/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6398922

I think you are an asshole.

>>6398922
you mean snow melts???

If global warming si real why can I still get ice in my drinks? Checkmate Al gorists

>>6399117
>still get ice in my drinks
wait until you can't get it out of your drinks

When did climate ever _not_ change? Just look outside. Some day it's raining, the other day the sun is shining.

>>6399239
I know right if climate change is a real thing we should have canceled summer to try and keep temperatures low

>>6398922

All the predictions failed.

But, muh, the climate is always changing!

>>6398922

I deny it. Of course you deny natural climate change. Something that has happened since there was climate.

>>6400467
herp

>>6400515

Wow! Cherry picked to 1975, the bottom of a local minimum. The problem is the temperatures values given in
>>6400467
Were PREDICTED, hence by definition, they are relevant, not cherry picked...

You've pointed out the opposite, an after-the-fact data fitting.

But since you're worried about context, the whole AGW thing is a spectacular example of Cherry Picking; see pic.

>>6400605
>Were PREDICTED, hence by definition, they are relevant, not cherry picked...

That's not true at all. In aggregate, the predictions of the IPCC were lower than the observed temperature increase, not higher.

>>6400616

Nonsense. Give me a before-the-fact IPCC graph of predictions, e.g., IPCC AR4. IPCC AR5 doesn't count, as it was after-the-fact.

>>6400605
That pic mentions:
>Whenever solar radiation has decreased and volcanic activity has increased, global temperatures suddenly plummet.

Solar radiation has been decreasing for close to 40 years, and the drop in volcanic activity since the '70s doesn't account for even 1/5 the increase in temperature we've had in that time.

>>6400625
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

>>6400627

Could you provide some graphics/data on the 40 year solar activity decrease? I know it's decreased lately, around the time of global temps flat-lining.

And how do you know that the drop in Volcanic activity doesn't account for the temp increase? Data please.

More importantly, you're missing the entire point. There are natural, long term effects. Its been warming since the little ice age. 400 years ago. And the medieval warm period was warmer than it is now. AND those have to be natural.

Yet for some reason you believe that what is happening now, which is completely within the range of natural variability is somehow magically different.

>>6400637
On volcanic temperature decrease:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

On solar radiation decrease:
http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html

>Yet for some reason you believe that what is happening now, which is completely within the range of natural variability is somehow magically different.
Temperature fluctuations don't happen for no reason. Reasons other than humans putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere don't account for the increase.

>>6400634
Great cherry picking by the pseudo-Skeptical Science Boyz. Its been warming for 400 years, so a graph showing that its warmed means nothing, see:
>>6400605

What is most important is the AGW/CC models which predicted significant warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 is given here
>>6400467
and they failed spectacularly.

Now all that is left is after-the-fact explanations; to hide an unfalsifiable belief system.

Remember, since its been warming for 400 years and most of that time was pre-industrial revolution, you have to prove that the warming is mostly anthropogenic.

>>6400650
>Now all that is left is after-the-fact explanations; to hide an unfalsifiable belief system.

They looked at the data, made a hypothesis, and the hypothesis was wrong. The hypothesis disproved was the math; the notion of anthropogenic climate change has yet to be disproven, and so far explanations for the temperature increase that insist it isn't caused by human activity are contradicted by data.

>>6400647
Sunspots have not been decreasing for 40 years. They are cyclical, see attached.

>Temperature fluctuations don't happen for no reason. Reasons other than humans putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere don't account for the increase.

I didn't say that they temperature fluctuations don't change without a reason. LET ME REPEAT, its been warming for 400 years most of that pre-industrial age; meaning natural.

PROVE that the warming now, which is within the range of normality (its less warm than the medieval warming period) is mostly anthropogenic. You can't just ignore the history of natural climate variability and shout "anthropogenic!" PROVE IT.

You are proposing the alternative hypothesis, so the burden of proof is one you.

>>6400669
>You are proposing the alternative hypothesis, so the burden of proof is one you.

Alternative to what? The explanation that it is "natural" is based on less evidence than an anthropogenic one, and all hypotheses for alternative causes are contradicted by observations.

>>6400664
So let me get this straight:

Predictions prove correct: Climate Change is TRUE!
Predictions prove wrong: Models are wrong, Climate Change is still TRUE!

Truly and unfalsifiable believe system. What is a plausible falsifiability criterion?

How convenient to be unfalsifiable. And now in all seriousness, you've got to stop this strawman argument that says that things must be anthropogenc. The present global temp is well within natural variability, see:
>>6400605
You need a much more rigorous proof that things are mostly anthropogenic.

>>6400679

You're really getting tiresome; just making dogmatic assertions without any evidence.
Do I have to say this a THIRD time? Clearly I do.

Look at
>>6400515
Temps are within natural variability.

Simply dogmatically saying things are Anthropogenic! doesn't make it true.

Provide the evidence. Put up or shut up.

>>6400669
'm not that guy but you're constructing a very false argument.

If he claims it is anthropogenic he should prove it. If you claim it is due to natural forcings you too must prove it. Both are positive claims and require evidence.

Just suggesting mechanisms doesn't prove your case the same way suggesting the greenhouse effect doesn't prove his.

>its been warming for 400 years most of that pre-industrial age; meaning natural.

>People have been dying for 400 years meaning this mans death is natural officer.

Arguments like this don't prove your case. Warming is not a monolithic concept.

>>6400669
PROVE that the warming now, which is within the range of normality (its less warm than the medieval warming period) is mostly anthropogenic.

The medieval warming period was during a time of increased solar radiation, and there is substantial evidence that the global temperature may actually have been lower than it was today.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

The warming today doesn't have an observed non-human cause.

>>6400682
>So let me get this straight:

>Predictions prove correct: Climate Change is TRUE!
>Predictions prove wrong: Models are wrong, Climate Change is still TRUE!

>Truly and unfalsifiable believe system. What is a plausible falsifiability criterion?

No. It's:

>IPCC Predictions prove incorrect: natural climate change must be TRUE!
>IPCC Predictions prove correct: Models have been wrong before, natural climate change is still TRUE!

>>6400692
"It's been this hot before" is not a valid argument for a non-human cause of warming when the mechanisms for previous natural warmings aren't present.

>>6400690
>Temps are within natural variability.
Don't repeat this like it means anything.

You don't get to insert your own positive claim because the believe the counter is not proven, that's just shitty logic. Just because you haven't rejected the null hypothesis does not mean you can accept it either.

If you have a positive claim, you need to prove it equally.

>>6400692

In a word, no, the null case is assumed to be correct. But I see your point.

For the record, I don't believe it is ALL due to natural forcings, but most of it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its a weak greenhouse gas.

What the graph here shows:
>>6400515
is that everything is within normal range. So why should I assume that normal temperatures have abnormal causes? Its the same reason that when most people hear hoof-beats, they think horses, not zebras.

My full-fledged argument is essentially this:
1. Things are easily within natural variability
2. There is no good evidence (successful, before-the-fact predictions) that CO2 is doing something dangerous (it does have a relatively small effect).
3. Most importantly, nothing can falsify AGW/Climate Change theory so it is a strawman argument; a pseudo-science.

>>6400712
>My full-fledged argument is essentially this:
>1. Things are easily within natural variability
>2. There is no good evidence (successful, before-the-fact predictions) that CO2 is doing something dangerous (it does have a relatively small effect).
>3. Most importantly, nothing can falsify AGW/Climate Change theory so it is a strawman argument; a pseudo-science.

Many theories can't be falsified, but they're accepted because a better alternative doesn't exist. If a natural explanation for the current warming was found that data, that would be generally accepted over AGW.

>>6400717
*that fit the data

>>6400705
I
>Temps are within natural variability.
>Don't repeat this like it means anything.

I'll repeat it, until you stop ignoring it. Ignoring it doesn't render it false. Prove that what has the appearance of perfectly normal global temperature is somehow not natural.

Honestly, you're at the point of just inverting arguments while ignoring that they can't be simply inverted. The graph demonstrates that things are within the range of natural temps. It doesn't demonstrate the opposite.

Your failure to provide evidence for anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a spectacular demonstration of the unfalsifiability of this belief system.

>>6400717
Not scientific theories. By definition, a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

>>6400718
>Prove that what has the appearance of perfectly normal global temperature is somehow not natural.
It doesn't have the appearance of a perfectly normal global temperature, because (while it is within a previously recorded range), it does not match observations current non-human influences.

Seeing a bird float in midair without flapping it's wings can't be written off as normal just because birds can normally stay in midair.

>>6400727
>it does not match observations current non-human influences.

Can you give me some specific examples with primary references?

>>6400731
I already linked to articles explaining how the causes of previous warmings (an increase solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity) don't match up to what we're seeing now.

>>6398922
>Anyone a big enough asshole to deny climate change?

There's no point in denying that the climate changes, that's readily observable. It has been changing far longer than we have been here and will be changing long after we are gone. Our instrumental climatological records are far too brief to draw any conclusions about long-term climatic shift on - at best we have temperature records going back a couple of centuries, in most cases only a few decades, and those that we do have are often spotty and prone to very local disruptions such as a city growing where it was once farmland. I would hesitate to draw any dramatic conclusions on anything less than 1000 years of instrumental data, the Earth moves on a much, much greater timescale than humanity, after all, and even 1000 years is but an instant to it, seeing as the rise and fall of mountains and the movement of continents across the globe takes millions of years.

>>6400734
Unfortunately, decisions have to be made in a smaller timeframe than that, because what's insignificant to the planet can still be very significant for us.

>"Anyone a big enough asshole to deny climate change?"
Yes, OP, I am that asshole. I deny climate change! I refuse to let it happen! Not on my watch.

You got any other stupid questions, moron?

>>6400712
>In a word, no, the null case is assumed to be correct.
No, that's complete shit. It's quite clear you don't understand statistics.

>So why should I assume that normal temperatures have abnormal causes?
Nobody is asking you to assume that, people are asking you to prove otherwise because you make that claim.

If you claim to know the mechanism, fucking prove it.

>>6400718
I didn't ignore it, you ignored the reason I gave explaining that it is bullshit.

I'm not claiming to know anything, you are. Where is your evidence?

>>6400736
What articles? The medieval warming period has substantial evidence of size and scope; despite a concerted effort to diminish its importance.

And this:
>The warming today doesn't have an observed non-human cause.

If the scientist had a full understanding of climate their models wouldn't have failed.
But they did.
>>6400467

This is the fundamental problem with your argument; it is based on the trueness of the models; yet it is self-contradictory. "The models are true, therefore warming is unnatural"

But the models failed
>>6400467
but the theory is true, even though the models are wrong.

And thus do you have an unflasifiable "science." Its all based on models, yet its still held to be true even though the models don't work.

Come to think of it, I'll give you a spectacular example of why the models are wrong.

They don't include the northern Pacific multi-decadal oscillation or the northern Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation. See attached for the lack of variance in the modeling caused by this failure.

Even worse, the models are only back-tested to 1975. They CANT explain natural climate change before them. That's why they failed to predict the stop in warming. And they don't explain the medieval warming period of the little ice age.

I'll put the medieval warming period info in another post.

SCIENTISTS ARE FUCKING STUPID, BITCH-ASS NIGGA

>>6400769

Here's the medieval warming period. A global phenomenon

>>6400769
>>6400467
That graph you're pointing at is complete nonsense. Firstly the source data is intentionally picked, it shows no warming trend at all. Completely in conflict with hundreds of other measurements, and yet he has only used 2 averaged datasets? No ground based measurements at all. Big red flag.
Secondly there is no confidence limits on those models, that's pure nonsense.

The graph is bullshit, nothing less.

>>6400769
Those models failed. That does not mean that AGW is false.

The theory that the causes are the same as previous warming periods has been discredited as well.

Many models of AGW have not failed; while all models of NGW have.

>>6400794

>The theory that the causes are the same as previous warming periods has been discredited as well.

How authoritarian. Provide the evidence using primary references.

>>6400804
>How authoritarian
how faggotarian

>>6400793

>Firstly the source data is intentionally picked, it shows no warming trend at all.

That Is Because There Was No Warming Trend. There's been a more than a decade (about 17 years) lack of warming. Don't believe me? Google it.

BTW, the "2 averaged data sets" are based on thousands of measurements.

If you want confidence intervals, I'll provide those ones from the UN IPCC AR4. Note that the temps are below predictions.

They only fit the "predictions" when the predictions are equal to no statistical warming, that is indistinguishable from natural climate variability.

Now its your term. Show me a predictive (not-after-the-fact IPCC AR5) temperature model of climate change that proved correct. Include confidence intervals.

>>6400804
See: >>6400695

>>6400809

Wow! Unable to provide a scientific argument so resorts to 10 year old behavior.

>>6400814

Wrong, nothing but the models are true! They can't explain temperature observations, therefore climate is unnatural.

Your argument is of the exact same form as "the geocentric model of the solar system can't explain the observed motion of the planets unless you add epi-cycles. Therefore epi-cycles must exist."

The whole models prove truth even though models fail is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

I described the specifics here:
>>6400769

>>6400811
>There's been a more than a decade (about 17 years) lack of warming. Don't believe me?
I'm referring to the graph going back to 1980, I'm not good at maths but I think that might be more than 17 years. There is a warming trend over that period, google it.

>the "2 averaged data sets" are based on thousands of measurements.
So? And ignores thousands of other measurements by using just 2 averaged datasets over hundreds of others. Picking out very specific measurements is questionable.

>Note that the temps are below predictions.
No. Note that there is no error bar on the added temperature measurements. Note if we added errors equal to previous years we would find they lie in the credible region.

>that is indistinguishable from natural climate variability.
False. This is again a fallacy. Flat does not mean natural.

>Show me a predictive (not-after-the-fact IPCC AR5) temperature model of climate change that proved correct.
No. I haven't made a single claim as to the nature of climate change, you on the other hand have. Stop trying to worm out of justifying your claims.

>>6400793
Whoops, though you were talking about a different graph. This graph was detrended to illustrate the inherent variability.

But yes, those data sets are based on 100s of observations if not thousands.

BTW, I love the incredible double standards you warmists have. I almost never see error bars or confidence intervals on any of your graphs, yet "muh PROOF!"

>>6400811
>That Is Because There Was No Warming Trend. There's been a more than a decade (about 17 years) lack of warming. Don't believe me? Google it.
I did, and that's fucking wrong. Significant warming has occurred in the oceans during the last 17 years, and while atmospheric temperatures raised more slowly they were still undeniably increasing.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/full

>>6400821
That's just nonsense. It's nothing like epicycles because there are only two possibilities, natural and unnatural. If you claim to know it is either, you need to prove it.

>>6400826
see
>>6400827

I was looking at the wrong graph.

The fact that the graph doesn't include all data sets strikes me as way too much protesting. The bottom line is the "models which prove agw" failed, and don't explain pre-1975. Yet they prove CLIMATE CHANGE.

Your models have assumed reality whereas the real world is being ignored.

>>6400821
And the same applies to you. You are making a positive claim (natural causes are responsible for heating the planet), but none of your explanations work.

The difference is that AGW still has models that haven't been debunked. NGW does not.

>>6400833

Pathetic non-answer. Its exactly the same.

You assume a flawed model is truth and then use that model to prove that temperatures are unnatural.

WHAT is the falsifiability criterion for AGW/Climate Change?

There ain't one because its a pseudo-science

>>6400827
>those data sets are based on 100s of observations if not thousands.
And they ignore many more still. The number of measurements isn't the problem. The problem is that he plotted dozens of models but few datasets which are in serious disagreement with other observations. Yet he ignores this.

> I almost never see error bars or confidence intervals on any of your graphs
Funny I haven't posted any. Again you deflect.

Your graph is bullshit.

>>6400837
>The fact that the graph doesn't include all data sets strikes me as way too much protesting.
>The bottom line is the "models which prove agw" failed.

Your posting failed models of AGW and ignoring the (so far) successful ones. "These models were wrong!" doesn't say anything.

>>6400840
What the heck? Again, the silly inverse argument trickery as if everything was its inverse.

>>none of your explanations work.

Its called mother nature. I don't have to give more explanation because everything is within the range of normal climate variation -- unless you have failed models that "prove unnatural climate change" even though the models don't work.

Seriously, provide a falsifiability criterion for AGW/Climate Change or admit its a pseudo-science.

>>6400846

What successful (before-the-fact) models??? Show me one that clearly distinguishes from natural climate variability. And give confidence intervals and such...

And provide a falsifiability criterion for AGW/Climate Change. It sure looks unfalsifiabile to me.

>>6400842
...No, it's not. And he explained exactly why.

You assume a flawed model is truth and then use that model to prove that temperatures are natural.

WHAT is the falsifiability criterion for NGW/Natural Climate Change?

You're arguing that something exists, just like we are. Just like with NGW, failed models exist.

>>6400837
>The fact that the graph doesn't include all data sets strikes me as way too much protesting.

Listen closely. The datasets he plotted show zero warming since 1980. Many other datasets show warming since that time. He has ignored these. The data is cherry picked. The graph is shit.

>>6400842
>WHAT is the falsifiability criterion for AGW/Climate Change?

What is the falsifiability criterion for natural warming?

We've been down this road before, you'll deflect endlessly but the truth of the matter is you cannot admit the symmetry of the situation and your complete and utter hypocrisy.

>>6400853
WTF??? I NEVER provided a model. You really are obsessed with your "invert his argument" silliness.

No he didn't. You started with a flawed model and it lead to flawed conclusions. Just like geo-centric solar system.

Natural climate is the norm, not the alternative hypothesis. Its like you asking me to falsify a "sun goes up in the east argument."

But I will answer the question after you answer it. I asked first.

>>6400851
Show us a model which explains current and past trends with only natural forcings?

>>6400857
Again, I was looking at the wrong graph.

And you're not going to answer the falsifiability question? We're going down this road because you refuse to answer it, showing that AGW is a pseudo-science.

>>6400849
Your argument is not the default position. You are arguing for a cause, just as we are. But you don't have a working model (even an after-the-fact one) that fits the data. "It's within the natural range" doesn't mean anything, especially when the temperature-influencing conditions during previous warmings don't line up with the conditions we have now.

You insist that nature is causing the current warming but can't prove it.

>>6400849
>I don't have to give more explanation because everything is within the range of normal climate variation


Oh this is just perfect. What were you saying about an unfalsifiable hypothesis?

You have literally admitted that you can prove nothing but you will never give up on your beliefs. You're a total hypocrite.

>>6400864
I haven't made any claims, I have nothing to answer but you've already given me your answer.

>I don't have to give more explanation because everything is within the range of normal climate variation

NCV is unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

>>6400849
>Its called mother nature
So your explanation is just belief and some naturalistic appeal. It is mindless, confirmatory garbage to simply cherry pick data and ignore climate change and substitute an absurd, absolutely pointless reasoning in its place. You have to have a proper, hypothetically sound replacement, and you've provided "mother nature just do what it do and I don't ask no questions."

>"I don't have to prove my statements! You have to prove me wrong! The burden of proof is inconvenient!"

>>6400861
Mother nature is my model:
>>6400515
she showed that the present temperatures are well within normal variability

>>6400858
>Natural climate is the norm, not the alternative hypothesis.
No, it's not. It's an alternative hypothesis to anthopogenic climate change, but it's still a positive claim.

>>6400873
If you think Mother Nature isn't a demonstrator of scientific truth, then we really have nothing to talk about. Nature is the dictator of scientific truth, not a computer model.

>>6400874
That's not a model. Normal variability means nothing. It does not show the current trend is natural.

>>6400875
OK, you're telling me that natural climate is not the normative explanation. At this point, you're leaving the scientific method. What is the normative explanation, a computer program?

>>6400874
But not within normal conditions for the given temperature.

"It's been this hot before" is not an argument. "It could be caused by nature" needs to be supported with a mechanism that hasn't been contradicted.

>>6400876
And nature has demonstrated that this warming is not caused by the same conditions as previous warmings.

>>6400880
You don't understand statistics or logic. There is no default positive claim. If you're data does not justify rejecting the null hypothesis you do not accept the null nor any other model.

If the data could not prove the events were unnatural that does not mean the data supports that they are natural.

It's you who doesn't understand science.

>>6400877
OK, you're getting tiresome, almost like a parrot, "I'm not, you are!!" Which part of the present temps weren't within the range of past temps?

OH, and I'm still waiting on that falsifiability criterion. I'm not going to get it , am I. Because AGW/CC is not a scientific theory.

>>6400888
That's a funny thing to say, considering I used to teach college statistics. Either you reject the null hypothesis, or you fail to reject the null hypothesis. Look it up in a beginning stats book.

>It's you who doesn't understand science.

OK, I'll go cry to my mommy. What's your falsifiability criterion?

At what point, when the global temperature reaches that level, should I sell it?

>>6400876
You're basically arguing that mathematics and statistics cannot be used to describe reality and create practical solutions to real problems.

Your pathetic, narrow observations pale in comparison to what intelligent people who consider accuracy important can do with computer models.

This is tantamount to treating computer aided surgery as blasphemy and witchcraft because only human hands should ever be used to do surgery.

As if your observations are even in line with what is occurring... why am I even bothering with you, when you use these naturalistic fallacies? You are making a claim just as much as anyone else; your claim is not the default or the norm.

>>6399116
obviously PS, snow melting? come one that's just too much. snow doesn't melt in minecraft so how could it in real life

>>6400886
Provide references to direct real-world data. Not after-the-fact "explanations" and models that fail when they actually have to predict something.

>>6400898
Boy you're teetering on the ugly edge of ad hominem. Arguing that not trusting failed computer models is kind of like clinging to witchcraft?

Whatever.

I'm still waiting for that falsifiability criterion

So..is it true that the climate change debate only exists in the US, and mostly in the southern part?

I don't have that much knowledge about climate change but it makes sense that humanity's effect on planet earth is certainly unprecedented.

>>6400895
Oh you do know something after all. So now you can appreciate that failing to reject the null does not mean you accept it. Failing to reject natural climate variations does not mean you accept it.

>>6400892
You accuse me of being a parrot whilst deflecting all criticisms and repeating your favorite talking points. I think we've reached the end of you're cassette and I don't think there's a B side.

You've freely admitted your own conclusion could fit any data and are not falsifiable. Yet you protest that this is science but that AGW must have some condition. You're a hypocrite.

>>6400918

I'm still waiting for that falsifiability criterion

>>6400908
>I'm still waiting for that falsifiability criterion
Found it:

>I don't have to give more explanation because everything is within the range of normal climate variation

>>6400920
Night, night Polly. Don't let Al Gore bite.

>>6400922

Well I'll give you credit for being funny.

But where's your falsifiability criterion?

>>6400935
Where's yours? Oh right, naturalistic fallacy. You are making a normative claim. Much like an appeal to authority, you will reinforce by ad hoc reasoning your claim ad infinitum.

Which is why you believe you are correct. A fundamental inability to confront holes in your statements.

>>6400943

OK, I'll go cry to my Mommy about all the mean things you say to me -- as soon as you give my your falsifiability criterion.

>>6400949
>ad infinitum
Where is your evidence?

>>6398922

I still works.