/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6517153
Thanks for the video OP
but nobody gives a shit, go back to /x/

c02 is only .03% of the atmosphere. They leave this little factoid out of their propaganda video.

>>6517716
>only .03%
it's only 0.04% today
Lrn2<span class="math">CO_2[/spoiler]
co2now.org

My lord, what a terrible analogy.

The message is correct though. Climate change denial is for neckbearded basement-dwelling virgins, so I choose to accept it as fact.

>>6517994
Sure, but what about anthropogenic climate change?

The amount of fossil fuel on the earth is minuscule. in 100 years, oil will be too expensive for most people to use. Most C02 is stored in carbonate rock. The problem will fix itself.

Not gonna watch the video.

Just think climate change is probably a bunch of bullshit. Peak oil, sure. Energy scarcity, yes. Who cares about climate change?

They have pie charts for greenhouse gasses that totally ignore natural sources. How about fucking volcanoes? Do they not emit greenhouse gasses?

The major green house contributor related to people is from cattle, because cow farts (methane) is several times more potent then carbon emissions.

Nobody can agree if there will be more or less clouds in the future. They talk about warming, we get the worst winter in decades, they talk about extreme weather our hurricane season didn't even happen for a year.

Sea level rising? The sea level will do down. The poles are so fucking cold that even a 10 degree average change in temperature, which is huge, places that get snow will still never reach anywhere near the melting point of water. If more heat in the oceans means more water vapor, more clouds, more rain and snow in place... more likely more water will get locked up in major ice sheets, not less.

>>6517979

And about 90% of CO2 comes from ocean outgassing, not humans. And for a fun and sane video, I would suggest this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

>>6517979
>they only know the value to within 1 significant digit

>global warming
you mean climate extremes then mini ice age

>>6518148
too bad the video has shitty animation and is narrated by microsoft sam

could have been so much better

>>6518150
IPCC knows it to within 3. you can probably get higher precision if you search more.

sauce: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/221.htm#tab61

inb4 >IPCC

I know its bait but I can't resist.

>>6518138

>They have pie charts

Who does? Can you post them?

>They talk about warming, we get the worst winter in decades,

GLOBAL warming. Just because its cold where you are doesn't mean the average temperature of the earth is "cold".

>they talk about extreme weather our hurricane season didn't even happen for a year.

A regular process not happening is not extreme?

>Sea level rising? The sea level will do down.

[citation needed]

>>6518148

Cool story bro.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

>>6518138
>>6518235
>[citation needed]
see pic related. It's a fucking science fiction book that turns tons of teenagers into climate contrarians. Not gonna lie, I went through this phase too when I read it in middle school.

>>6518382
What do you mean "contrarians"? I thought science was about the capacity for theories to be falsifiable.

Would you call Einstein a physics "contrarian"?

>>6518385

Cool story bro.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

>>6518385
>I thought science was about the capacity for theories to be falsifiable.
That's one reason why you're not a scientist — but a larger reason is because of your misconceptions about science.

>>6518385
From literally the same guy who says that intelligent design is legitimate science.

Also
>>>/pol/

>>6518851
not that guy but..

you do realize that falsifiable hyptheses is like, THE core tenet of modern science, right?

If God didn't want us burning oil then why'd he create oil?

>God - >9000
>atheists - -1000000000

>in b4dinosaurs

>>6518423
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Uncool story, Gullible.

SkepticalScience, run by psychology grad student John Cook, is known for deception, deletion, and outright lies. See, e.g.,

http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/2/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

You're going to have to quote primary sources instead of the copypasta skepticalscience URLs. There is no good evidence that they are trustworthy.

And the U.N. itself shows that the models are off. Here is UN IPCC AR4 predictions with updated temps. Only at the lowest ends of the confidence intervals (less than 2.5% chance of happening) is there something approaching a fit. These leaves two choices.

1) the climate change models have failed
2) the climate change models do not differentiate from normal climate meaning they have no predictive relevance.

>>6519785
Here's the graph
>Here is UN IPCC AR4 predictions with updated temps. Only at the lowest ends of the confidence intervals (less than 2.5% chance of happening) is there something approaching a fit.

>>6518851
Not that guy either. But you certainly don't understand science. BY DEFINITION a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific. And Global Warming/Climate Change is unfalsifiable.

>>6519785
You forgot
3) Efforts to stop global warming such as contrails have succeeded.

>>6518866

Irrelevant to the data and results of the standard climate models. Seriously, this is classic ad hominem.

As you can see here:
>>6519792
the UN IPCC says just about the same thing.

>>6519785

>http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/2/

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/whos-lying-now-its-brandon.html

>http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#February_2012_document_misappropriation

>1) the climate change models have failed
>2) the climate change models do not differentiate from normal climate meaning they have no predictive relevance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-had-4th-warmest-january-even-as-eastern-us-froze/

>>6519792
>Here's the graph for which I have added in data without experimental error and I still believe I can make statistical statements about it.

Without error bars it means nothing.

>less than 2.5% chance of happening
This is completely unfounded.

>>6519785
>the climate change models do not differentiate from normal climate meaning they have no predictive relevance.
There is no model of normal climate that fits the data. Claiming it's in the normal range is meaningless, that doesn't establish causation and it makes no predictions. It's "normal climate" that has no predictive relevance.

>>6519854
>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-had-4th-warmest-january-even-as-eastern-us-froze/
>Without error bars it means nothing.

Yup, you said it. Fourth warmest SINCE WHEN??? What crap. Since the beginning of the satellite era? Certainly not since the Medieval Warming period. Since they started tampering with the data?

Why does the EPA say that the worst heatwaves were in the 1930s?

Rubbish. You are so desperate. You unfalsifiable belief system just

>>6519814
>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-had-4th-warmest-january-even-as-eastern-us-froze/

Since data tampering began.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.
Don't believe it? Check the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6519814
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#February_2012_document_misappropriation
>>6519814

Quoth the WIKi: "None of the documents were independently authenticated." And I add that one was almost certainly fraudulently added.

Any lie to protect the unfalsifiable religion, huh?

>>6520032
And posting the context on this and debating it fairly would be bad. No, it's better to just ignorantly assert it must be tampering and cannot possibly be legitimate.

>>6520027
>unfalsifiable belief system
Come back when you have a testable model or hypothesis. "This is normal" is not testable.

>>6519814

Look, summer maximum data (untampered!) taken from HCN

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html

The 1930s-40s were much hotter. Just like
>>6520032
blue line, not red line.
And just like
>>6520027

BTW, scientists believe U.S. temps strongly correlate with world temps.
>>651385
Black line is average world model temps, dashed black line is average U.S. model temps. Almost the same.

>>6520050
last entry:
>>6518385

>>6520043

No answer! to your unfalsifiable belief system. How pathetic.

>>6519814

"97% consensus" was disinformation.

>Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change . David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

• 1. Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716-2541, USA
• 2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA
• 3. New York, NY, 10021, USA
• 4. Edinburgh, EH2 1JX, Scotland, UK

>Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

>>6519858

Your the ones claiming that you can predict the climate even though your models fail spectacularly
>>6518382
We can't even predict the weather for more than about a week, yet you claim you can predict the mean weather value (climate) for 10, 20 or even more years!

And not only do your models fail in forecasting, they don't even hindcast right. They don't explain the lack of significant warming for the past 30 years! The same models that use fudge factors tuning... Nope, things are instantiated in a bottom-up physics manner. "Forcings" are assumed, not derived.

And yet these models "prove" climate change. Even though they fail spectacularly. What a joke.

>>6520055
Look at that, you completely ignore your own hypocrisy. You accuse other models of having no predictive power and being unfalsifiable and yet your own hypothesis is exactly that. "it's normal" is not testable but you continue to promote utter hypocrisy.

How delusional do you have to be to still deny warming?
Go fucking kill yourselves, retarded shitstains

>>6520074
>Your the ones claiming that you can predict the climate
So you can't predict the climate. You admit you have no predictive model. If you don't have a predictive model you don't have a testable hypothesis. What you are promoting is not testable and not science.

>even though your models fail spectacularly
Weather forecasting was terrible when it started out but it has gotten better and better. To suggest that failure means it's impossible is pure ignorance.

>We can't even predict the weather for more than about a week, yet you claim you can predict the mean weather value (climate) for 10, 20 or even more years!
I cannot predict the outcome of a single quantum measurement but I can predict the outcome of 10^10 similar measurements. Am I a god or do I simply understand statistical mechanics?

> "Forcings" are assumed, not derived.
Citation please.

>>6520032

>Since data tampering began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth#Reactions

>"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

>>6520050

Oh look. It's our good friend Steve Goddard again.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/arizona-summers-getting-cooler-2/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/when-the-west-side-highway-was-underwater/

>>6520057

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/88901033/agnotology-scientific-consensus-teaching-learning-climate-change-response-legates-soon-briggs

Simply put, the denialists are starting to panic as more and more regular people realize that something has gone terribly wrong, so they've started to resort to cherry-picking statistical arcana and "unskewing" of the data.

>>6520050
>The 1930s-40s were much hotter.
>WW2
>burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate
This is supposed to refute AGW how??

>>6518871
>core tenet of modern science
Science is not religion, it has no tenet.
Lrn2science

>>6519796
>BY DEFINITION a theory must be falsifiable
BY DEFINITION a theory is an explanation of data — but the DEFINITION of theory is not the issue.
Lrn2read

>/sci/ is full of people that deny climate change

It's over, /pol/ has officially won.

>>6520127

A fraud, he believed in AGW all alone. And no WIKI is not a reliable source. NASA had a guy working it for years, might still have him. Another guy fixed more than 2,000 articles, locked them down with warmist views. So all you're doing is referring to shills.

>>6520281
Wrong. Where's your data? You didn't provide any error bars, so by your terms you have no credibility?

CO2 increase didn't really get going until 1945. Funny, there was no global warming between 1945 and 1975, despite a huge increase in CO2 output.

But fact are irrelevant to an unfalsifiable pseudo-science?

What would falsify AGW?
Name a substantive, prediction of AGW that has turned out to be true.

Prediction = before the fact, not hindsight, not after-the-fact
Substantive = casually connected to anthropogenic CO2 and clearly distinguished from normal climate.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

>>6521556

Here the data....

>>6520286

Don't misquote me. >>6520286
>BY DEFINITION a theory must be falsifiable to be SCIENTIFIC.

You left out the scientific part. I guess that you accept that AGW is unfalsifiable.

>>6521544
>>>/pol/

>>6521544
>Muller is a shill

>Reality is a shill

Reality is a liberal, too. I don't like it, but Muller definitely would not sell out for love or money. You may not understand it, but that won't change it.

You need to face it. This is what is happening.

>>6520135
Something has gone terribly wrong. People are realizing that what as once a science (until about the year 2000, when its predictions began failing and it became unfalsifiable) has been hijacked by politicians and environmentalists to grow their money and power.

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…”

>>6521578
I want /pol/ to leave.

Why does global warming matter if I have an air conditioner?

>>6521574
Muller is a fraud, he was never a skeptic.

“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

>>6521584

The reality is that AGW/Climate Change has left science. If you want to continue with these non-scientific theories:

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

>>6521592
Human caused climate change is as real as it gets, one thing that is true that the retards say, however, is that there is no much we can do about it in terms of stopping what is already coming, so we don;t have to through the baby out with the bath water. But in the long run we really should still cut back on emissions so it doesn't get completely out of hand. While we work to adapt to the new environment we can make changes for the future as well. Just throwing your hands up and denying it isn't going to help.

>>6521598
throw*

every fucking time

>>6521588

You're a fraud. You only want to hear what you believe and have faith in.

Bad news.

Reality doesn't care about what you believe, it just is. Accept it and move on. You're only embarrassing yourself here with your constant denial.
>>6521592

I'm not talking about AGW from a decade ago, you are. Muller is more than capable enough to do his own study, and he did. Your denial is as bad as saying "evolution is a lie" around here. If you are going to defend your baby feels, you can fuck off and take your shit to /pol/. We don't like it when you shit here.

>>6518022
Now you are getting technical! lel

Its a fraud of epic proportions, a hydro-carbon grab and obfuscation of global peak oil - energy by a neo-Pagan front spawned from 2 world wars known as the United Nations. An unelected despotic organization forcing consensus science down the throats of anyone who cannot escape what we call the mainstream media spectrum.

I know they like simulations on supercomputers better than real science, but overpopulation, ignorance, lack of birth control and many others problems should be addressed first. Also we know the earths core is cooling and will continue to cool until our atmosphere is blown away, no longer fed by the out gassing that built it. Its wrong on so many levels, it will end badly.

>>6521608
>>>/pol/
please go

>>6521608
>liberal reality is a fraud

>reality is a hydro-carbon grab and obfuscation of global peak oil

>>6520093
>>>6520074 (You)
>>Your the ones claiming that you can predict the climate
>So you can't predict the climate. You admit you have no predictive model. If you don't have a predictive model you don't have a testable hypothesis. What you are promoting is not testable and not science.

And you can't predict climate that's for sure. The difference is, we don't pretend that we can... but we both agree that we can predict what will happen if there is positive water vapor feedback from increased CO2. The "hot spot." in the troposphere over the equator. You predicted that too. We predicted no hot spot because of no positive feedback.

Skeptics predicted no hot spot, but AGW predicted a hot spot. See attached. It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2, see attached. It is a sign of increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. As a demonstration of positive feedback via water vapor.

Didn't happen. That's why you never heard of it!! They used to teach about a simplified version of this in school (so a friend told me).

Anyway, its described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which show it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory. Because it demonstrate positive feedback.


>Weather forecasting was terrible when it started out but it has gotten better and better. To suggest that failure means it's impossible is pure ignorance.
Its still terrible.

>>6521612
>but AGW predicted a hot spot.
No, it didn't.
It predicted a stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming - and it's mainly the cooling that is the important part since it shows that it's from CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and not Solar variance.

>>6521612

That we can tell anything about the weather whatsoever is nothing short of a triumph of the physical sciences. Chaotic systems are not easy to predict.

>>6521602

It seems that you're the one having a hard time with reality.

Your models have failed:
>>6518385
and
>>6519792
your data was tampered with:
>>6520032
and summers are NOT getting warmer
>>6520050
>>6520027
The lack of global warming from 1945 to 1975 despite a huge increase in CO2 output shows that CO2 isn't the primary driver of climate
>>6521561
And MOST IMPORTANTLY, the signature of positive feedback from CO2 increase, "the hot spot" as a sign of water vapor increase, isn't there.
>>6521612

Your models predicted significant water vapor increase, but failed. See attached. From
http://s27.postimg.org/eexakr5wz/ENSO_PCWV_48_Feb14.png

Now a scientist would accept that the theory is false and move on. You are not practicing science.

>>6521625

YES IT DID!
>Anyway, its described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632.

BTW, are you telling me that if the stratosphere isn't cooling that AGW/Climate Change theory is not true?

>>6521640
Your evidence is old.

>mfw climate change deniers use token scientists that think its a scam as an person of authority on the matter

Don't forget, Ken Ham got an astro physicist and a biologist to vouch for creationism. Your token buddies don't mean shit.

>>6521643
>>6521640

I really don care if humans are responsible or not.

The climate is changing in a way that will make human life impossible. I honestly doubt that there is anything we can do about it. Your ancient denials and outdated propaganda references will not avail you.

Personally, I don't think we should change anything about how international business operates. We should just try to enjoy the time we have left.

>>6521664
>The climate is changing in a way that will make human life impossible.
no.
no bad /sci/
bad /sci/

>>6521664
>>6521668
It's just going to force millions inland from a lot of coastal areas and alter where our food can be grown, thus shifting economies in the blink of an eye. It's going to be a huge disturbance, but "human life impossible"? Top kek.

>>6521672
I doubt that will help anything.

>>6521672
>implying we won't build levies.

Have you seen New Orleans?

>>6521672
>implying floodwater will be a problem

What is The Netherlands?

>>6521565
>BY DEFINITION a theory must be falsifiable to be SCIENTIFIC.
Lrn2theory
... then Lrn2scientific
... then begin your lecture, Professor.

>>6520285
why dont you learn some english instead?

tenet
noun
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.

>>6521598
>Human caused climate change is as real as it gets
No.

Human caused CO2 increase is real, if it have measurable impact on the global climate is still up for discussion.

If it was as real as it gets, then we'd have models that actually match measured temperature, predictions that are mostly true and so on. Instead we have 300 models that all aim too high, we have predictions that all fail, and al gore needs to go on his propaganda tour once again.

If something is "as real as it gets" then it's no longer a political issue with flamewar threads such as these, because then there's overwhelming experimental data to confirm it.

You don't see threads that say "the rocket equation is a lie!" now do you? Do you think that's because we had enough flamewar discussions and the naysayers were convinced by the other sides argument, or perhaps that it was outlawed to be a rocket equation denier? Or that the rocket equation actually matches reality?

>>6521664
>The climate is changing in a way that will make human life impossible.

More fertile land availible
Longer growth seasons
More crops availible
Faster growth due to elevated CO2
Will surely kill us all amirite?

>>6522143

It's getting hotter, fast. Decades fast, not centuries. The old land shouldn't be getting burnt, it is. The crops will have to be imported. We'll have to use violence to get them. Faster growth won't matter when the plants wither in early August.

Yes. It will kill us.

It no longer matters what caused the problem, so have fun.

>>6522192
>It's getting hotter, fast.
That's because it's almost summer.
On longer timescales it's getting slightly warmer as a natural recovery from a cold period.
In climate-science-lala-land the adjusted temperature can do whatever the fuck it wants, it still doesn't become reality.

>The old land shouldn't be getting burnt, it is.
[citation needed]
>The crops will have to be imported.
[citation needed]
> We'll have to use violence to get them.
[citation needed]
>Faster growth won't matter when the plants wither in early August.
[citation needed]
>Yes. It will kill us.
[citation needed]

in b4 "It's my belief/opinion so therefor it's true!"
in b4 citations from models
in b4 blogposts as citations.

>>6522139
>If it was as real as it gets, then we'd have models that actually match measured temperature
>If gravity was real we'd have a model which could explain the orbit of mercury
Anon, 1900
Pure fallacy.

>>6522325
>This exception to an otherwise great theory means this other theory that have failed every prediction so far is also true.

If your theory have a predictive power worse than a dice throw, then it's almost certainly shit.

>>6522315
>That's because it's almost summer.

I can't stand these snarky smart ass (for lack of a better term obviously) comments about weather regarding climate.

>hurr its snowing outside and its the coldest day on record here!
>snow in atlanta for a month straight!

It's climate change, some places will get colder, it is a complex system. The reason the term global warming was dropped in favor of climate change was because idiots like you not getting that the warming referred to in the term meant global average temperature. We can see here that it still didn't work, you people will never care.

:^)

>>6522347
>I can't stand
A lot presumably because you're advocating a belief system, not science.

sure is /pol/ in here

Wait, what
is this shit really so bad? I'm completely ignorant on this subject, I knew it's a proble, but is it really getting that bad?

>>6522848
>is it really getting that bad?
← you be the judge

Why would I give a shit, if I'm gonna die anyway ?
Future generations ? I hate this one why would I give a shit about the future one ?
And it's all (I hate using this word) the "karma" of the world. Breed a society of violence, competition, slavery and misery and there will BE NO society. Kinda like this video's example: Make economy dependent on destructive things, and there will BE NO economy or society.
btw the tetris analogy is terrible. But it's true.

>>6522354
he really said that?