/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6559020
Nope, we're fucked
>>ground level temperatures affected
nope they have

>>6559020
>How come ground level temperatures haven't been measurably affected?
top kek

>How come ground level temperatures haven't been measurably affected?

don't watch fox news, kids

>>6559020

You mean atmospheric temperatures have not increased in 15 years contrary to predictions.

>>6559020

Politics may explain the tampering of temperature data.

>>6559073

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

>>6559020

Politics certainly explains which the truth is irrelevant to government and U.N. officials.

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…”

>>6559020

Politics is certainly to blame for the creation of a fake "consensus"

>Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change . 1David R. Legates, 2Willie Soon, 3William M. Briggs, 4Christopher 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.

>>6559080
x can be true or false, and still be y

therefore x is false

>>6559087
>Politics is certainly to blame for idealist anti scientific posts on sci

ftfy

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? IT'S JUST COMPUTER MODELS!

>>6559090

Really?

Name a single accurate prediction of climate change theory that is substantive.

prediction = before-the-fact, not after-the-fact, not done in hindsight.
substantive = casually linked to anthropogenic CO2 and clearly differentiated from normal climate variability.

AND

Name a plausible scenario/observation that would falsify the theory of Climate Change/Global Warming. Of course there isn't one because climate change is unfalsifiable and hence not science.

pls

>>6559107
Any that go back at least 100 years?

>>6559118
>before 1890
>not 100 years
Do you mean 1000 years, or is Nixon still president in your time?

>>6559124
Don't mess wit da tricky dick.

>there is no increase in temperature
>ok we admit there is but it's not caused by humans
>no wait we changed our mind again there was actually no increase in temperature

>>6559158
>Okay, climate change is caused by humans but it's a good thing. It's like all year long beach party!

>>6559158
>okay we fucked the planet, jesus will save us. Revelations predicted this all along!

>>6559399
>climate change is a good thing, now that the ice melts away we can drill for oil in the arctics.

>>6559020
This is the most objective series you will find on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>6559425
>This is the most objective series you will find on the subject.

So let me get this straight, you present the most objective series you can find
and proceed to present the youtube ramblings of a former journalist presenting things purely as he sees it unchallanged?

But if we haven't researched the issue our selves who should we trust? this is a tough call to make.
Perhaps this signed joint statement by the developed worlds leading science institutions putting it black on white that they consider it real?
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Or perhaps I should just trust in all American news outlets like the fair and balanced Fox to provide me with accurate info? It's a tough call, very tricky.
I mean who can you really trust? Educated scientists and humanists or corporate lobbyists? I CAN*T MAKE UP MY MIND

Do you people even science? Ever written a grant? Put on a dog and pony show for administrators of funding agencies? Well our medical lab does all the time, and we are absolutely fucking shameless. So is every
other lab I know about. There is no limit to how much we hype our research. It's critically important to fund this research! Thousands of
people's lives will be positively affected each year! Without our research families and loved ones will continue to be devastated!

If you think you are getting an honest assessment of the threat from researchers depending on funding, think the fuck again. And Climate Change funding is HUGE. Nobody wants to derail that gravy train.

>>6559877
As an engineer an important part of my job is to hyped the shit I want to get funded. In my proposal I will write anything, and I do mean anything needed to hype it up.

What the fuck is it going to take for the denial bubble to pop? New York underwater? Oh, wait, that ALREADY HAPPENED. Goddamn, I just don't understand why people are so willing to ignore the evidence. It's not like your retarded Uncle Remy stands to make billions on the oil industry, why is he sucking their cock and pretending nothing's wrong?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html#affil-auth

Does anyone have this article in PDF by any chance? I really want to read it but it's pay-walled.

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and accounts for less than 5% of the greenhouse effect. Most of it is from water-vapor. All the climate models which predict warming make the assumption that an increase in CO2 will also increase water vapor. But that has not occured, therefore their computer models are invalid. They also assume a positive feedback loop, when in fact (like most elements of complex systems like these) there is a negative feedback. CO2 is insufficient to cause the warming they claim. CO2 has also been VASTLY higher in the past and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

So effectively they are bullshitting. The climate is changing, but it is changing according to natural cycles that have been going on for millions of years.

>>6560095
Sea levels have been rising at a constant rate for over 100 years. There has been no acceleration of sea level.

>>6560167
Water is a larger contributor, yes, but it cycles out of the atmosphere on a weekly timescale. Carbon gets pulled out on GEOLOGICAL timescales. Water we put into the atmosphere can cause freak weather patterns, but they don't last; the carbon we've been burning will stay there practically forever as far as human civilization is concerned.

>>6560182
Like I said it is a miniscule amount and it has been way higher in the past.

>>6560167
>negative feedback loop
Citation needed

Here are a few things to keep in mind regarding sealevel rise:

1) We still have glaciers left over from the last glacial period. They have been melting continuously, and increasing water in the oceans, ever since, and would continue doing so whether mankind was here or not.

2) Living things trap water inside them. When biomass on land is reduced, more water is released to increase ocean levels. We've cut down a lot of forest.

3) In many places, we've drained wetlands and groundwater, reducing the amount of water trapped on land so it can go to the ocean.

4) Material is constantly being eroded from land into the oceans, and we've greatly sped that process up in some places. When mass is moved from aboveground to below water, it displaces water and raises the level.

5) Hydrocarbons and other hydrogen compounds, when they combust, produce water. This water generally ends up in the ocean.

6) There are large areas of ocean which are relatively shallow, where we have the option of building artificial islands, moving material which is currently displacing water above the water line so it no longer displaces water. There is a possibility of mechanically lowering sealevel.

So it's a complicated thing.

Let's see what this scientist has to say to the Senate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I8sJG5FV_k

>>6560210
Port cities do this all the time. Dredging out harbors is necessary to prevent them from rapidly becoming landlocked. It's an extremely expensive and demanding process for even a city, trying to raise entire islands' worth of material from the sea floor is completely infeasible.

>>6560218
The thing about things being difficult is that as technology advances, they get easier.

This was built mostly with dredged material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah

I think this technique may be used in the future to enhance harbor cities by building islands which serve as baffles to blunt the force of ocean storms (including hurricanes) and tidal waves before reaching land.

>>6560210
Are you joking with these?

>>6560225
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah
Big deal.

Nearly all of Boston is man made.

>>6560417
>Are you joking with these?
When you add up a lot of effects that seem small enough to be negligible, they can turn out to be significant.

>>6560428
I think you underestimate the volume of water on earth
Literally one has any effect on ocean levels. Being 1 because glaziers are the second biggest water storage after oceans.
Understandable mistake

For reference here is how it looks like.
If we kill literally everything on earth and squese the remains in the oceans that would result in about 3mm if oceans were a block like swimming pools so maybe around 1-0.5mm in reality. And that is literally every living thing on earth, not just couple trees in amazon which usually get promptly replaced with other living things
Rest are equally meaningless

You should really at least try to have a slight clue or even high school diploma when you post in here

>>6559107

After-the-fact tweaking.
Before-the-fact is here:
>>6559069

I have 100% accuracy in predicting what happened in the stock market yesterday.

>>6560167

Here is the predicted vs. measured water vapor... The big water vapor feedback didn't happen.

>>6560191

Well there's no positive feedback loop.

Climate Change/Global Warming predicted a hot spot in the troposphere over the equator. See attached. It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. The hot spot is created by 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. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

It 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.

>>6560496
>I think you underestimate the volume of water on earth
That's not even relevant. If you raise sealevel by adding a certain amount of water to the oceans, the sealevel rise will depend on the area of the oceans, not the volume of water already in the ocean.

>>6559458
I don't know if you realized this but the video series supports the the idea that man made global warming is real. You kinda have to watch more than a minute of it to find that out.

It will kill us all very soon

Guy McPherson told me so

The question is, how many decades without a massive catastrophe or significant warming are going to elapse before people decide that actually maybe we were wrong about the CO2 thing.

>>6562710
20

>>6559020
Ice age in 1 ... 2 ... 3 ...

>>6562710
Irrelevant since we're not wrong about the CO2 thing

>>6562752
Evidence that CO2 causes warming is?.. Computer models? Hockey stick graph? That fact that both CO2 and temperatures have been much higher in the past without polar bears going extinct or a runaway greenhouse effect?

Aren't computer models just extrapolated data sets in graphical form?

Not to address the validity of any of that, but it just seems stupid when someone dismisses something as a "computer model."

>>6562905
It's not just extrapolated data, they involve numerous assumptions like "well if it gets warmer then there must be more water vapor therefore more greenhouse effect therefore more warmth". If just one assumption is wrong, the whole thing is invalid. Considering we are talking about the climate of the Earth, one of the most complex systems you can think of, it's pretty hard to get all the assumptions right.

Why is it that global warming seems to be the one thing where lots of members of /sci/ seem to think they know better than the experts of the field? Even if you don't buy the 97% consensus for some reason, you have to admit that there is still a significant majority that believe in man made climate change. Is your political affiliation clouding your vision?

>>6562996
Other way around, the politics generated $2 billion a year or thereabouts extra into "climate change" research which created thousands of jobs. These scientists careers and the organizations like the IPCC are designed specifically to prove that climate change is human caused. They receive funding on the assumption that AGW is real, and thus they will never oppose that view. I call that a conflict of interest.

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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/11/21/97-climate-science-consensus-reality/

>>6562996
People are scared of the implications global warming has on our future as a species

>>6563006
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/
>"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis"
-James Taylor

In the paper used
>"To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries."

>>6563032
Wait what? I don't get it, pls explain

>>6559069
Where is this graph from?

>>6563034
He forget to mention the 1077 experts he mentions are a specific group of experts in the petroleum and related fields. He makes it out to be a wider group

>>6563040
Forgot*

>>6563032
AKA the ones making the most money AKA the smartest ones. Stupid Warmists lies are being undone