/sci/ - Science & Math

Maybe, we might need to set of a few super volcanoes.

>>6769652
Venus type scenario, highly unlikely. But we might become near extinct at best. At worse, extinct. Also depends on our reactions pre and post tipping point.

I'm 90% sure though that we won't reach our target before runaway warming, which has lessened to 30 years because of the Chinese increasing production post recession.

So, we're pretty fucked.

>>6769652
If we get out of this it will be by the skin of our teeth if we wait to much longer.

MUH INDUSTRY

>>6769678
Even a not Venus scenario would fuck us up

>>6769652
>Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

>Consider:

>*According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.

>*Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.

>*Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
>*A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

>The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.”
http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

Test

>>6769699
>Gordon Fulks

kek

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://guymcpherson.com/2012/06/were-done/

This guy says we're fucked

>>6769710
pls tell me this is unreal

>>6769709
Yet none of that "evidence" checks out. And none of it really points to anthropogenic climate warming.

>>6769739
it is. dude is a total nutcase. Here's a nice rebuttal

http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/

>>6769744
So you're telling me what he says isn't real, which is what I was asking rather than if the guy is serious

>>6769744
How do we know this rebuttal is more credible than what it's trying to negate ?

>>6769742
>Doesn´t accept NASA as a source

lol

>And none of it really points to anthropogenic

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#footnote_4

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969

Source:http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#footnote_8

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

Sources:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#footnote_4

>>6769774
Nasa only shows that CO2 levels are high. Nothing else. Temperature has plateaued.

There is a great correlation with regard to solar output and barely any correlation with regard to CO2 levels. In fact, the correlation goes in the opposite direction, as the temperature increases, CO2 levels increase, that's the best conclusion we can actually draw from the data.

Which is basically what you stated.

>>6769812

Which part of

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

Did you not understand...

>>6769812
I'll end up convinced that shills are an actual thing if I read too many posts like this

>>6769827

Don't lie, 2007 was the coldest year in decades.

>>6769836
How does that counter what he said?

>>6769836
>Don't lie, 2007 was the coldest year in decades.

Source?

From what I see, 2008 was the coldest year this decade at it was still way ahead of the last decades.

Read following and check image for view over temeprature increase during decades:

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said James Hansen, the director of GISS. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

Source:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

>>6769836
Exactly. Decades. Even with an "unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009", it was only coldest in decades.

>>6769853
He said solar activity was lowest 2007, temperatures were lowest 2007.

Solar activity has been on increase since 1800s, temperatures have been on the increase since 1800s.

I did say what he stated was relatively correct, it's just the conclusion that was wrong.

>>6769863
My bad, made this post >>6769865 . guess I should read sources before funposting

>>6769865
So was solar minimum. Unusually low in decades.

>>6769866
So how did he lie?

>>6769812
That's because the hotter it gets the more methane is released which degrades into CO2 which makes it hotter which releases more methane which...and so on.

Not to mention that GWP of methane on its own is 86

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change#Methane_deposits_and_clathrates

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223

>>6769866
>Solar activity has been on increase since 1800s, temperatures have been on the increase since 1800s.

Changes in the brightness of the Sun can influence the climate from decade to decade, but an increase in solar output falls short as an explanation for recent warming. NASA satellites have been measuring the Sun’s output since 1978. The total energy the Sun radiates varies over an 11-year cycle. During solar maxima, solar energy is approximately 0.1 percent higher on average than it is during solar minima.

Scientists integrate these measurements into climate models to recreate temperatures recorded over the past 150 years. Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans.

Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

People who are opposed to climate change are genuinely retarded.
They're not opposed to the idea of climate change; they're only opposed to the "taxes" of climate change. Literally the #1 response of the regular pleb is "it's just another way for the govt to squeeze our hard earned money away from us".

Plebs gonna pleb until our ecosystem starts degrading to the point that it's massively affecting everybody, at which point the same plebs will say "science lied to us we should of invested far more money into protecting ourselves"

>>6769887
I'm opposed to the lack of scientific evidence.

We've had end of the world predictions since the 60s which got really loud in the 90s

>>6769894
Lack of scientific evidence for what?

>>6769896
The fact that, for starters, the world is going to end in a decade. It's been going on for several of those decades and there hasn't been any change.

>>6769902

There is a dinstinct difference between "hey guys the earth is warming the fuck up" and "WE WILL ALL BURN!".

Most extimate put more drastic changes at at least 50 years from now if we continue the actual trend of emission

>>6769902
No one is saying the world will end you retard. It´s the consequences of irreversibly changing natural balances of our planet.

Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.

Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.

Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.

Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.

Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.

Continued on next post

>>6769918
Global Climate Change: Recent Impacts7

Phenomena Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century

Cold days, cold nights and frost less frequent over land areas Very likely

More frequent hot days and nights Very likely
Heat waves more frequent over most land areas Likely

Increased incidence of extreme high sea level * Likely

Global area affected by drought has increased (since 1970s) Likely in some regions

Increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in North Atlantic (since 1970) Likely in some regions

* Excluding tsunamis, which are not due to climate change.

Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

>>6769918
>>6769921
Global Climate Change: Future Trends

Phenomena Likelihood of trend

Contraction of snow cover areas, increased thaw in permafrost regions, decrease in sea ice extent Virtually certain

Increased frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation Very likely to occur

Increase in tropical cyclone intensity Likely to occur

Precipitation increases in high latitudes Very likely to occur

Precipitation decreases in subtropical land regions Very likely to occur

Decreased water resources in many semi-arid areas, including western U.S. and Mediterranean basin High confidence

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.

>>6769971
>>6769971

This man gets it!

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.

>>6769971
>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

How exactly is diminishing pollution causing repression of civil liberties?

>>6770007
the rate at which it's diminished would require extraordinarily considerable economic and social intervention on the part of the government, otherwise "cutting pollution" by a bit has a negligible effect.

>>6770021
The idea is to gradually phase out pollution. Is your argument that jobs are lost due to the switch into conventional energy?

>>6769863

Tampered data to get the desired result

>>6769863

Climategate email proposing the erasure of the hot 1940s>>6769863

>>6770110
/x/

>>6769863

Climategate email proposing erasing the cold of the 1970's

No. I have become increasingly convinced that the apocalyptic scenarios that we hear about all the time were created for the sole purpose of spreading fear through the media.

>>6769863

National Academy of Sciences showing significant global cooling

>>6769863

U.S. Historical Climate Network data showing that last winter was one of the coldest in U.S. history.

>nb4 That just U.S.!
U.S climate strongly correlates with world climate

>>6770114

Actual data must terrify you.

>>6769652

The Science is NOT Settled
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

By Steven Koonin, former professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology

The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

>>6770124
>>6770131

Muh negative feedback

>>6770131
> last winter was one of the coldest in U.S. history
I'm not sure what "side" of the debate you are on, but I'll point out that increased frequency and severity of Arctic outflows are a consequence of surface temperature warming in the Arctic. When global temperatures rise, you expect to see colder winters in the USA. And hotter summers. Was this the hottest summer on record? Oh... why, it was.
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/18/earth-hottest-summer-climate/15823745/

> U.S climate strongly correlates with world climate
Not exactly. See above.

>>6770124
> northern hemisphere
> global climate
Nice try, though.

>not having an a/c

Why can't climate deniers just accept the scientific facts and admit they value economic growth over the environmental damage?

>>6770162

That explains why NASA rewrote Hansen 1981

>>6770222

Value economic growth: Die from nature
Value environmental growth: Die from being poor and starvation

Either way, humans can't win.

>>6770222

Why can Warmists just admit that their pseudo-science serves their socialist schemes.

From the evidence I've looked through I conclude this
>the earth is warming
Lots of data seems to show a warming trend
>this warming is not a problem
Back in the 1600s the earth had a sort of 'mini ice age' crop production around the world dropped very notably because of this but there seems to have been no great extinction because of a minor rapid temperature change
>humans are almost definitely not responsible
CO2 matches up with some people's temperature charts but most don't line up right
Sunspots line up very closely for a good long while then suddenly diverge with lots of charts I've seen
If you look at Jupiter you'll notice it puts out more energy than the sun gives it
Considering this information I'd say we have no clue why the earth is warming and saying you know is just silly
Also I'm skeptical CO2 changes the temperature at all considering the greenhouse effect should occur with almost any concentration of CO2 at its full effect but then again if have to do the math to be sure and I don't really care

So OP don't be scared its all K

>>6769774
>Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.
To be fair, the Earth has been warming since the last ice age.

More alarming than humanity trying to convert our atmosphere into something from the Carboniferous era, we should look how species are going extinct and how the world's biomass is shrinking (and fast).

Fossil fuels alone don't account for that. We could switch to pure fusion energy internationally and many things would NOT change.

Our habits are deplorable.

>>6770154

It used to be Global Cooling that affected the Polar Vortex

Science News, Vol. 107
March 1, 1975
During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes. If global temperatures should fall even further, the effects could be considerably more drastic. According to the academy (National Academy Of Sciences) report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age, a real possibility

>>6770222
You fail to comprehend how libertarians view things. We want to develop as fast as possible in case of any catastrophe. That includes global warming, global cooling, meteors, galactic superwaves, and nibiru. A carbon tax further hinders technological development.

>>6770236
except u rong doe. u no how to reed?

>>6769971

Cool /pol/ pasta, it's been a while (the last CC thread) since I've seen it.

>>6770021

lol.

Vehicular regulations and moving away from coal isn't exactly spraying you down with fire hoses now is it.

>>6769997

The embedded politics on display are by looking at who is on either side of the issue.

People who like and understand science generally acknowledge global anthropomorphic climate change. Every denialist I've ever met has some axe to grind about liberals, regulations, the eco movement, etc. That's not an accident.

>>6770230
>their socialist schemes.

Holy shit, lol. What a QED.

/pol/ getting BTFO up in here.

>>6770265

This is why no one takes libertarianism seriously.

>>6770252
>It used to be Global Cooling

Global cooling was never even majority accepted throughout the scientific community, not even close.

Yes, we are precisely not in danger at all.

>>6770311

Keep telling that to yourself.
National Academy of Science believed in Global Cooling
>>6770124
As did the CIA

>>6770311

As did NASA.

>>6770311

As did NCAR

>>6770311

Another NCAR scientist talking about Global Cooling, until he found a new source of funding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdWTBNyvX0

>>6770321

>ONE scientist

Chackmate, alarmists!

This is the only science forum I know of where people struggle with this and where denialism is even a thing.

It's like in the 0.999... = 1 threads where a bunch of retards struggle with that. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of crossover there.

>>6770300
>Every denialist I've ever met has some axe to grind about liberals, regulations, the eco movement, etc.

Ditto.

>>6770311

Hadley Climate Research Unit believed in Global Cooling

Climate Change and its Effect on World Food

"...At this meeting Profs. H. Flohn of Germany, H.H. Lamb [HEAD OF HADLEY CLIMATE RESEARCH UNIT] of the United Kingdom and Reid Bryson of the United States developed a highly persuasive demonstration that there has been a steady cooling of northern hemisphere temperatures during the last 30 years, with the strongest cooling at the higher latitudes."
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf

>>6770354
>>6770326
>>6770321
>>6770319

Calling samefag.

>>6770349

A sad attempt to avoid providing actual evidence to back up AGW.

Answer these two questions:
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.

You won't because you can't.

>>6770341

Here is Hansen's 1981 graph, showing significant cooling. Note that James Hansen was the head of NASA GISS for a long time.
>>6770225

>>6770300

Every warmist I've met is a socialist/progressive. Closeted or otherwise.

ITT

>>6770358
>A sad attempt to avoid providing actual evidence to back up AGW.

Nope, just pointing out an observation that rarely fails. You never meet well-rounded adult skeptics, they are always wingnuts with axes to grind.

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

That general climate won't be as hot as it is without greenhouse contributions from man, going off of the historical correlations that the earth's temperature has had with several environmental factors.

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

The earth is hotter than it would be without said emissions.

It's as plain as this: up until industrialization, the natural climate has largely varied, with factors such as solar variation, volcanic activity, the various greenhouse gases, plant mass, glacial volume, etc., having clear relationships with the earth's climates. Around industrializations, these factor's correlations broke with the earth's temperature for the first time in measurable history.

If CO2 didn't heat the earth, we would have no explanation as to why the earth is as hot as it is today.

>>6770379
>Closeted or otherwise.

Well that's a good modifier so you can gloss over exceptions to your rule.

It's pretty well-established that the denialists are far more partisan than the warmers.

>>6769678
No one is worried about Earth becoming like Venus. Runaway climate change tipping point refers to the point at which human caused climate change results in the release of so much methane in the tundras and sea floor that the warming becomes self sustaining. So long as it is primarily human caused we have the power to stop it. Past the tipping point humanity has control over nothing. We are along for the ride until it naturally reaches the new equilibrium

>>6770383
>>1) Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for CAGW. It must distinguish from natural climate variance.
>That general climate won't be as hot as it is without greenhouse contributions from man, going off of the historical correlations that the earth's temperature has had with several environmental factors.

Stated without a shred of evidence. And not a falsifiabilitiy criterion either. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that no one is saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. (But its a very weak one). Its logarithmic response curve is not going to cause a catastrophe. But in any case you certainly did not provide a falsifiability criterion. In actuality, you provided nothing.

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

>The earth is hotter than it would be without said emissions.

That's just a repeat of the above; and you provided no evidence to back up that claim. Certainly nothing to differentiate it from natural climate variance. Please don't waste my time with question-begging answers.

>If CO2 didn't heat the earth, we would have no explanation as to why the earth is as hot as it is today.

BTW, you resorted to a typical warmist trick of confusing a model who's predictive record is a spectacular failure - with reality. These models hindcast from 1970 to about 2000 plus or minus a decade and A PRIORI assume the warming is mostly driven by CO2/greenhouse gases. In short, a circular argument.

By making a model that assumes CO2 drives climate you "prove" that CO2 drives climate; which is why these models fail in making predictions.

This is possibly, the greatest flaw in Climate "Science" the confusing of models with reality.

Climate Model prediction works => Climate Change is TRUE!
Climate Model prediction fails => hurr durr its just a model so Climate Change is TRUE!

>>6769652
Climate Change is what the politicians are calling Global Warming. They needed a new name to weasel around the fact that Global Warming was never proved

>We are causing the exact same event that created the The Great Dying which killed off 90% of all species on earth
>Retards who keep on spouting global warming will only get proven wrong once the Earth is out of repair

>>6769684
N-No anon short term economic gain is totally worth the death of hundreds of millions of humans and species.

>>6769699
Get lost /pol/, I can't believe retards are going to endanger our entire species in order to "prove da libals wrong!"

>Species are going extinct 10k times higher than normal
>Humans having nothing to do with it muh business!

>>6769894
>>6769902
> It's been going on for several of those decades and there hasn't been any change.
This is horribly false. Even if we ignore global warming (which is a thing) the other horrible things like soil soil erosion, water pollution, ect are going to kill possibly hundreds of millions of people and idiots don't want to do anything about it because hurr durr muh economy.

>>6769997
>muh freedoms
>It is muh freedom to kill us all!

>>6770379
So all scientists are socialists?

>>6770358
>>6770381
/pol/ doesn't know anything about science so why have they invaded us? Can't I get one board without those retards hating everything for being liberal even it is trying to save us?

>tipping points

>>6770358

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

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-867634

>>6770462

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

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

>>6769885
I love how none of these denial /pol/ faggots are countering this guys scientific sources.

>>6770462
>Roy Spencer

You must be looking for /pol/, I'm afraid you've stumbled into /sci/. We've no place for cherry-picked data.

>>6770300
The key issues among educated people, however, seem to remain the extent of anthropogenic impact (particularly in light of the huge discrepancies between observations and predictive models), the degree to which it is a concern, and (of course) what the appropriate course of action is, once the first two are settled (this being, of course, a matter of policy rather than science).

>>6770383
Might I ask for the cause of your confidence in numbers from before the industrial revolution?

>>6770715
Ok, not sure if you're from /pol/ or not but that was pretty funny.