier. So for 800 years temps drive CO2 (by ocean warming) but then, as if by magic, CO2 suddenly takes over. This is pseudo-scientific nonsense. But if for some strange reason it were true there would be a non-linearity in the temperature. They looked for it, and it wasn't there.

Once again, CO2 drives temps, AGW/CC is true! Temps go up before CO2, AGW/CC is still true! Nothing can falsify this belief system.

BTW, emissions are NOT increasing exponentially. In order for that to be true, CO2 concentration would have to double at exactly the same time intervals... That's certainly is not happening.

>Water vapor isn't the only feedback loop - the lack of reflective ice results in more heat absorbed by the oceans.

Then why didn't the ocean surface temperatures accelerate? If they did that would prove the theory, right? But since they didn't it's irrelevant or "cherry picking."

>>6387396
>BTW, emissions are NOT increasing exponentially.

>The present growth rate is an exponential growth rate of about 2.2% per year

>>6387395

Oh boy, a copy pasta from the mis-named skeptical science boyz. To say these guys are disingenuous is to make a massive understatement.

And this is a pathetic "explanation." It simply states things as facts without providing evidence or simply using strawman arguments.

>It's a fact that CO2 increases thermal forcing on earth -

So, nobody said that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. See
>>6387375

And here:
>and it's a fact that the amount of increase in CO2 is enough to significantly force the temperature of earth to rise, and it has.

What an authoritarian statement! You dismiss that reverse causality of the past and just assume that your hypothesis is true!

PROVE IT!

Again, provide a plausible falsifiability criterion. It seems that almost no one can, which affirmst that AGW/CC is not a scientific belief system.

>>6387407

That's a straight line on a regular scale, not a logarithmic scale. So no, its not exponential, that's an increase at an approximately linear rate.

>>6387396
>Then why didn't the ocean surface temperatures accelerate? If they did that would prove the theory, right? But since they didn't it's irrelevant or "cherry picking."
Ocean surface temperatures have been rising steadily, but when you include deeper ocean temperatures it's clear that there's actually significant acceleration going on.

See: >>6386721

>>6387416

Well no, the deep ocean measurements are in the hundredths of a degree much less than their error bars, and even those "purported" changes have linear, not accelerated shape (on the graphs I've seen.)

More to the point, how it the heat moving from the atmosphere to the surface ocean to the deep ocean without spiking temperatures at the atmospheric or surface temperature levels? This violates basic thermodynamics.

>>6387375
>That hot spot was never found and that is when I stopped believing in AGW.
The "hot spot" described is a temperature increase greater in the troposphere than elsewhere, and this HAS been observed.

>>6386721

Nobody even talked about "deep ocean" warming until other temps appeared to stop. That right:

Prediction > atmospheric temps go up > prediction fails; changes to
Prediction > ocean surface temps accelerate > prediction fails; changes to
Prediction > deep ocean swallows heat > hundredths of degree changes are well inside error bars and too few thermometers and no explanation of how heat snuck from atmosphere to surface ocean to deep ocean.

In other words, an after-the-fact explanation that is unscientific.

>>6387426

Nonsense. Are you quoting the Skeptical Science Boyz?

The hot spot is an increasing temperature gradient as you go up into the atmosphere. Specifically, it shows a significant temperature gradient leading to a spot of relative heat in the upper troposphere. The basic effect is SPATIAL, not TEMPORAL. Though the effect is supposed to get stronger over time.

Now in all seriousness, I have watched this theory for a long time. And actually looked at the data from a Major NASA campus, showing the absence of the hot spot.

When warmists try to rewrite history by playing strawman arguments (its a temporal phenomena, not a spatial one!!!) its very upsetting.

This is an astonishing level of dishonesty.

Attached is the IPCC AR4 depiction of the theoretical "hot spot." That was the last time the IPCC talked about it because was too much of an embarrassment.

>>6387438
Here is the depiction

>>6385640
Cold fusion. Destroyed scientists lives. Because multi billion dollar projects where scared. Well documented proof that scientists are corrupt asshats. This is no conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact.

>>6387563
Fraudulent science, such as the cold fusion example, often does publication by press release in order to short circuit the review process that would reveal their science is bunk. Anyways, if there is so much money in being a pro-global warming climatologist, why are the anti-global warming groups so well funded by corporate interests? To a degree that outstrips the science funding climatologists get? The problem with conspiracy theories is that the conspirators have to benefit from their lie. In the case of global warming, it is the dissenters that are making bank, not the pushers.

>>6387438
Well fought anon. Has been a very interesting read.

>>6384308
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

>>6387301
>Hint, the error bars in temp readings are much larger than the hundredths of a degree changes in temps.
that's why climate science studies trends, not individual measurements

>>6387427
>In other words, an after-the-fact explanation that is unscientific.
It's not unscientific at all. No one single model can accurately describe the entire system of the Earth's climate. When any scientist builds a model, they start by using the most obvious terms which their current theoretical framework leads them to believe are likely to be relevant.

When a model fails, it doesn't mean the theoretical framework is faulty, it means the model is faulty. When scientists add more factors into their model, they're adding factors that are computationally challenging to model or which nobody realized might be relevant until then.

The core assumption behind ALL science is that an accurate mathematical model of a situation can be used to describe the physical reality of the system. When a model performs poorly, fixing it so that it performs well isn't unscientific, it's the bread and butter of science.

>>6384308
Wow, it really is this easy to troll /sci/.

>>6386015

South Florida is NOT indicative of the painful cold weather in most of the state. You have to be further north in the state to understand how much more it sucks than in northern states where it snows.

>>6385235

I realize you might be a NEET, but go outside during a Florida winter for once. It'll be 14 degrees with 80+% humidity and the wind will be blowing 60mph. It sucks

>>6384308
>Administrative penis
Hi Florida.

>>6384321
>99.9% of climatologist's research
>Implying modern science isn't overrun by faggots who do research that will allow them to stay employed

>>6384308
>tfw I live in Ft. Lauderdale
Sure is nice weather out here

>>6387665

I appreciate that!

I do this for a reason. As a trained scientist, was horrified in seeing what I believe is a perversion and politicization of the scientific method. (That's a personal opinion, I'm not throwing that out as a bone of contention.)

I saw the point when, in my opinion AGW/CC ceased to be a science, namely when it ignored that data that showed no "hot spot." Much has happened since then, but that was the beginning.

Since I think that the scientific method is one of the greatest creations of our civilization, it must be protected. Thus, when I see what I believe to be an attack on that method, I do my best to defend it.

>>6388238

I've seen the error bars on the actual graphs (computed measurements), they exceed the range of the entire trend.

>>6388245

But here is the fundamental problem:

Model makes correct prediction => AGW/CC is true!
Model makes wrong prediction => Model is wrong!, but AGW/CC is still a good theory.

This makes the theory unfalsifiable.

>>6387375
>climate science is wrong because a forty year old paper made bad predictions!
>biology is wrong because people used to think proteins were the heritable unit!
>chemistry is wrong because people used to believe in phlogistons!
i seriously doubt you're any kind of practicing scientist if your idea of rigorous criticism is cherry picking the mistakes from the start of the field
the ipcc stopped talking about the hot spot after data showed it didn't exist because that was the end of the story. the data showed it didn't exist

it's not the job of scientists to shuffle around apologizing for errors in interpretation, it's the job of scientists to find the best theories using the best evidence they can, and not to sabotage their theories with shoddy data once they know the data is shoddy

>>6389479
Theories aren't falsifiable in their own right. Theories are a conceptual framework that serve as means for constructing falsifiable predictions. Theories are abandoned when they prove wholly incapable of making predictions which aren't falsified. Climate science has not yet reached that point. It still makes good predictions in other realms and is, as best we know with the information we have, offers the only explanation that makes sense.

No theory is ever abandoned because of a handful of anomalies. It takes a long history of problematic predictions before a theory is judged to be unfit.

>>6387577

Could you give specific references to publications/propaganda of these anti-AGW groups as well as documentation of their funding sources?

Not sure what other people are saying, but here is what I am saying.

There is NO CONSPIRACY
There is NO HOAX

There are people working towards their mutual self-interest.

>>6389480

Nope, you can't be so cavalier about the science. The hot spot isn't a ho, hum consideration. It is the single, most fundamental prediction of AGW; based on the assumption of positive feedback (without which the relatively weak CO2 would be no big deal).

This positive feedback leading to the 'hot spot' is the product of the moist adiabatic lapse rate in the Hadley Cell. It is FUNDAMENTAL atmospheric physics, not something to be dismissed because you didn't get the right answer.

Rest assured, that if the hot spot had been observed, that finding would have been trumpeted from every hill top. Bit it wasn't, so its "merely irrelevant."

This again, is a spectacular example of the unfalsifiability of AGW/CC.

>>6389490

>Theories aren't falsifiable in their own right.

Of course they are. Falsifiability is one of the fundamental attributes of a theory in order for it to be scientific.

>Theories are abandoned when they prove wholly incapable of making predictions which aren't falsified.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a prediction - which is clearly distinguishable from natural climate variation which has proved correct for AGW. I saw a lot of "after the fact" explanations for predictions that didn't work.

>No theory is ever abandoned because of a handful of anomalies.

Anomalies? Huh? You mean like pretty much every substantive prediction not turning out right (substantive = before the fact, anthropogenic CO2 based, clearly differentiated from natural climate variability) is just an anomaly?

You've turned into an apologist for AGW - making it sound like politics or religion. What is the falsifiability criterion for AGW/CC? Why are you so scared of providing one??!!

>>6384321
Pro-tip. About 99.9% of shitposting on /sci/ is just assholes from /pol/, /v/, or /b/ trying to bait people

>>6389480

>not to sabotage their theories with shoddy data once they know the data is shoddy

Are you trying to rewrite the past - the incorrect prediction? You're saying its not that the prediction was wrong, its just that they data was wrong or "shoddy." The same data (atmospheric temp observations by balloon and satellite) that is used and considered highly accurate by essentially all climate scientists (both believers and skeptics).

Boy, if every time the experiment doesn't give the desired answer, you can just say "shoddy data," then any theory can be proven.

(BTW, you questioning my scientific ability/accomplishments is irrelevant to the discussion -- don't worry, I won't cry to my Mommy. But it demonstrates a desperate need to insult to avoid dealing with unpleasant facts.)

>>6385636
>You're missing the point. All the $$$ towards the supposed "consensus" is one-sided. Literally a 100 to 1 ratio.
The fact that there's very little funding going towards "alternate theories" decades after a consensus has already been reached on the matter isn't proof of a conspiracy

Just like the lack of funding for cold fusion research isn't proof of a cover-up by the energy conglomerates or the lack of funding of plasma cosmology is proof of a cover-up by mustache-twirling relativists.

>>6389526

More specifically, a SCIENTIFIC theory is falsifiable because it must make testable predictions. Otherwise it ain't science.

>>6384308
>50 degree day in florida
Wow. That was for like 1 day and then it went back to being normal 70s-80sF. This has been one of the warmest winters in recent memory for me, and I've lived here for over 20 years. You're full of shit and you're a fucking retard.