/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6754038
You don't.
You'll be dead by the time it fucks your descendants.
>descendants
Oh wait, nevermind.
You don't have to care at all.

>>6754038
>What do I need to know about climate change?

Protection racket by the world bank and IMF.

"That's a nice climate you got there, if you don't pay us money, it will be a shame what happens to it."

(1) It's taking place
(2) By a significantly dangerous amount
(3) The largest contributor to it since industrialization is man-made greenhouse gases.

key points?

>it exists
>unless we shut down civilization, it won't stop
>buying "climate friendly" products does nothing but make a few crafty businessmen rich

industry and transportation are the backbone of civilization
both require fossil fuels to run


worrying about it and trying to come up with ways to reverse it is a giant waste of time and ressources, but keeps going on because it's an easy way to guilt-trip naive morons into doing what liberals want.

what we should be doing instead:
>study effects of climate change
>find ways to exploit positive effects
>find ways to deal with negative effects

I-it exists
II-it's getting worse
III-we can't say we are 100% sure it is because of humans

>>6754038
>What do I need to know about climate change?
It's bad and needs you to give money to some companies of some politicians. Also it needs you to give money to the world bank and pay more for electricity. Finally it's so deply scientific that it is the only scientific concept not proven by scientific method, which is the old way, but instead by popular opinion survey.
Scientific method is obsolete and there's a time for new science that is colorblind, religionblind and genderblind. The new science is popular opinion proof and you need to check your privilege and stay away from fat foods.

It's a lie made by the jews to make us stop buying oil and instead buy other "eco-friendly" stuff from jews.

>>6754038
1) Why there has been a hiatus. It will end in the mid 2020's.
---
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

2) The big threat, which will really tip the point once the average temperature has risen 5C.
---
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/11168/20131126/unstable-siberian-arctic-shelf-releases-twice-the-amount-of-methane.htm
---
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Methane_clathrates_and_climate_change

It exists, but it's heavily politicized.

The largest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. At first, it seems that because it doesn't trap heat as well as carbon dioxide, that therefore the increase in global temperature must be due the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The truth is, because CO2 is so minimal, it could increase by 500% and still barely make a difference. On the contrary, if water vapor increases by as much as 1%, it's a huge impact.

But of course, downsizing the industrial competence of a nation is actually more profitable, than not. Notice how the only alternatives proposed are hipster energy sources like wind and solar, instead of nuclear and geothermal.

>>6754718
>what we should be doing instead:
>>study effects of climate change
>>find ways to exploit positive effects
>>find ways to deal with negative effects

We are doing this, you ignorant dipshit.
It's called climate adaptation, and the IPCC dedicates almost an entire working group to its study.

>industry and transportation both require fossil fuels to run
Are you still in the 19th century?!? Have you heard of the electric motor?

>unless we shut down civilization, it won't stop
Of course it won't stop completely, but shit, it's not like there isn't anything we can do at all.
You make it sound like any reduction in CO2 emissions whatsoever will end the human race as we know it. Do you realize how absurd this sounds?

>way to guilt-trip naive morons into doing what liberals want
>liberals
Oh, I see. At this point I can pretty much disregard your opinion completely, because you have such a skewed and delusional perception of the world.

Carry on.

>>6754931
>Have you heard of the electric motor?
have you?
then you surely know how impractical its large-scale use in automotives (especially for industrial purposes) is.

it'd also still require a huge source of electricity, which pretty much still equates to coal/gas/oil/nuclear.

>Do you realize how absurd this sounds?
i don't know. do you think getting china and india to pull out of coal/oil power is less absurd? because they're heavily investing in these fields as we speak, and aint gonna turn around any time soon.

even if you manage to make the whole west forsake all fossil fuels (which you won't ever do), you have absolutely zero chance at affecting china and india. no matter how many solar panels you erect across europe, it'll do jackshit because china keeps pumping out new coal power plants en masse.


what co2 focus does
>cost a ton of money
>bring down quality of life in your country
>put your country at an economic disadvantage internationally
>profit the companies that provide green tech

what it doesn't do
>have a significant impact on climate change

>>6754914
Aren't Germany actually producing a very significant percentage of their power from solar these days though? I heard they meet a fairly outrageous percentage of their demand on solar these days.

>>6754963
The first half of 2014 was marked by mild temperatures and high electricity production from wind and

http://www.webcitation.org/6RG21ExIC
solar energy. Solar power plants have increased their production compared to the first half of 2013 by
28%, while wind power grew about 19%. In June solar systems have produced twice as much electricity
as wind turbines. In the first half of the year solar and wind power plants together produced more than
45 TWh or approximately 17% of the net electricity generation. The renewable energy sources solar,
wind, hydro and biomass produced a total of about 81 TWh and accounted for approximately 31% of
the net electricity production. The renewable share of the gross electricity production including the
industrial power plants is approx. 28%.

>>6754914
>The truth is, because CO2 is so minimal, it could increase by 500% and still barely make a difference. On the contrary, if water vapor increases by as much as 1%, it's a huge impact.
That's fucking stupid. A small amount of something doesn't mean it has a small effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

>But of course, downsizing the industrial competence of a nation is actually more profitable, than not. Notice how the only alternatives proposed are hipster energy sources like wind and solar, instead of nuclear and geothermal.
Aight, you my nigga again.

>>6754952
>Do you think getting Europe to pull out of the slave trade is less absurd? because they're heavily investing in these fields as we speak, and aint gonna turn around any time soon.
Sitting around and complaining about how we're all fucked anyways ain't doing a damn thing either.

>>6755034
>Sitting around and complaining about how we're all fucked anyways ain't doing a damn thing either.

that's why i said
>stop falling for useless 'co2 reduction' scams
>instead, put these ressources to use on exploiting or adapting to climate change

>>6754952
>it'd also still require a huge source of electricity, which pretty much still equates to coal/gas/oil/nuclear
What's wrong with nuclear? Or are you convinced that all the "liberals" are somehow against nuclear

>>6754963
wind - bio - solar - hydro - msw (municipal solid waste)
thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/

>>6754038
You should start by learning about the scientific method

>>6755140
>What's wrong with nuclear? Or are you convinced that all the "liberals" are somehow against nuclear

i don't have a problem with nuclear. i think it's the best energy source we have, next to water power.

but yeah, leftists do seem to hate nuclear. at least that's the way it is here in germany.

>>6755040

>>stop falling for useless 'co2 reduction' scams
>>instead, put these ressources to use on exploiting or adapting to climate change

For instance, we could use the money we spend on dykes and water-pumps to keep Miami from flooding at high-tide, and instead use it to hire druids to magically convert the taiga and muskeg into land that can actually support agriculture.

>>6755159
It's just the toxic press surrounding the term "nuclear" that does it really. Sure, the waste is a problem, but it blows fossil fuels out of the water with regards to efficiency, price, and loss of human life needed to harness it.

If people would just open their eyes and realize how much of a benefit it would be to people if properly managed on a wider scale then the world would be much better off in a multitude of ways.

>>6755176
i know. it's mostly the media (and, by extension, education) that are to blame for this.
whenever anybody talks about nuklear, it's immediately

>MUH CHERNOBYL
>MUH FUKUSHIMA
>MUH POOR MUTATED BABIES FROM RADIATION
>MUH TOXIC WASTE

people seem to vastly overestimate the danger that a nuclear plant poses to its surroundings. most think that merely throwing a rock at a reactor building causes it to blow up in a big mushroom cloud.

>>6755174
>the money we spend on dykes
yeah, damn lesbians!

>hire druids
i approve

>>6755194
>most think that merely throwing a rock at a reactor building causes it to blow up in a big mushroom cloud.

>>6754158
>(3) The largest contributor to it since industrialization is man-made greenhouse gases.

90% of atmospheric CO2 comes from volcanoes, and that's not even counting sulfur.

>>6755211
talk to random germans on the street. that's the level of education on the subject.

i live near the french border, theres a nuclear plant on the other side of the border (cattenom).

every few weeks, our local newspaper has some shitty article like
>another unpredicted incident at cattenom!
>is cattenom really safe?
>core meltdown: what if?
>outrageous: french politicians still refuse to shut down cattenom!

meanwhile they're collectively sucking the dick of everything solar and wind related while not giving a single fuck about our electricity prices rising through the roof because of it.

>>6755159
>at least that's the way it is here in germany
>germany

Are you the same poster:
>stop falling for useless 'co2 reduction' scams

Because it all makes sense now.
But yeah, the EU really screwed up there CO2 reduction plans. I'm a US-american, so I don't know from experience, but from what I've read, the EU basically tried to implement a trading system across the board, but since some countries wouldn't comply, there was a lot of carbon leakage and the prices dropped dramatically so that the system basically became useless. Then there was also the "development mechanism", or whatever it's called, where European companies could cheat on their emissions by funding "clean energy" in third world countries. This was supposed to benefit war-torn African countries, but almost all of the money ended up going to China, and some of the businesses, already having branches in China, simply transferred funds and it was a huge scam.

So I feel you. The EU CO2 reduction program did not work.
But that doesn't mean that we can never have such a program. If Western nations implement carbon tariffs, for example, I think that would work. But the US has to take a step in that direction, because our inaction is aggravating the free-rider problem.

>>6755216
>90% of atmospheric CO2 comes from volcanoes
All natural CO2 sources are almost perfectly balanced by natural CO2 sinks.
(Consider what would happen if there were even the slightest imbalance between natural CO2 sources and sinks in the recent geological history of the Earth. Over millions of years, the concentrations would have risen dramatically.)
The fact that volcanic CO2 and sulfur constitute the majority of emissions is clearly irrelevant. More importantly, human emissions of CO2 and sulfur are pushing the total sources higher than the total sinks, which causes the concentrations to rise over time.
Moreover, these increases in concentrations are significant enough to visibly affect our climate.

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

>>6755225
>Are you the same poster

yes i am
they fucking banned standard lightbulbs for 'co2 saving'. can't buy them anymore. you're only allowed to buy special energy saving bulbs now. these contain mercury, so i hope you never accidentally break one...

>>6755220
France is actually the only country in the entire world 100% free from coal energy, and it's all thanks to nuclear and water.

I seriously don't understand why the left keep focusing on the hipster alternate energy sources like solar and wind, which are terribly inefficient and expensive, instead of nuclear and geothermal.

This is why I don't take the Global Warming people seriously. They literally just want to shut down all industries. Their solution to everything is simply taxing and outlawing.

>>6755283
biggest problem i have with renewables is their unreliability. if all you have is solar and wind, what the fuck do you do when it's night with no wind?

unless large-scale energy storage methods get a lot better than they currently are, this shit is not viable

>>6754038
You need to know that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.

When the planet warms and cools it is due to the sun. Not your car. (Which doesn't mean that wasting energy is a good idea.)

http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html

>>6755291
Boy I feel you your feels.

There was a time when Nuclear energy was the coolest thing, and all industrialized countries were adopting it. Then the Soviet mediocrity had to happen and ruin everything for us.

We should be building new plants left and right, and completely ditch coal and oil power plants.

>>6755249
Dude, you're talking out of your ass. Either that, or you're including people in your magical balancing act.

>The fact that volcanic CO2 and sulfur constitute the majority of emissions is clearly irrelevant.

So you're saying volcanic emissions magically disappear as soon as they are emitted and have absolutely no effect on the atmospheric CO2 content? What is so special about volcanic CO2, as opposed to the CO2 created by humans?

Also, human CO2 production is consistent, meaning nature gets a chance to adapt to it. Volcanic CO2 emissions are random, meaning it's harder to adapt to it.

But all of that is irrelevant.

How can you explain the fact that most of the CO2 models are failing miserably and that solar activity models fit like a glove?

>>6755249
>implying volcanic co2 emission is constant and relatively stable
>implying there haven't been supereruptions before
>implying the world hasn't recovered from them

>>6755307
>How can you explain the fact that most of the CO2 models are failing miserably and that solar activity models fit like a glove?
I don't have to explain that, since it simply isn't true.
Rather, I should be asking you: how you explain that CO2 models are working perfectly and solar models don't explain anything?

>>6755283
>They literally just want to shut down all industries.
>literally
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>6755307
>>6755348
Most volcanic emissions are aerosols, which are extremely short lived. But yes, huge volcanic eruptions do affect the climate for several years.

But look, human CO2 emissions are around 30 billion metric tons per year. Volcanic CO2 emissions are on average 60-300 million metric tons per year. That's at least two orders of magnitude! Your claim that volcanic CO2 emissions are more significant is absurd, if you only look at the numbers.

>>6755356
As you can see, volcanic contributions to CO2 concentrations over the past several decades have been negligible.

>>6755349

I like playing this game!
How do you explain elephants fly?

http://www.takeourworldback.com/globalwarming.htm

>>6755356
Can't be bothered to look for the link, but ICCP cartel themselves published the data of volcanoes producing 90% CO2. Feel free to try and find it.

But as I said, how much volcanoes actually produce is fairly irrelevant, what's more relevant is the fact that CO2 models don't work.

>>6755377
Hey, looks like martians are driving too many SUVs!

>>6755385
I just gave you the data, fucktard

Humans: 30 billion tons/year
Volcanoes: 60-300 million tons/year

>CO2 models don't work
Stop preaching this complete nonsense.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Spoiler:
The models DO WORK, you stubborn, ignorant, bullshitting, deluded, tinfoil-hat assholes.
Stop spamming this board with your lies.

>>6755283
People promoting "alternative" energy are raking in an insane amount of money, mostly from subsidies. In my town, about $2 billion got invested in "alternative" energy construction project, and maintenance of said project was entrusted to very specific contractors.

>>6755397
True, but this is not a valid argument against alternative energy in general.
This is merely an argument against the way in which alternative energy policies are currently being implemented.

>>6755396

Well fuck. I'll give you some contrary data here:

Humans: 60-300 million tons/year
Volcanoes: 30 billion tons/year

Well, I guess my data and your data just cancels out. For fuck's sake, at least link to something, don't just spew vomit.

If you can link to something other than "skeptical"science website, I might be bothered to click, I'm tired of giving them clicks, as they are as "skeptical" as fucking scientologists.

Pic related. Solar models don't work.

>>6755412

I can assure you, if the focus of the global warming religion would be to clean up the opportunism their leaders exhibit first then skeptics would have been more receptive.

Let's say you were a jew and hitler came over and told you he's willing to install some free showers in your home, would you trust him?

>>6755415
Sure. Current temperature trends are obviously due to the same solar variations that produced the medieval warm period. Just look at the graph, omfg!

>>6755415
>at least link to something
>literally link in the post
>meanwhile posts an outsourced picture and baseless claims
Nigga...

>>6755427
Let's stretch that a bit further, yeah?

>>6755427
>>6755439
One of them is pretty clearly wrong as they don't present even close the same graph

Probably the later as it looks like someone made it in paint and has 100 year datapoints

>>6755431
>throws insults
>still no reliable link or source

>>6755446
I'm not even him
I'm just insulting you because you are retarded
>"still no links"
>literally provided a link in previous post
>doesn't source any of his claims anyway

>>6755439
First of all, that graph is bs.

But you're missing the point. See how rapidly temperatures have increased in the past century? They have increased so rapidly that the extent of that increase is not visible in a graph spanning several thousand years. Changes in solar radiation are slow and steady. They cannot possibly account for the speeds we have witnessed!

>>6755444
I see you have absolutely no understanding of science.

1. the black line is CO2 (which is actually not explained by the graph itself)
2. that black line makes it appear as though we should all be sweating our balls off all the time right now.
3.that graph has been debunked
4. If you actually look at the closeups of the CO2 and temperature graphs, you see that spikes in temperature happen first, followed by CO2 spikes.

Since you seem to have a random selection of that shit, feel free to look through them.

>>6755452
Speeds in what? Where the fuck do you live? Can't be earth.

>>6755458
>missing the point this hard
The 2 images are clearly fucking opposite of each others
That should make it painfully obvious that one of them is wrong
I vote the one that is made in paint and uses 100 year datapoints
>still doesn't source his claims

Also here is an image I use to prove everything
:^)

>>6755458
>1. the black line is CO2 (which is actually not explained by the graph itself)

False. The black line is Jones HADCRUT2v, which is the most commonly-used temperature record for the past 150 years or so.

>4. If you actually look at the closeups of the CO2 and temperature graphs, you see that spikes in temperature happen first, followed by CO2 spikes.

This is over geologic time scales, where larger, slower changes in solar irradiance allow for prolonged CO2 feedbacks, and suggest an inverted causation. But you must remember that this is a feedback mechanism. Increased temperatures force CO2 out of the oceans, while simultaneously increased CO2 concentrations lead to higher temperatures.
It just so happens that the CO2 happens first this time, and that it is happening over a very short time period.

>>6755476
>>6755471
I have to say, I have converted to your religion guys! Your mspaint skills and gulliblealchemy links have made me a true believer! You didn't even need to link to a single published article!

How much is my admission?

I swear, it's like talking to retards on a mission of spreading their retardation.

>>6755486
>says the guy who has so far provided 1 paint and one better paint image without sources and ignored all links provided

>>6755489
>says the guy who only read the last 3 posts

>>6755494
>says the guy who hasn't read any post
:^)
There are 10 links in this thread plenty of which have more links inside them

Meanwhile you have refused to provide anything besides paint images

>>6755486
At least I don't flat-out lie
>the black line is CO2
>it's actually pic related, temperature

>>6755496

>shilling

No, I have provided links, you are the one who only posted mspaint.
And there was another one of you shills only posting from one source.

Here, another one for you with plenty of sources

http://www.iceagenow.com/

>>6755503
>posts 2 clearly unrelated graphs
>accuses another anon of lying

>>6755505
>shilling

If you can link to something other than "iceagenow"science website, I might be bothered to click

:^)

>>6755514
>shillingintensifies.jpg

>>6755521
>shilling this hard

>>6755514
>doesn't post links
>complains about an actual link

>>6755523
>>6755415
>doesn't post links
>complains about an actual link

What's up with the /pol/ invasion recently, these threads used to have very little conspiracy and denialism shit.

>>6754038

There is only one solution. Much more government. Massive bureaucracies, staggering carbon $$$taxes and significant regulatory power given to the United Nations. Once you take your place as a good little peasant, all will be well.

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…”

>>6755503

Why did NASA GISS rewrite the temperature record?

>>6755884
Why did you don't know dick about scientific methodology?

(If you want the answer, read the fucking published paper. It's clearly explained.)

>>6755746
/pol/ thinks that if they post on /sci/ it means they're intelligent.

>>6755892
Keep telling yourself that. Could you at least give the reference? Let me guess, it was written by people who's salaries depend on whipping up fear of climate change. Then reviewed by their buddies.

And what about the National Academy of Sciences; there's that graph too. Looks a lot like the top graph.

>>6755907
/sci/ thinks that if they believe in an unfalsifiable pseudo-science, that people will like them.

>>6755911
>unfalsifiable
>pseudoscience
It's funny because you clearly don't understand what either of those mean.

>>6755892

Well lookie here, a Climategate email discussing the need to erase the cooling period form 1940 to 1970

>>6755914

A believe system that claims to be a science, but is unfalsifiable is a pseudo-science.

You know your pathetic insults are no substitute for logic and data to defense AGW. Then again, you don't have any.

>>6755920
>A believe system that claims to be a science, but is unfalsifiable is a pseudo-science.
Wow, you really DON'T know what unfalsifiable means. And I was just being sarcastic...

>You know your pathetic insults are no substitute for logic and data to defense AGW.
Usually to "defense" something there has to be a credible attack. All I see here is retards from /pol/ screaming about things they don't know anything about. To call some science "pseudoscience" you should AT LEAST understand it first.

>>6755920

>nb4 IPCC
>nb4 Simpleton Science
>nb4 RealClimate

State the "facts" and "logic" yourself kid. Hiding behind authority ain't going to do it.

>>6755928

OK genius, why do you keep dodging the question of falsifiability? Oh yeah, because you have no answer.

1) Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for CAGW. It must distinguish from natural climate variance.

2) Show a single substantive prediction based on anthropogenic CO2 which has proven true for AGW.

Substantive = clearly different from normal climate variance; for comparison against real world data.
Predictive = published before the real world data occurred. Not after-the-fact (CAGW does amazing after-the-fact "predictions!")

>nb4 if CO2 doesn't act like a greenhouse.
Nobody said CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. That just a bogey man made up by warmists.

>>6755932

I'm not the one who believes in a quasi-religion masquerading as science. That is YOU.

Go read up on Trophim Lysenko
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>6755944

>1) Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for CAGW. It must distinguish from natural climate variance.

http://www.wri.org/publication/sea-level-rise-and-its-impact-miami-dade-county

>2) Show a single substantive prediction based on anthropogenic CO2 which has proven true for AGW.

The West Side Highway will be underwater.

>>6755963

You have no demonstrated that these were caused by Anthropogenic CO2.

As if flooding doesn't happen. As if land levels never change. You have provided no evidence that distinguishes this from normal land-level/sea-level variance.

I mean who said that that if Miami Dade county didn't have flooding, they'd stop believing in Climate Change? No ONE!

This quasi-religious belief system is pathetic. its like when my fundamentalist mother would talk about barely getting missed by a car on her way home. "God was looking out for her." So what? If she'd been hit, would that prove that god doesn't exist.

What about the countless cities in Florida that didn't flood? What about the massively frozen Antarctic. What about the non-melted Arctic? The flat global temperatures for 15 years? The lack of the "hot spot" in the troposphere? The failed models? The statements about snow becoming a rare thing?

Oh yeah, heads you win, tails I lose. The essence of a pseudo-science.

Nothing can shake your faith.

>>6755978
Who causes what is very moot. The fact is that anything we can do, we should. Unless you think we are going towards a ice age very soon, we need to get methane levels normalized before atmospheric destabilization.

>>6755978
>Nothing can shake your faith.
The only unshakeable faith in this thread is /pol/'s faith that some retarded charts can shake science. I'm sorry that what scientists say goes against your political beliefs I truly am. The difference between you and me is that I would change my beliefs in the face of scientific evidence. If climatologists announced tomorrow that global warming isn't real and here's why, I would change my mind. But nothing anyone says will change yours. That's faith. And you justify that faith with an even more insane faith that their is a massive conspiracy among scientists so that you can be politically oppressed. That is just insanity. You are the one with the unfalsifiable position. You are the one with faith. Because nothing will ever change your mind.

>>6755978

What the hell is that? Global warming denialism for ants?

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17655/does-this-graph-show-climate-change-predictions-dont-meet-observations

>>6756006

You really need to read up on Trophim Lysenko. That fact that someone believes that if someone is called a scientist, then they act scientifically is incredibly naive.

And it is unfortunate that in the end you hide behind authority. You haven't any meaningful facts to back you up. Group-think authoritarianism has caused more crimes against humanity than any thing else.

BTW The conspiracy thing is just a strawman argument made up by warmists as an ad hominem argument. Most, if not all skeptics do not believe there is a conspiracy; ironically, you're the one who believes that the oil companies and the Koch brothers are in on a conspiracy. So you are engaged in psychological projection.

And that is sad.

>>6754718
or we can replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy

>>6756017
>You really need to read up on Trophim Lysenko
The fact that you think this is relevant is laughable and just goes further to prove my point. You are removed from reality because of your ideology. Now go back to /pol/

>That fact that someone believes that if someone is called a scientist, then they act scientifically is incredibly naive.
I never said that I believe people who are called scientists, I said that I believe scientists.

>And it is unfortunate that in the end you hide behind authority.
You hide behind an authority too, just a far less credible one. none of your arguments or images are your own. You are just following the words of someone you trust. It's unfortunate but unless you or I are going to get degrees in climatology and spend lots of time and money to do our own research, some authority must be adhered to. I choose my colleagues in the scientific world, you choose /pol/.

>You haven't any meaningful facts to back you up.
Climatology backs me up. That's a whole bunch of scientific facts. You aren't backed up by it.

>Group-think authoritarianism has caused more crimes against humanity than any thing else.
Then why are you engaging in it?

>BTW The conspiracy thing is just a strawman argument made up by warmists as an ad hominem argument.
If it's a strawman why do you refer to Trophim Lysenko?

>Most, if not all skeptics do not believe there is a conspiracy; ironically, you're the one who believes that the oil companies and the Koch brothers are in on a conspiracy.
what exactly do I believe about oil companies or the Kochs? You assume wrongly.

>So you are engaged in psychological projection.
The irony is palpable.

>>6755909
You posted the picture, dipshit. You have the reference.

Firmly disproving the idea of AGW would give a scientist a much bigger name (and therefore salary) than contributing to the current state of knowledge, so your argument is pretty ludicrous.
> also, "whose"

>>6754724
Dis is wut muricans acrually believe

The science stops at AGW being a problem. Somehow very rational people stop asking questions when it comes time to decide what we should charge the average (very poor) energy customer for their pollution. The answer given is always More. More more more more more.

>but just tax the energy corporations instead

The /pol/ crew always opens with the accusations of faith claims and religionization of a scientific theory. It reminds me of middle school when you knew someone would say something about you, so you could say it to them first so they couldn't just be like, "y-you too!" even if it applied to you more in the first place.

I wish we weren't warming the earth. I like a cheap, less regulated energy sector. I like rowdy muscle cars and off-road vehicles that spew smog everywhere. I like deleting cats off my cars. I wish environmental regs didn't choke cars and drive their prices up, I miss when the individualism tied to vehicles was a part of the American zeitgeist. I miss when a vehicle on the open road was a symbol of freedom. I wish we weren't fucking over developing countries who will face the blunt end of what we're doing to the earth. But the facts conflict with my interests, and I'm man enough to deal with that.

Any clear-headed approach to the debate and it's pretty obvious who is arguing for what - who is actually coming to conclusions after running the facts through rigor, and who is choosing the most convenient conclusion for their politics and then sorting the facts that agree with them. It's obvious who here is applying a fraction of the scrutiny to their own sources/premises/arguments compared to that which they are arguing against, which happens to include the vast majority of science (both studies and polled individuals who specialize in the relevant fields).

>>6756017
>BTW The conspiracy thing is just a strawman argument made up by warmists as an ad hominem argument.

The conspiracy is part of the assertion of the denialists that the global science community is all in on a liberal world-wide cover-up of the real science. It's an implication of YOUR assertion, you fucking deal with it.

>>6755385
>Can't be bothered to look for the link, because I don't give a shit about accuracy

Maybe its because I don't know enough about it, but I believe humanity as a species is capable of overcoming any problem, even climate change. If humans are indeed the cause, then we can be the solution.

>>6756689
>assumes the change will be reversable, gradual and linear

>>6756689
>assumes the change will be reversible, gradual and linear

>>6756689
>humanity as a species is capable of overcoming any problem
your blind faith is just so adorable

>>6756770
and yours is just frightening

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact. Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary, in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. Climatology resembles a religion, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. And if it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

It's overblown and the fascist proposals leftists and corporations are coming up with will only doom billions of people to poverty and starvation.

Humanity will get off most fossil fuels in the next 30 years anyway.

/thread

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

>>6757001
>The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected.
that's why we do large scale climate-wide modeling instead of small-scale precise modeling

>>6754038
That's it's a bogus, manufactured crisis designed to shake free research dollars that are otherwise drying up.

>>6755216
Bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_the_carbon_cycle
>Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[48] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).[49]

Oh shit, what did I just do? I gave sources!

>>6757085
Wikipedia is not a source, don't use it as such, even when arguing with /pol/tards

>>6755918
There's a lot more to climategate, but obviously some people did their homeworks when they looked up at how to win when it comes to courts.

>>6755249
>>All natural CO2 sources are almost perfectly balanced by natural CO2 sinks.

>implying volcanic activity worldwide is consistent

something which represents 90% of emissions and fluctuates like crazy would mean our 10% somewhat steadily increasing emissions would not have a steadily increasing temperature result, but a 90% radical funhouse effect

>>6757089
>2014
>still doesn't know how to check the sources at the bottom of the page

>>6757101
Cite those source then, not wikipedia. It's like citing New Scientist instead of the study it's reporting on.

>>6757099
you've got your numbers backwards, numbnuts. it's the humans that are 90%, not the volcanos

>>6757101
>2014
>Still doesn't know how to use wikipedia to create those sources in the first place

This is 4chan, for fuck's sake.

>>6757042
>climate-wide modeling
Which planet are you using to create a model of earth's climate?

>>6757108
source?

>>6757098
Please explain

>>6754105
lol

Summary

>>6754038
That North Canada is not as bad as you imagined

>volcanoes are 90% of CO2 output, human activity is 10%

kek
You literally have to be retarded to believe this

>>6754038
>What do I need to know about climate change?

Are you a politician? No? Then nothing, you cannot do fuck-all about it anyway.

"Climate change" has been warped by pololitics and the media for there own agenda.

Human damage to the environment is real, ignore the hype.

>>6757192

I love it how you take a dead guy's quote out of context and >>implying<< with Al Gore.

Sad though because its all you got and you're not a worthy opponent.

>>6757269
>"Climate change" has been warped by pololitics
only in US

>>6757289
And the rest of the world. You should see the shit this woman spews out.

>>6756064

You're so filled with rage, you're not even rational. I was asking about the reference in your comment here:
>>6755892
>If you want the answer, read the fucking published paper. It's clearly explained.)

What is the reference to (in your words) "the fucking published paper?"

>>6757289
>>6757328

The reason it is political in the US is because of America's lacking science education. Denialists aren't common in other countries. Same with creationism.

>>6757338
this

>>6757338

I think he's not talking about skeptics, but religious zealots. Like the "co-winner" in the pic.

And trust me, US education isn't as bad as it's made out to be.

Fun fact, in UK, kids learn multiplication by 10 at the age of 10.

OP all you need to know is that climate change and global warming are the same thing, just the newer phrase was adopted since not all areas are equally warmed and is more PC.

Second, it most definitely is happening. This is based on the simple observation that, ever since we've recorded daily temperatures, on average the entire globe shows a warming trend. This means it's warmer now than it has been before, and this trend has increased for quite a long time with the discovery of ice cores and the climate data they contain.

Third, the MAIN CONTROVERSY of climate change is only about whether or not mankind is the cause. The main questions are, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, are we producing enough of it to affect the climate, and is there anything we can do to change it. Other greenhouse gases include methane and water vapor, which also change significantly. Also the sun sometimes fluctuates in how much energy it gives out.

This is significant because it costs large energy and manufacturing companies a lot of money to adapt to lower emissions and things like that. They don't want to pay because they don't think it makes a difference.

>>6756113
>The conspiracy is part of the assertion of the denialists that the global science community is all in on a liberal world-wide cover-up of the real science. It's an implication of YOUR assertion, you fucking deal with it.

You are so enraged that I can practically see the spittle on your lips. And your faith in the religion of Climate Change is incurring a wrath all-too-similar to a Fundamentalist who was just told that the Bible is a work of fiction.

Its unfortunate that you have to keep up your ridiculous "Conspiracy Theory" fiction. I guess when you don't have facts or logic and a long list of failed predictions, you have to resort strawman arguments to protect your faith. If you actually practiced the scientific method you would accept that all the failures demonstrate that the theory has been falsified. But unfalsifiability is the name of your game.

So tell me Mr. "If a bunch of people believe in 'settled science' " then it must be true.

Then everyone who believed that in the earth-centric solar system was part of a conspiracy?

Then everyone who believed in Classical Mechanics (replaced by QM) was part of a conspiracy?

Funny how you can't answer the questions here:
>>6755944
thus, your religious-like rage!
(No, Miami Dade county floods aren't an answer)


Everyone who believed in the constancy of space and time (replaced by relativity) was part of a conspiracy?

Everyone who believed in the fixed positions of the continents (replaced by continental drift) was part of a conspiracy?

>>6757367

>You are so enraged that I can practically see the spittle on your lips. And your faith in the religion of Climate Change is incurring a wrath all-too-similar to a Fundamentalist who was just told that the Bible is a work of fiction.

Ah yes, the Galileo gambit.

>"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."

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

>>6757367
>You are so enraged

lol not at all. I can see why you'd want me to be though. /pol/ types are inherently emotional.

>Its unfortunate that you have to keep up your ridiculous "Conspiracy Theory" fiction.

It's unfortunate that you have to be a conspiracy theorist.

>I guess when you don't have facts or logic and a long list of failed predictions

And thusly you disclose that you know jack shit about climate science.

>you have to resort strawman arguments

Not so much resorting as much as point out a plain fact. Your assertion is that the large majority of climate science is wrong yet covered up, lying, or mislead. It's all a conspiracy. It meets all basic definitions of a conspiracy and it's an inescapable implication of your central argument.

>So tell me Mr. "If a bunch of people believe in 'settled science' "

I don't believe in "settled" science. There can always be new data.

>>6757359

This man knows what he's talking about

>>6757367

You chose a good picture to demonstrate you know very little about science and how it works. Literally none of that, ironically except for global warming, has been consensually agreed upon in the scientific community.

>>6757367
your mom's pussy glistened with the spittle from my cock last night :^)

>>6757399

Once again, the pathetic appeal to authority. It would really help if you could use facts, data and logic. But I guess that's too much.

So let's see about this Muller guy, here's a nice quote of his from 2003:

"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/

Oh my, how skeptical! How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Yup, very skeptical indeed; you've converted me!

>>6757421
>Literally
>ironically

kill yourself

>>6757426

Sorry that language inflames your autism.

>>6757428
>inflames

epik XD

>>6757269
>Human damage to the environment is real, ignore the hype.

I would go beyond that and say that it is obvious, nearly everywhere you look, in nearly every activity that man is engaged in nearly anywhere he is engaging in it on anywhere on the entire planet.

>>6757249
>Are you a politician? No? Then nothing, you cannot do fuck-all about it anyway.

Thats what everyone's mean, stupid, bitter little inner goblin tells them. Ask a child what should be done about global warming after explaining the causes and he'll plainly state the obvious solutions, even offering to help. Ask an adult. They won't give up one iota- their cars, their throwaway lifestyles, their little piece. And so it goes. Our culture destroys a person when they're young a vulnerable, to create a pliable consumer drone who will accept being politically neutered.

Politics does not just begin and end when you vote. It begins when you think and speak and act. When someone tells you there is no point in addressing a public evil, no matter how banal, they are encouraging you to censor yourself.

And in a situation where the stakes are existential, what happens is a diminishment of the human spirit... the sort of thing that is done to the people ISIS murders when they make their victims line up and march to the killing fields.

The illustrative aspect is the nature of the induced activity- namely, against one's own best interest. The Nazi genius was simply presenting a "less worse" option, thereby making its victims more compliant and ultimately, their task more efficient.

The Option vis a vis climate change, for the lumpen-proletariat is similar. It is presented thusly:

1. You have the option of sacrificing things without the assurance of salvation; or

2. You can indulge whatever behaviors you desire, without the assurance of salvation.

You can vote for A or B, there is no third choice. Sound familiar?

>>6757421

>Hurr, durr, science is settled by consensus.
Tell that to Einstein.

>>6757425

Sorry, I wish we could choose more climate scientists or meteorologists who don't acknowledge CAGW but they're pretty rare.

>>6757439
>science is settled by consensus.

Never said it was, retard.

>>6757422

What happened? Did you wipe his seminal spittle off your mouth and dribble it on your cock?

>>6757438
global warming being real doesn't give justification for your shitty morality arguments

also, godwin's law.

>>6757448
and false dichotomy to boot

boy is there nothing i hate more than someone who uses scientific fact to springboard their shitty opinions

>>6757442
>ironically except for global warming, has been consensually agreed upon in the scientific community.

Make up your mind.

BTW, that is absolutely false. You're pretty much just making it up now to protect your faith.

>>6757438
>Ask a child what should be done about global warming after explaining the causes and he'll plainly state the obvious solutions

no shit

>hey kid, what should we do about war?
>just stop killing each other!

hurr

>>6757445
>his

LOL YOUR MOM'S A GUY

>>6757453
>make up your mind

What?

>BTW, that is absolutely false.

Flat earth was never science, neither was global cooling. Weight falling faster was never scientific consensus, since Aristotle wasn't exactly a physicist. Saying that atoms are the smallest particle doesn't even make sense since the first models of atoms contained subatomic particles. Geocentrism is the only one that came close but it was mostly held in theocracies.

>>6757453

Pointing out the fact that anthropomorphic climate change has scientific consensus doesn't mean you're making an argument from it.

>>6757466
>Geocentrism is the only one that came close but it was mostly held in theocracies.

Don't bullshit. Geocentrism was the dominant model in the Ancient Greek world after Aristotle and continued to be so long amongst the Europeans (and the Arabics) before and after the Roman Catholic Church (there were ancients who held to heliocentrism but their theories weren't popular at the time).

I agree with everything else but there's no need to distort history to suit your argument.

>>6757483

It would never have held for so long if it wasn't considered heresy to disagree with. From the beginning there were calculations that didn't add up. Dancing planets/stars?

>>6757486
>Hellenism
>Heresy

You were going so well up until that point.

>It would never have held for so long

It held for ~600 years before Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire and continued to be held for another thousand by Islamic astronomers who had no religious qualms about a heliocentric model.

>>6754038
You need to know that it fixes itself retroactively.

>Constant climate thread since atleast one year
I thought /sci/ was supposed to have the best mods on this site.

>>6757452
> false dichotomy to boot

I'm mentioning false dichotomy as the one we're given by the overwhelming majority of peers in this culture: To continue as if nothing is happening, or to continue as if nothing is happening and act as if we are doing something about it.

Lets be frank, anon. We're not really doing anything about it. Others aren't either. We talk a lot about it but we're not doing anything about it.

Obviously there is a third option, actually doing something about it, which I thought you might be smart enough to gather by implication.

>>6757448
>global warming being real doesn't give justification for your shitty morality arguments

Did I ever state that GW is the antecedent premise to any argument. You don't like moral reasoning? Ethics, or just whatever?

>also, godwin's law.

That Godwin's law may be predictive but not informative on any particular thread or argument- your objection is irrelevant.

>>6757425

>I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

>Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.

>Global warming. There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse. The thing I would tell the president is that the global warming, according to the global consensus — that’s the IPCC scientists, who won the Nobel Prize — the global warming of the future is going to come from the developing world. It’s the exploding economies of China and India and Asia that are going to be responsible for the CO2.

You should probably stick to citing blurry low-res jpgs with dozens of links spattered everywhere rather than actual sources that people can go and read for themselves.

>>6757562

Pity that you have no data, no logic and no substance. Only the pathetic appeals to authority and popularity. Oh, and the occasional strawman argument. But try, just try to answer these two questions:
>>6755944
You won't because you can't.

Pictured: Your hero.

>>6757440

Start with:
Prof. Richard Lindzen, MIT
Prof. Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
Prof. Fred Singer, University of Virginia
Prof. Roy Spencer, inventor of satellite temperature measurements

Then move on to this:
Here's a list of 496 skeptical scientist
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html

>>6757601

>3%

Some meaningful authority you've got there.

>>6757606

The deceptive and false "97% consensus" was concocted by psychology graduate student John Cook. As usual, he set up a strawman argument. "Screening" papers for those who believed that CO2 had an effect on climate. This is a strawman argument because almost no one says it doesn't. (A recent poll of climate skeptics showed that 100% agreed that CO2 has a climate effect.)

The real argument is whether it has a weak effect (the skeptic position) or a strong effect (via positive feedback).

By setting up a strawman argument John Cook got the 97% number. See:

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change .
>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.

phd in math any job you want 300k starting amirite amirtie

>>6757625
I wish.

>>6757620
>inb4 someone falls for the old copypasta

>>6757632

A sad attempt to dodge the unpleasant truth of the fake "consensus."

>>6757620

Willie Soon... That name sounds familiar...

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

Climate conspiracy indeed.

>>6757647
>http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

Ad hominem. Together with appeals to authority and popularity, not to mention strawman arguments is all you've got.

You try so hard, so VERY HARD not to deal with facts, logic, and hard data. Why? Because you can't answer these two questions:
>>6755944

>>6757647

You're right, warmists have no conflict of interest.

>>6757685
Jesus this board has really gone downhill, huh? Potholer54 would really be ashamed (speaking of which, almost everyone of your points has been debunked by him).

Isn't that graphic like saying the finding of the Higgs Boson is a conflict of interest because those working at CERN base their grant money off its finding?

I believe pretty thoroughly in global warming. That being said, could somebody explain, preferably in retard terms, how we are certain given that we only have 200 years of data, tops? I mean, I get that the data points to a certain conclusion, and that 200 years seems like a long time, but if we're looking at this in the long haul, how can we be sure this isn't some kind of natural variance like El Nino or somesuch?

Are the cycles of weather short enough that we can observe this and be sure of it being truly abnormal?

>>6757715
Of what data, friend? 200 years of carbon record or 200 years of global average temperature record? Because we have much more in both (albeit not as accurate as the satellite models of recent).

Honestly this thread is pretty sickening. Science isn't a competition among the laymen about who chose the right theory -- it's an ongoing study. If a well-researched paper came out that proved anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist, the climate deniers still wouldn't be any less retarded.
Same goes for the Al Gore eco-friendly circle jerk crowd.

How many unique "Denier" posters are ITT vs how many unique "Warmist" posters

Does anynewt gingrich know how to do this?

Just curious

>>6757715
It's too long to explain in a couple of posts, but I'll direct you to YouTube, where you can view a video series by potholer54. It covers all the major points, deals with the various criticisms, and (gasp!) cites the scientific literature on pretty much all points. It's like a review article, but in video form. Really good.

The short answer, though, is that we have much more than 200 years of data for much of the world. (It's always funny to Europeans, for example, when someone from America talks proudly about how their house was built all the way back in the 1930s.) We also have all sorts of ways of estimating the various data (and we build the errors of those into our calculations), and then there are a variety of models which largely agree despite different assumptions and inputs.

El Nino and solar cycles and other such short term cycles are just that: short term. You could make arguments if we only had 10 years' worth of data, but the changes observed have been going on for more than a few cycles, which rules them out as a root cause. Also, we've got a pretty good understanding of their effects, roughly, and can correct for that in order to single out the anthropogenic effect.

>>6757692
Not quite, the sort of people working on projects like that are valuable and can easily find jobs.

>>6757520
They're pretty good, but for some reason they don't give these threads much regard. Although it's proper to have uninhibited debate, this thread included, they're also very tired arguments that don't need a fucking thread on the front page every God damn day.

>>6757507
The process that do are walking the wrong direction on an escalator.

>>6755159
that's because Germans are still butthurt that they lost WWII.

Shoulda gassed more of them

>>6757890
But hotter years make previous years colder.

>>6757620
>The deceptive and false "97% consensus"
Actually there are studies that have looked at the scientific literature which show the exact opposite of what you're claiming. The consensus is that humans are contributing significantly to the recent warming.

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html

>>6755140
mhmm maybe the nuclear waste is somehow still an issue, don't you think!?!

>>6758095
nuclear waste won't destroy the climate

>>6758095
Nuclear waste is not an issue, in theory.
But it is an issue politically. Geologists have identified areas that can be used as permanent storage for nuclear waste (see Yucca), but NIMBY and misinformation always seems to prevail.

>>6758087

Sigh. Read it again. Its a strawman argument. Essentially everyone believes that CO2 affects climate. But is it a weak effect or a strong one?

Could anyone actually post some evidence CO2 is a greenhouse gas? A link to a research paper will do.

>>6757692

97% of scientists are government funded (directly or indirectly). Government has much carbon $$$tax and regulatory power to gain from the Climate Change thing. It is not a coincidence that almost all "solutions" to Climate Change grow the power of government. Then there's the long term U.N. goal of true international governance power.

Note that almost all major institutions seek to increase their power. You've really got to stop thinking that profit is the only type of power.

And there are many politicians and activists who are ideologically motivated and don't care about the truth of the situation.
>>6755877

>>6759099

>nb4 Conspiracy!

There is NO CONSPIRACY. Simply people acting in a way that benefits their mutual self-interest.

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
- Upton Sinclair

>>6759109
Therefore all science is false because scientists are just making up studies to get funding right?

>>6759096
>post some evidence
Lrn2google

I'll never understand the basic denial of human activity increasing greenhouse gases. If they accept that we make tons of C02, and have been for a hundred years, where do they propose it has all gone? In to our diminishing forests?

>>6757868
So are the scientists who work in IPCC. It's a multidisciplinary body; it's not just climatologists. Quite a few of the bodies employees are geologists, who are very employable indeed in the mining industry.

>>6754931

butthurt libshit detected

>>6754105
Seems nuanced

tfw if my country cut all greenhouse gas emissions for a year! China would more than make up for it.

Also, why don't we just build nuclear power plants?
No emissions, no actively (only passively) damaging waste, thorium mega fuel source for millions of years, etc.
With almost free power, we can turn CO2 and H2O into petrol, a dense and easy way of storing energy, putting it into our cars, and putting it back into the atmosphere as we drive them.

>>6754038
>What do I need to know about climate change?

Once the methane ice and permafrost starts to melt it'll be too late. It will cause an unstoppable chain reaction as it releases more methane and CO2 into the air. It's already started happening. Probably too late now. You are all already dead.

>>6755220
so true man.
also, there are ways to filter 100% of the co2 from coalpowerplants and just pump it into the ground and people get crazy because they think its some kind of poisonous gas

>>6760379

>>6760379
There is only one way to end global warming chain reaction.

>>6760379
too late for what? winter fashion?

All you need to know about "global warming" is in this one simple graph.
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton

>>6760664
> monckton

>>6759229
contrary to popular belief, forests have been on an increase in europe. By quite a lot.

>monckton
No, IPCC.

>>6760675

>forests
and more:

We found a strong link between the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and a greening that's been observed across many of the world's arid environments.

Previous experiments from greenhouses have shown that plants when they're grown in dry conditions are much more efficient at using water under higher CO2 levels than they are under low levels.

So what this should mean across whole landscapes that are dry is that there should be a general increase in vegetation foliage cover and that increase in foliage cover should be in proportion with the known rises of CO2 levels.

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

>>6760707
the yield gain from increased CO2 does not increase indefinitely, there's a cap to the concentration that that benefits yield

also that's ignoring the impacts of temperature, which drastically affects plant viability and seasonal change sensing

>>6757405
>It's unfortunate that you have to be a conspiracy theorist.
Yes because nobody has ever lied about anything and nobody has ever conspired whatsoever.

Enjoy being a <50 iq waste of space.

>>6760707
So, higher CO2 levels are good then.

>>6760721
If you like plants in the dessert and sunken cities as an exchange.
Then yea I guess

>>6760721
moar CO2 means warmer weather. I like warm weather. It's good.

Also the ocean will absorb the C02 and turn into CokaCola! Cola is awsome! CO2 is awsome!

>>6760721
crops like more CO2 but not growing in the desert. I mean, it's fine if iceland decide to concentrate on banana plantations but transition would be a bitch for the market. There most likely will be food but your wallet won't be happy in those times.

Since the beginning of the modern atmospheric CO2 measurements in 1958 the period of positive correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures is limited to the approximate time window 1977-2001.

>>6760741
And how does more CO2 mean warmer weather exactly? The correlation just isn't there.

People saying that the earth hasn't warmed for X amount of years according to recent studies are disclosing that they don't understand science, because the results are based on degrees of certainty of long-term modelling. I can guarantee that people who parrot that shit don't know what a 95% degree of certainty is in that context, or how it's calculated and why it barely applies to short-term recent years.

>>6760996
So you're saying it should only apply to a very specific band arbitrarily chosen by pixies?

>>6754042
>descendants
>Oh wait, nevermind.
>You don't have to care at all.

too close to home, man.

>>6760996
>>6761008
Let me just add. The models only work between 70s to 2000s, give or take a decade. The coal has been used for centuries, on an industrial scale. Hell, even forests have been burnt down to make room for farms for hundreds of centuries.

Now, explain to me, how is a global government, which is one of the main proposed solutions, supposed to fix climate?

>>6761031
>The coal has been used for centuries, on an industrial scale.

Wrong, the scale doesn't compare. FAR less fossil fuels were being burnt in 1900 compared to today.

>Now, explain to me, how is a global government, which is one of the main proposed solutions, supposed to fix climate?

You don't need a global government to enforce international standards.

>>6761129
Ever heard of the black country?
And what about the fact that everyone had a fireplace to keep themselves warm until recently, when all of it got replaced by nuclear?

>>6761160
>when all of it got replaced by nuclear?

What? Nuclear is a minority power source.

You are kidding yourself if you think emissions of a hundred years ago even compares. The global population in 1990 was 1.7 Billion, a fraction of what it is now, and a fraction of that lived in an industrializing part of the world that could create remotely significant emissions. All the sooty city shit you read about was a tiny fraction of the world living that way, when the vast majority of the 7 billion people today emit fucktons of CO2.

stupid paranoid right-wing americans are going to be the nail in the coffin of the whole fucking planet

sometimes I wish those death panels and FEMA concentration camps they believe in were actually real

>>6759229

Again, the strawman argument. Nobody says that humans don't produce greenhouse gases. The think is, CO2 is a very WEAK greenhouse gas. It operates on a logarithmic scale.

See attached from the UN IPCC.

IPCC Published reports, (TAR3):
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

Wikipedia says the same thing.
"The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic,..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

>>6761205
>logarithmic scale
lol no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law

>>6761216
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law

Wrong circumstance
>>6761205
is about the relationship between atmospheric concentration of CO2 and global temperature change... you're referring to attenuation of light in the atmosphere. Not the same thing.

>>6761205
Sure, it's not the strongest, but small changes in heat absorption across the entire surface of the earth still have major consequences. Especially if those changes encourage the release of methane from the seafloor (as currents shift) and permafrost (as previously-frozen soil becomes available to anaerobes), since methane is much better at absorbing heat than CO2.

>>6761205
C02? Maybe we should talk about methane, so you shit your pants.

>>6761428

You sound very speculative... about a 1 degree change, when normal temperature is about 30 degrees in a single day.

Please provide some successful predictions of this methane theory. Prediction - published first, then real world data analyzed second.

Keep in mind that methane is much more short lived than CO2. And the theory has been experimentally debunked:

Long-term warming restructures Arctic tundra without changing net soil carbon storage

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12129.html

Seeta A. Sistla, John C. Moore, Rodney T. Simpson, Laura Gough, Gaius R. Shaver & Joshua P. Schimel

>>6761437

Experimentally falsified:
Long-term warming restructures Arctic tundra without changing net soil carbon storage
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12129.html
Seeta A. Sistla, John C. Moore, Rodney T. Simpson, Laura Gough, Gaius R. Shaver & Joshua P. Schimel

And from Science News:
In a 20-year experiment that warmed patches of chilly ground, tundra soil kept its stored carbon, researchers report. …
In 1989, ecologists set up greenhouses on plots of tundra in northern Alaska. Air temperature inside the greenhouses was on average 2 degrees Celsius warmer than outside.
Over two decades, the team reports, mosses and lichens gave way to woody shrubs. Decomposition slowed in surface soil while it sped up deeper underground. Warmer soils may have allowed plant roots and plant litter to penetrate farther into the ground, increasing both the deep soil’s carbon stocks and its rates of decomposition, the researchers suggest. Overall, though, there was no difference in total soil carbon in the greenhouse plots compared with plots that had no greenhouses.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350415/description/News_in_Brief_Warming_may_not_release_Arctic_carbon

>>6761443
>You sound very speculative... about a 1 degree change
1degC is enough to change phytoplankton populations and shift ocean currents.
>when normal temperature is about 30 degrees in a single day.
Generally, daily temperature cycles are not strong enough to have much effect on anything bigger than storm systems.
>Please provide some successful predictions of this methane theory. Prediction - published first, then real world data analyzed second.

Here's some observations:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full

And here's a theoretical model:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016

I'm not sure if those fit what you wanted, but they're decent reading.

>Keep in mind that methane is much more short lived than CO2.
This is quite true, and that could have an effect. But given that we're currently seeing climate change on the order of decades and that the halflife of methane in the atmosphere is 7yrs, it's not impossible that it could have an effect.
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12129.html
I'll check it out. Some preliminary thoughts based on the abstract (I'll have to sign in through my uni's paywall to see the whole thing):
>Warming increased plant biomass and woody dominance ... thereby increasing net ecosystem carbon storage
Just because carbon storage increases doesn't mean that methane isn't escaping - it merely means that the anaerobes up top are doing a better job of fixing CO2 than the methanogens are. Unless the researchers specifically measured methane content and release (which is very easy to do), then this paper has nothing conclusive to say about methane release.

>>6761475
Whoops, I meant to say the aerobes*.

>>6761475

Measured ocean temp changes are in hundredths of a degree and the error bars are 10 times that size.

>Here's some observations:
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full

Again, rigorous 20 YEAR experimentation has falsified that theory
>>6761447

>Overall, though, there was no difference in total soil carbon in the greenhouse plots compared with plots that had no greenhouses.
Not saying an increase in carbon storage, I said no net change.

The other paper, "Potential feedback of thawing permafrost to the global climate system through methane emission" consider a POTENTIAL feedback mechanism for methane increase. But experimentally its not happening.

In all seriousness, the Nature paper is about as rigorous a test as you are going to get. And the answer was negative.

>>6761497
>negative
Is that like emotionally, or scientifically?

>>6761497
>Measured ocean temp changes are in hundredths of a degree
Not in the mixed layer! Which is where the phytoplankton hang out.
>and the error bars are 10 times that size.
Enviro science does have pretty big error bars, but not that big.
>Again, rigorous 20 YEAR experimentation has falsified that theory
Like I said, the article you posted only talks about total carbon lockdown without mentioning methane release specifically. As long as aerobes are locking down CO2 faster than methanogens are (which they absolutely are, because methanogenesis is slow as shit), you can still see an increase in soil carbon alongside an increase in methane outgassing.
>Not saying an increase in carbon storage, I said no net change.
Or you could see no change it all, if methane outgassing balances with CO2 lockdown. One of the articles you posted said that
>Warming increased plant biomass and woody dominance
so if plant biomass is rising, you'd assume that soil carbon content would rise as well (especially over two decades!) - but if it's not, then it's being outgassed, and the two ways it could be being outgassed are CO2 and methane, and in all likelihood it's both. I'm just saying that your papers have nothing conclusive to say about methane release occurring or not occurring.
>The other paper, "Potential feedback of thawing permafrost to the global climate system through methane emission" consider a POTENTIAL feedback mechanism for methane increase.
Like I said, it's a model.
>But experimentally its not happening.
The other paper says it is.
>In all seriousness, the Nature paper is about as rigorous a test as you are going to get. And the answer was negative.
If they didn't measure methane release, then it's not exactly a rigorous test of methane release, now is it?

>>6761475

The actual paper is behind a paywall. So its unclear what they did or didn't do with methane measurements. In any case, it seems very unlikely the there is a methane increase that is perfectly balanced by a decrease elsewhere. More to the point, that other decrease could be to CO2.

>>6761527
>The actual paper is behind a paywall. So its unclear what they did or didn't do with methane measurements.
They would be extremely poor scientists if they didn't mention that in the abstract.
>In any case, it seems very unlikely the there is a methane increase that is perfectly balanced by a decrease elsewhere. More to the point, that other decrease could be to CO2.
Agreed, it could be. But the fact that their research doesn't distinguish between CO2 and methane outgassing shows that this paper isn't well suited to answer the question of permafrost methane release at all.

In other news, I need to reset my university ID so I can get through that damn paywall.

>>6761523
>>Measured ocean temp changes are in hundredths of a degree
>Not in the mixed layer! Which is where the phytoplankton hang out.

Can you point me to some data? What depth are you talking about? I was talking about the "deep warming" depths. Yes, the error bars completely swamp the data measurements. (unfortunately I can't remember where that graph was that i was looking at)

It's something that businesses need to worry about first. You needn't worry; a dozen people whose livelihoods are at stake will start to worry about global warming long before it's an issue to the public. Similar to the dust bowl crisis that the mid-era US industry had to face, this will be an economic issue far before this will be an aesthetic issue. And thus it will be solved because it is solvable.

>>6761536
>Agreed, it could be. But the fact that their research doesn't distinguish between CO2 and methane outgassing shows that this paper isn't well suited to answer the question of permafrost methane release at all.

I can't say I agree with that. No net carbon change speak volumes. As a "perfect balance" of net carbon change seems quite unlikely.

>>6761550
>No net carbon change speak volumes.
In your mind, what does it mean? Here's my thinking:

If primary productivity is rising, then it stands that soil carbon content should also be rising. But if it's not, then the soil must also be outgassing carbon either as CO2 or methane. Now, the paper specifically says that surface microbial decomposition is (somewhat paradoxically) reduced by the temperature shift, so there's actually *less* CO2 going into the atmosphere than you'd expect. But that carbon has to outgassed somehow - and since methane is produced by bacteria which live deep down in the soil, rather than on the surface, I argue that methanogens are offsetting the carbon influx brought on by primary productivity.
The paper doesn't delve into that topic at all and I think it's entirely possible that methane represents a negative factor which balances out the increased carbon from decaying plants.

>As a "perfect balance" of net carbon change seems quite unlikely.
I agree, but... you did post that article as part of your argument, so I don't know why you want to attack it.

>>6761545
The mixed layer is generally between 10-100m. It depends on temperature mostly - radiation drives convection cells in the ocean's surface. Its temperature varies a lot and is definitely subject to climate change. Here's the first thing that popped up when I googled it (since I don't have a textbook to show you):
>http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/2264/125/1/Deep_Sea_Res_II_52_1848.pdf

As for "deep warming", yeah, that doesn't happen much. The heat capacity of the ocean is huuuuuge. But when the water up top changes temperature before it undergoes downwelling, then ocean currents can totally change.

>Yes, the error bars completely swamp the data measurements.
I mean, sometimes yeah. But usually that shit doesn't get published.

>>6761447

You hear that, crater? You've just been FALSIFIED.

http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

>>6755176
>efficiency
The total cost of the whole process, form mining raw materials to perpetual waste disposal, doesn't even break even. It could never exist without massive subsidy propping it up... furthermore, its a disaster waiting to happen, vulnerable to terrorism, natural disasters, and human error.

>>6762607
>baneposting
>>>/tv/

>>6762610
>mistaking a reaction face for baneposting

>>6761732
>http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

Non-sequitor. Nobody said that there was no methane coming from tundra. The question is, are things increasing with temperature?

Look at this ref:

Constraining estimates of methane emissions from Arctic permafrost regions with CARVE
Chang, R. Y.; Karion, A.; Sweeney, C.; Henderson, J.; Mountain, M.; Eluszkiewicz, J.;Luus, K. A.; Lin, J. C.; Dinardo, S.; Miller, C. E.; Wofsy, S. C.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2013, abstract #B33K-0611
Permafrost in the Arctic contains large carbon pools that are currently non-labile, but can be released to the atmosphere as polar regions warm. In order to predict future climate scenarios, we need to understand the emissions of these greenhouse gases under varying environmental conditions. This study presents in-situ measurements of methane made on board an aircraft during the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), which sampled over the permafrost regions of Alaska. Using measurements from May to September 2012, seasonal emission rate estimates of methane from tundra are constrained using the Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport model, a Lagrangian particle dispersion model driven by custom polar-WRF fields. Preliminary results suggest that methane emission rates have not greatly increased since the Arctic Boundary Layer Experiment conducted in southwest Alaska in 1988.

"Not greatly increased" is the key quote. After ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY.

>>6763252
>conference abstract
try citing something peer reviewed next time

>>6756113
underrated post

>>6761732

Let's have a look at another paper:
"Revisiting factors controlling methane emissions from high-Arctic tundra" (2012)

What do they say about the correlation between temperature and methane flux:
"All other ways of handling air temperature (averages for June and July separately, JJA overall, etc. – see Table 1) also did not show any immediate correlation with the differences in observed methane emissions between years. Air temperature variations in the last part of the growing seasons (remembering the seasons were shifted with respect to calendar time) were also quite large between the years, while the CH4 fluxes showed very similar values, except for 2010. For this period no correlations between CH4 fluxes and air temperatures"

Yup, no correlation. And look at the data in the attached pic. The WARMEST year in their data, 2008, had the weakest methane flux. Interestingly, CO2 update (negative flux) was highest in the same year, suggesting that warming tundra becomes a stronger carbon SINK.

This theory ain't happening.

>>6763254

Bingo
>>6763271

>>6755283
Because there is less profit in solving problems, than tending and treating them

>>6763265
Pathetic overrated post desperately using ad hominem because of no substantive data (flat temps for 18 years) and no meaningful predictive successes.

Answer these questions:
>>6755944

>>6763271
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
>A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.
So clearly the idea of methane release is contested at best. Hardly dismissable.

>Yup, no correlation. And look at the data in the attached pic. The WARMEST year in their data, 2008, had the weakest methane flux. Interestingly, CO2 update (negative flux) was highest in the same year, suggesting that warming tundra becomes a stronger carbon SINK.
Those are pretty interesting results. It makes sense that heat correlates positively with CO2 lockdown. But I think you're exaggerating the explaining power of that five-year study a little.

>>6763287
This:
>>6763271
This:
>>6763252
And This:
>>6761447

Suggest the methane thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Honestly, this study is another non-sequitor:
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/ful

They didn't have methane fluxes from 1970! All they did is estimate vegetation growth and then used that to estimate methane flux increase!

WHO CARES!!! More importantly, it ignores increased CO2 sinks and the inevitable dynamic feedback from increased vegetation.

Seriously, are you telling me that increased vegetation = Climate Catastrophe???

I hope not.

>>6763296

Seriously, this is the flaw I see over and over again in Climate "Science" confusing the model:
>>6763287
with reality. Here is something closer to reality:
>>6763271
It has actual data, and actual flux measurements; not just speculation based on photographs and temperatures.

The models doesn't account for CO2 sink, nor dynamic feedback, nor the exact process of methane production increase via temperature. (which the data suggest is little or negative correlation according to the paper i showed).

THE MODEL BECOMES THE REALITY

And this is why the "science" is so bad.

>>6763274
>Because there is less profit in solving problems, than tending and treating them
Go home Dad, you're drunk.

>>6763306

>It has actual data, and actual flux measurements; not just speculation based on photographs and temperatures.

Maybe if we could go to Siberia and measure the amount of methane being emitted from inside the crater.

>>6761732

>>6755377
Mars only experienced a warming period due to dust storms that exposed lower layers of darker rock and decreased its albedo.

correlation does not equal causation.

Does this mean that /sci/ can't even agree about climate change?

We are living in the 6th great mass extinction.

>>6755305
>All this BS
Why do people willingly let themselves get brainwashed by the oil companies?

>>6755746
/pol/ has been invading every board. They are the biggest cancer on 4chan.
>>6755911
>>6755920
This is a great example. He calls global warming false without giving any evidence as to why. Eventually he will call you a jew or something.

>>6757367
>Hurr durr your mad
/pol/ stop
>That poltiical cartoon
Nice to know you have know idea what science is.

>>6754038

AGW is real. We are now seeing warming trends and a loss of ice at an accelerated rate.

There are many factors such as orbital procession, methane clathrate, solar variation, valcanic activity and the planets ability to be able to sequester the CO2 at a rate which can offset our contribution, though man has played a good role in decreasing that ability.

The models do a wonderful job at recreating the past and solving the equations for fluid/thermo dynamics very accurately. But, they are not so good with small scale weather activity such as the formation of clouds. The microphysics of cloud formation is still not very solid.

The predictions could possibly be grossly overestimated or they could be on point. However, coal plants release more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear power plant would by orders of magnitude,

China is ahead of us in terms of Nuclear technology and will become an exporter of reactors. We just need to push for nuclear, it is really as simple as that.

Hydrocarbons will still be needed. Look all around you, you see plastics, various polymers and medicines, which all come from hydrocarbons.

>>6763353
Why are you brainwashed by Liberals?

Oh yeah, just went there... throwing it down like a mofo

>>6763355

Don't put words in my mouth!
I called it unfalsifiable.

Prove me wrong by answering these questions:
>>6755944
You won't because you can't.

>>6763448

Funny how you didn't mention the record sea ice in Antarctica. Oh yeah, I guess that doesn't count because that would, you know, falsify your "science."

This is a new All-Time Record. Breaking the record set in 2013 by 48,000 sq km. See attached.

>nb4 hurr, durr, we never made that prediction.
Yes you did:

Original Predictions:

Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-

Now you pretend that prediction never happened to maintain your unfalsifiability.

>>6763448
>The models do a wonderful job at recreating the past and solving the equations for fluid/thermo dynamics very accurately.

Wow, a complete failure is "a wonderful job?" At predicting the past? I want you to know that I can predict the past of the stock market with fantastic accuracy. Just give me 10K up front.

>>6764803
>a jpg for ants

>>6763448

Why do these graphs always start around 1980 when Sea Ice was highest, even though the satellite data goes back to 1972?

Gosh, who is doing the cherry picking?

>>6764805

Larger version...

>>6764801

Full link to second pub:
Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

>>6764801
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY

Jesus, man.

>>6763448

What's that? A submarine surfaced at the North Pole. IN 1958.

As if the the Arctic climate isn't cyclical. As if melting never happened before.

>>6764819

Did you even check this video before you posted it? It says NOTHING about the record Antarctic sea ice.

Sheesh, strawman arguments as always to maintain the unfalsifiability.

>>6764801
http://www.noaa.gov/features/monitoring_1008/arcticice.html

>“We suspect that the increasing presence of icebergs broken off from ice shelves and glaciers within the Antarctic sea ice pack is a major contributor to a temporary but increasing trend in the Antarctic sea-ice extent.”

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

>>6764808

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

>>6764803
>>6764810

>>6756010

Good on you 'Deniers' or 'Sceptics' for being just like Galileo!

>>6764827
Good on you for missing the point. Obviously the video is out of date, but the central message still stands: Record ice growth says nothing about the overall trend. This >>6764875

>>6764900

Christ! Yeah, I was supposed to listen to warmist screed about arctic ice as proof that antarctic ice is irrelevant.

Did you even bother to look at actual data? Well have a look at the attached. Global sea ice trend, almost zero.

Look at the cyclical graph in blue. First high, at 22 million sq. kilometers. Latest peak? 21.5 .

But religions really don't care about the facts do they?

>>6764875

> hurr, durr Simpleton Science drew a diagonal line through 15 years of flat global temperatures.

Speaking of cherry picking, you guys are the kings of cherry picking data.

>>6764925
>ice area
ok, now look at ice volume

>>6764838

> hurr durr, someone stapled high-variance (daily samples) satellite data to much lower sampled data. And surprise! Less variance

As if the marriage of largely decorrelated proxies ain't going to yield a relatively flat curve. As if smoothing the satellite data to the same resolution would yield a flattened result.

You really need to take a class or two in statistics.

EXPLAIN THIS: Why is the arctic at near-peak in about 1950 in the graph you show, when actual satellite data shows a peak near 1980 and nearly 2 million sq km less in 1974?
>>6764808

ALMOST THE ENTIRE RANGE OF YOUR GRAPH WAS COVERED IN 6 YEARS!!!, by the satellite data.
And magically disappeared.

And this is what they call Climate "Science"

>>6764925
What of the volume of said ice?

This-- >>6764925
>>6764933

see--- >>6764835
>>6764838

Shall we discuss the acidification of our oceans?

>>6764940

The prediction was of ice area. Volume is much more error prone as it is dependent on minute measurements of the change in gravitational force by the body of Antarctic ice.

>>6764949

You never own up to your failed predictions do you?

Like here:
>>6764810
and here:
>>6764801
And the great prediction of the "hot spot," which is the signature of positive feedback from increased CO2? Never heard of that one did you? Well that's because it failed. See attached.

>nb4 hurr, durr noisy data.
The data has 0.1 degrees centigrade resolution.

So keep up with the ad hoc, after-the-fact explanations to maintain the unfalsifiability.
Or answer this questions:
>>6755944
You won't because you can't.

>>6764949

Shall we discuss the ice core record? Oops, CO2 goes up 800 years AFTER temperature goes up.
So AlGore's theory is falsified right?

NO!!! Because Simpleton Science says that as if by magic, things get hotter independently. Then CO2 takes over. You know Simpleton Science didn't bother to tell you that this ridiculously ad-hoc theory was tested in the sense that there would be a non-linearity in the temp data at 800 years. AND ITS NOT THERE!

>>6764959

CO2 goes up before temperatures => Climate Change is TRUE!!!!
CO2 goes up after temperatures => magical temp forcing then CO@ forcing so Climate Change is TRUE!

>>6764956

Hot Spot over the equator found => Climate Change is TRUE!!!!!
Hot Spot over the equator not found => Hurr durr noisy data, so Climate Change is TRUE!

>>6764810

Model predictions of higher temps are correct => Climate Change is TRUE!!!!
Model predictions of higher temps are wrong => 'ocean swallowed my warming" so Climate Change is TRUE!!!!

>>6764801

Antarctic Sea Ice melts as predicted => Climate Change is TRUE!!!
Antarctic Sea Ice reaches new record => lets pretend we talked about land ice mass and use wildly inaccurate gravity based measures so Climate Change is TRUE!!!!!

>>6754952
Apparently, you don't know what Li is

>>6764945

>EXPLAIN THIS: Why is the arctic at near-peak in about 1950 in the graph you show, when actual satellite data shows a peak near 1980 and nearly 2 million sq km less in 1974?

Because Steve Goddard, like you, is really dumb.

http://reallysciency.blogspot.ca/2012/04/goddards-great-arctic-conspiracy.html

>>6764933
>discusses cherry picking
>posts graph of one ice core in one region of the world that wasn't industrialized
>posts graph that completely cuts off modern era
Are you even trying at this point?
>>6764959
800 year gap has been explained for a long time.
CO2 can lead temperature rise (due to "greenhouse" effect)
Temperature rise can lead CO2 (due to release of permafrost gases)

These aren't mutually exclusive terms.

>>6764968
>>6764973
>>6764978
>>6764980
Well for a while, that was actually well-constructed bait. You trotted out other pretentious and yet inaccurate arguments not found in most debunked skeptic rhetoric, but now you've just sold yourself out.