/sci/ - Science & Math

Look, I can find a graph too!

>Doesn't this disprove the notion that "Man Made CO2" has anything to do with climate?

nope.

>>6470798

Except your graph is deceptive. Here's an accurate graph. No warming between 1945 and 1975 despite a huge increase in CO2 output. And the rate of warming was just as high before 1945 as it was after 1975, even though CO2 output was much higher after 1975.

>>6470797

Yes it does. They predicted that CO2 drives temperature by looking at the ice cores. But the temps go up 800 years before CO2 goes up. That's right:

CO2 goes up before temp: global warming is true!
CO2 goes up after temp: global warming is true!

>>6471560
Except your graph is deceptive because it implies there are no other forcing mechanisms. The fact that the rate of warming is similar does not mean the circumstances which produced it are the same.

>>6471568

I didn't say there weren't any other "forcing mechanisms," you implied it with your graph.

Oh that's right:
when temp correlates with CO2 => Global warming is true!
when temp does not correlate with CO2, evil cooling forcing mechanisms are conspiring to make climate change theory look bad => global warming is true!

>>6471565
>They predicted that CO2 drives temperature by looking at the ice cores.
No, they predicted it by radiative transfer.

>CO2 goes up after temp: global warming is true
Nope, you've just constructed a shitty strawman. Historically temperatures lead CO2 rises. That does not mean CO2 cannot drive the temperature.

>>6471568

Nothing could falsify this pseudo-science.

>>6471573

What crap! They didn't have the radiative record from back then... Oh yeah, a satellite was examining the sun and such...

>Doesn't this disprove the notion that "Man Made CO2" has anything to do with climate?
No, for several reasons.
1. because declining solar irradiance over that time span has balanced out the increase due to greenhouse gases. If there was no influence due to CO2, we'd have seen the temperature decrease during that time. (It's the 22 year Hale Cycle that is of interest here, affecting both the North Atlantic oscillation and ENSO.)
2. this doesn't distinguish between natural CO2 and man-made. (Though yes, human activity is contributing significantly to the rise in CO2, but that is another discussion.)

As solar activity picks up over the next decade, global average temperature will again rise.

>>6471560
The data in this graph shows exactly this.

>>6471572
I never posted any graph, I'm attacking your graph which did imply that similar rates of warming was at conflict with different rates of CO2. Which is itself stupid as it is not a linear relation even theoretically.

>when temp does not correlate with CO2, evil cooling forcing mechanisms are conspiring to make climate change theory look bad
It's dangerously retarded to suggest that in a system with many variables which cannot be controlled there must be correlation without subtracting other factors. Observational science doesn't work like that.

>>6471577

sweet unfalsifiable theories.
your after-the-fact explanations mean nothing.

its your predictions that fail miserably.

>>6471576
Bonus point's for illiteracy. Radiative transfer is thermodynamic theory. It has existed for some time.

>>6471575
Models can be falsified like all of science, a concept cannot be again, like all of science. That does not make it pseudoscience.

>>6471578

>It's dangerously retarded to suggest that in a system with many variables which cannot be controlled there must be correlation without subtracting other factors.

funny, agw said that co2 was the primary driver of climate for years. Then their models failed.

This is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science

>>6471587

>a concept cannot be again

U again. how soon before u start screaming "hypocrisy"

>>6471581
So you support the idea that this is natural variation. Where is your theory? What would falsify it?

>its your predictions that fail miserably.
Particularly if you post a graph with cherry picked observations and no concept of experimental or prediction error.

>>6470797
Nice citations bro.

>>6471589

this is what its all about...

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importanceof using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

>>6471589
>This is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science
You've just avoided the point there. How is any different to any other concept in science?

Most concepts in science cannot be falsified, only models.

>>6471595

finding the "hot spot" in the troposphere above the equator, is my falsifiability criterion.

what is yours?

>>6471592
Yeah, it's a shame that it's all your argument boils down to. You're quick to point the finger but your own hypothesis is completely unfalsifiable and untestable.

That'll never stop you though.

>>6471602

see
>>6471603

>>6471599
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

If you're not even going to pretend to discuss the science you can piss right off.

>>6470797
Damn idiot.

That flat line is temperature average from 2001 to 2014. Of course it won't change; it's the average. You can take it from 0 to 2014 and it'll be flat. If you want a comparison you need one from let's say 1900 to 2014. You may put an average if you wish, it doesn't make a difference: the trend will speak for itself.

>>6471602

u think you're so clever with your false theoretical equivalency. no matter how many times u pretend, its just not true.

>>6471581
> after-the-fact
> implying this wasn't all predicted in the 1970s before measurements were even available

>>6471585
> point's for illiteracy
> point's

>>6471607

that's the point, it ain't science. used to b, but politics took over. READ THOSE QUOTES.

>>6471603
>finding the "hot spot" in the troposphere above the equator, is my falsifiability criterion.
So the Earth could climb by 5000 degrees and as long as it was uniform that would be fine? And what criteria would you set for a hot spot?

>what is yours?
A concept does have one. Setting shitty citeria like you have done which is an absolute cop out is not helpful. Could climate change exist without a hot stopp? Yes. Cloud natural variation cause a hot stop? Yes. Concepts cannot be falsified, only models. I will believe in a natural variation model when a good one exists.

>>6471611
Screaming it isn't so doesn't change anything. Explain why your hypothesis is special and doesn't need to meet your own standards.

>>6471602

Not going to answer the question?
>>6471602

>>6471619
doesn't*
hot spot*
could*

>>6471615

Those are the predictions! and NO, they weren't predicted in the 70s. This did get going to the 80s, and the first well-known paper was Hansen, 1988.

They predicted Global COOLING in the 70s!

>>6471619

Wow, you twist and turn to avoid a falsfiability criterion. A SCIENTIFIC concept must be falsifiable, otherwise its not a scientific theory, its just intellectual masturbation.

I answered the question and you collapsed in a heap of lame excuses.

Climate Change theory is not falsifiable therefore Climate Change theory is not science.

>>6471629
> They predicted Global COOLING in the 70s!
That is a widespread myth. The majority of papers from the 1970s (about 86%), where they made any prediction at all, predicted a long-term warming trend.

You can see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms Jump ahead to 3:05 for citations.

>>6471623

Its special because its been tested and worked on for 100s of years. Climate is nothing but mean weather over time.

It beat the "global cooling" hypothesis that came in the 1970s, see:
>>6471629

More importantly, its special because its much harder to prove a theory than falsify one. This means to falsify the null hypothesis (natural climate variation) you need to prove AGW. That's a huge burden. And your failed models and failed predictions
>>6471581
and tampered data don't help.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red. See the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6471632
No. You didn't answer the question because your answer is meaningless.

>A SCIENTIFIC concept must be falsifiable, otherwise its not a scientific theory
Nope. A concept is not a theory. A concept usually cannot be falsified. Your criterion doesn't hold up because there is nothing in it's nature that makes it completely incomparable with the idea of natural variation. You just made something up. That might be the point where you will be convinced by the concept of natural variation can never be falsified.

Climate change isn't a theory. it is a collection of models. Models can be falsified a concept cannot be.

>>6471629
have you seen this you fucking dumbass?

>>6471636

agw deniers are so pathetic

>>6471636

Really? So the scientists that time magazine talked to were just a figure of their imagination?
>>6471629
Really, then why did the CIA believe in it? Who are these climatologists they're talking about? You guys always say climatologists telling the truth!

>>6471585
>Bonus point's for illiteracy.

Lecturing others for illiteracy.

Cannot apostrophe.

>>6471642
>Its special because its been tested and worked on for 100s of years.
[citation needed]

>>6471646
> the scientists that time magazine talked to were just a figure of their imagination?
Did you watch the video at that link? It actually covers that exact point.

>>6471636

An historical revisionary paper to rewrite the past. unfortunately, the past hasn't been erased.

Look! A graph of temps from a National Academy of Sciences Report showing significant cooling

>>6471636

Look! James Hansen 1981 showing significant global cooling. Just like that NAS.

>>6471652

Doesn't erase history
See:
>>6471653
>>6471653
>>6471646

And look! A climategate email talking about getting rid of the cooling trend. I guess climate change "scientists" believe its true when they're in private.

>>6470797
>Doesn't this disprove the notion that "Man Made CO2" has anything to do with climate?

Think of it like this: If MMGW can cause both warm weather as the name suggests.
And if MMGW can cause cooler weather as several of its proponents suggest.
Then why can it not cause no notable difference as real world observations suggest?

tl;dr: Global warming can cause anything, therefor it's real.

>>6471652

And look at this. A gif comparing NASA GISS 1999 temps to NASA GISS 2008 temps. Boy, the cooling really disappeared, didn't it?

>>6471666

Yup, in other words there's no way to distinguish it from natural climate.

>>6471664
Second ref should be:
>>6471660

>>6471668
Ever consider posting the explanation for the change? No. That would be far to much like a balanced debate.

>>6471673

An official explanation is meaningless when jobs and reputations are on the line. And the specific details are unpublished.

Closer to accurate explanations are what is said in private like here:
>>6471664

and in the attached Climategate "erase that WARMING blip" email

>>6471645

Pity you can't do anything except resort to insults...

Obviously you have no substantive counter-argument.

>>6471666
>weather
>Climate

>>6471671
If there was a testable model of the natural climate then there would be.

>>6471644

Climate Change theory claims to be a scientific theory. Are you saying its not science?

>>6471678
>An official explanation is meaningless
Like I said then. It's too much work to actually give people a fair say. Misrepresentation is much more effective propaganda.

>>6471683
Oh sorry. I forgot that's it's only climate when it's warm and it's weather when it's cool.

We should just use the computer models as temperature records and disregard actual thermometers as having "instrumental privilege"

>>6471683

The fundamental test for the CO2 based theory in comparison to natural climate was given right here:

>>6471603

>>6471685
Climate change isn't a theory. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

>>6471649
Still waiting for this...

>>6471686

Ah yes, emails are just a misrepresentation. These people are noble scientists being cruelly misrepresented by evil deniers who have the audacity to read what they actually say in private.

I mean its not like politicians have been trying to use climate change "science" for there own political ends
>>6471599

>>6471686
>It's too much work to actually give people a fair say
You think NSA isn't spying on everyone and their dog because their official explanation is that "we don't!"

>>6471691

Google it, Mr. Climate Change is unfalsifiable but still a respectable scientific theory.

Here's a good start:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Funny how you have no answers... only questions. Pretty much the essence of someone defending an unfalsifiable science/concept.

>>6471688
Show me the model or theory which states a hot spot is completely at conflict with natural variation.

>>6471692
>Ah yes, emails are just a misrepresentation.
You openly admit you will not allow people to hear their side of the story. That is misrepresentation.

>>6471693
This is science, not a conspiracy website. You should not present someones data without explaining what it is and why it is.

>>6471660
> temperature has clearly increased over the time period on the graph
> COOLING
Seriously, it's like you didn't even read the paper, especially the part about how aerosol effects from pollution led to a temporary decline, but how the contribution and overall effect of GHGs would in the years to come overwhelm this effect.

>>6471696

So you're admitting the AGW is unfalsifiable? Because no observation can falsify it, right?

Data shows hot spot, AGW is TRUE!
Data shows no hot spot, AGW is TRUE!

The hot spot as predicted is described in United Nation's IPCC IPCC AR4, Chapter 8, page 632. It is also in this graph (on the left). The right shows the actual data. Let me guess?, that actual data which is much different proves nothing, right?

As always you only ask questions. You have nothing to show.

>>6471695
Nope. that's not an answer. "Google it" is not a citation, it is a good sign you're rumbled though. You claimed your model was tested for "100s of years" and yet you can't even cite the model.

>Funny how you have no answers... only questions.
You claim to have answers and yet won't answer my question. That smells of bullshit.

>>6471697

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

And could you provide some actual proof of AGW?

Oh that's right. Not a single predictive, substantive idea of AGW has come true.

Predictive = "before the fact, based on a casual relationship with anthropogenic CO2"
Substantive = "clearly distinguishes from natural climate variation"

>>6471705
>So you're admitting the AGW is unfalsifiable?
Oh look you've changed the topic because I struck a nerve.
No my question was on natural variation not AGW.

I'll ask you again, where is the model which says there can be no hot spot under natural variation?

>>6471707
>I didn't say that.

>Ever consider posting the explanation for the change?
>An official explanation is meaningless

>Substantive = "clearly distinguishes from natural climate variation"
What is natural climate variation?

>>6471706

Gave you a huge reference,see the papers which are based on science that has a history of 100s of years.

Funny, you have nothing to show. Not a shred of evidence. You only ask questions. No wonder you like your unfalsifiability. Its how you think.

Answer the questions!
>>6471707
>>6471603
>>
>>

>>6471709

Standard atmospheric physics in the Hadley Cell. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is slower then the dry adiabatic lapse rate in "natural climate."

NOW START ANSWERING QUESTIONS!
>>6471711

Got nothing to show, do you?

>>6471711
>Damage control.

That's not a reference or an answer. Grand claims, no answers. I already answered your first question I'll respond to the later one when you give me what I've been asking for for a while one.

Where is this model?

>>6471713

Start answering questions!!! Got nothing don't you?
>>6471711

>>6471720
Start answering questions!!! Got nothing don't you?
>>6471720
>>6471711 (You)

>>6471717
And where are the climate predictions of this model?

>>6471720
>I already answered your first question

No you didn't. MUH, Climate CHANGE isTRUE but unfalsifiable is not an answer.

Start answering questions!!! Got nothing don't you?
>>6471711 (You)

>>6471726
>Start answering questions!!! Got nothing don't you?
>>6471711 (You)

>>6471726

The prediction is no "hot spot"

Start answering questions!!! Got nothing don't you?
>>6471711 (You)

Well as usual with you we're back to square one where you insist climate change is unfalsifiable but won't even discuss the fact that your hypothesis isn't testable, because there is no quantitative model of it.

Yes you have given a "falsifiability criterion" but it's made up. If it is not dictated by theory it is worthless. Your theory doesn't exist so you can see why there is a problem.

I did write a response to that and now all you're doing is misrepresenting that and avoiding important questions.

I think I'll call it a night.

>there are people in /sci/ RIGHT NOW who don't believe in science

>>6471739

What a cop out. Such intellectual cowardice. I'll give you a GRADE A for demanding a very high level of accounting from me while not providing a thing in return. What a poser.

Yup, AGW/Climate Change is unfalsifiable. Any and all observations will not change the "truth" of it. This is the essence of a secular religion...

ANSWER THE Questions! Oh, that's right you can't.

The "natural" model is atmospheric physics BTW!

See
>>6471717
>>6471734

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

>>6471711

All you armchair experts, how about you listen to the opinions of two real climate scientists with differing views on climate change.

>http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/03/john_christy_an.html

Spoiler: The world temperature has stayed flat for the last decade, and they don't know why.

>>6470797
>>6470798
>>6471560
>>6471565
>>6471581
>>6471599
>>6471629
>>6471642
>>6471646
>>6471653
>>6471660
>>6471664
>>6471668
>>6471678
>>6471705

All I know is that it's fucking impossible to know now, thanks to everyone going apeshit on the subject.