/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6866093

>lets just avoid this for the next week

>Exceptions disprove rules!

>>6866235
>Rules were meant to be broken!

>>6866093
that's what you get for leveling all of the appalaches. u should have listened to woody harrelson.

>>6866093
>entire US
>global

US is 2% of the earth's surface

>weather=climate!!!

>>6866322
looks like canada too

>>6866339
Ok, then 5%, whatever, also >>6866334

So a local in space and time event is irrelevant, except in it's contribution to a global long term trend, which is tiny.

It's not hard.

>>6866346
>lets just worry about the average and ignore any outliers
That's real science

>>6866353
That's real retardation.

>>6866353
Outliers are explainable through statistics. We don't even have to throw them out as there are still globally warmer than average temperatures over a larger portion of the Earth. It may signify that some mechanism has been disrupted by global warming, but it is very far from a demonstration that global warming is false.

>>6866334

>climate change!
>every single day the weather sites show the record low/highs for that perticular day
>the highest temp is usually 100 years ago
>the lows are usually decades after that
>the current year is usually no where near the record high
>B-B-BUT THE ENTIRE GLOBE IS WARMING UP!
>IF YOU DONT SUPPORT MUH CARBIN TAX UR A RACIST!

>>6866374

>the data shows the polar icecaps are metling!
>but they're the thickest ever on record this year
>M-MUH EXCEPTIONS!
>its still hot in africa!

>>6866353
>100 people have mean height 5'11
>B-B-but one of them is 7'6!
>Much facepalming

>>6866377
>usually
nope

>>6866387
>but they're the thickest ever on record this year
citation needed

>>6866389
>So let me make doors only 6ft to accommodate the average people

>>6866370
>Real science = Real retardation
>science = retardation
wut?

>>6866403
nope.

>>6866377
>Choose 2 data points
>Infer global trends over a century

>>6866387
Everyone knows icecaps have only one dimension, height.

>>6866396

>the 1-2 times a year when one day is 0.1 decimal higher
>immediatly with the buzzword headlines about HOTTEST EVER ON RECORD
>dont show the historical graphs that show a natural peak and vally over the decades which come just as close

but when you're main focus is to fool the general public into blindly accepting a new tax, you leave that data out

>>6866405
the post was the post of a retard

>>6866409
nope

>>6866409
>tin foil hat

>>6866419

what time is the next global warming convention this week?

>>6866420
>tipping intesifies

>>6866093
>weather is the same thing as climate

Meanwhile California is experiencing extreme drought and 90 degree winters

>>6866429

>a drought in california
>this is something new

>>6866429
>The desert has no water
Insightful

>>6866441
>>6866444
>i can't read the word "extreme" due to my nigger tier IQ

>>6866459

>entire 48 states outside of florida is going to be in the 20 over the next week or so
>2nd time this year since Spring
>thats cause the globe is warmer than usual!
>but pretty much every day shows the highest temp was back in the 40s
>MUH EXECEPTIONS!

>>6866459
>The desert has less water than the dessert usually has
Still very insightful

al gore did say that global warming would bring an ice age in his movie

>>6866093

Extreme cold weather proves Climate Change
Extreme warm weather proves Global Warming
non-Extreme weather is not Climate

You've got to learn these things.

>>6866093
>>global warming
>>entire us of a is about to be below freezing for an extended period of time for the 2nd time this year, outside of the winter season

global warming
very likely to cause seasonal extremes & more frequent extreme weather

the global average temperature is changing and it is having an effect on the weather systems. the fact that the global average temperature is going up while one part of the globe experiences below average temperatures is not that unreasonable, when you consider the southern hemisphere is experiencing record heat

>>6866466

>being this proud of having complete retard comprehension

>>6866497

Global average temperature has been flat for 18 years.

McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

>>6866494

>climate change

you mean the that occurs on every fucking planet

>>6866501

watch it, they'll just start using "climate change" now

now its stuff the charts cant show you!

>MUH INTANGIBLE EVIDENCE!
>my pond behind my house isnt as deep as it used to be
>ALGOR WAS RITE!

>>6866377
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Highest_temperatures_ever_recorded


>2003
>2005
>2008
>2009
>2010
>2012
>2013
>2014

>>6866522

>1 day out of the year is now the mean for 365

>>6866501

>>6866093
>global warming
>global
you keep using this word, i don't think you know what it means

>>6866522

>hottest day ever on eath was 10 July 1913, California

>1913

nice source, you sure showed us!

>>6866526

>>6866501

>satellite

>>6866522

Highest in the past decade?

>>6866529

>hottest day ever on eath was 10 July 1913, California

>1913

>nice source, you sure showed us!

Sure did.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jul/15/doubts-cloud-death-valleys-100-year-heat-record/

>>6866547

>a local public broadcasting station cracked the case!

>>6866540

This is completely unrelated!

That graph is comparing models to measured temperatures. And give the peer reviewed reference to a 0.3 degree shift.

Here is data from NOAA, not Spencer. Things have actually turned negative.

>>6866377
Global warming refers to an increase in the global average temperature. It's increased by less than two degrees over the century, to put it in perspective how small the changes were talking about are. If you think you can notice a change in the GLOBAL average temperature of just a few degrees by casually looking records, then your a donut.

>>6866561
>Here is data from NOAA, not Spencer. Things have actually turned negative.

Why must you lie?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us

>>6866655

what are you talking about? look on the y-axis!
it is averaged but authentic.

>>6866673

http://thesnufkin.blogspot.ca/2011/03/how-to-cook-data-set.html

Global Warming deniers are pathetic. They pull out the same four figures that somehow prove their point without checking anything. It's like they think people can't upload all kinds of bullshit.

This is the only science forum I know of (except for some far-right subreddits) where this is a debate, and where deniers aren't treated like creationists.

>>6866698
>http://thesnufkin.blogspot.ca/2011/03/how-to-cook-data-set.html

> my blog denies NOAA data!

This is NOAA data, Sheesh.

ENSO is a redistribution of energy without a net energy change.

>Huge storm near alaska pulls jet stream up
>storm dies down
>what comes up, must come down
>jet stream dives into georgia, florida
>arctic winds encircle midwest and east-coast

fucking basic science

>>6866093
>entire us of a is about to be below freezing
>except for Hawaii, California, southern Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and the entire Gulf Coast
GTFO

>>6866093
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/16/277911739/warming-arctic-may-be-causing-jet-stream-to-lose-its-way

>>6866093
>entire us of a is about to be below freezing for an extended period of time for the 2nd time this year, outside of the winter season

>Strange weather
>Evidence the climate isn't changing

Back in the box it goes

There's something like the equivalent of 4 Hiroshimas worth of energy entering the atmosphere every day that cannot escape.

It's gonna make things erratic.

>gulf stream stops
>western europe becomes the new siberia
>my face when

>>6867180
Checks out.

>>6867180
Actually the general warming will offset the cooling by a stuttering gulf stream in north europe.
South europe will cook because the hadley cells enlarge, causing sahara climate to spread north.

>>6867189
Interesting. Do you reckon the thermohaline circulation will fuck up as well?

>tfw you live in Nebraska
>tfw it's going to be freezing for the next God only knows how long
>tfw it's cold in your dorm room and you're throwing on sweaters

Global warming can't happen fast enough.

>Al Gore, internet inventor
>merchant overlords
>paid scientist shills can't even make a forecast

>science denial in /sci/
Oh that's why I hadn't come here for a year.

I'll hope that these science denialists will say phooey about ebola too, make a communal field trip and die spewing blood out of most orifices.

Maybe /scí/ can be about science again. See you in a year or however long it takes for me to forget how much idiots congregate here.

>>6867261
Climate warming is a myth,
just like WW2 and women's rights

>>6867261
I read these threads every now and then, from obvious syntax you see the same posters over and over.

>>6867390
nuff sed

>>6867261
Yeah, Global Cooling is moving the polar vortex! See attached, that's what they said in the 1970s.

Oh wait!
Now they say Global Warming is moving the polar vortex. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

>Durr, its cold therefore global warming isn't real take that liberals!

>I-if you dont buy my solar panels earth will turn into Venus!

Global warming is real but the people "debating" it are assholes.

>>6867437

>>>/foxnews/

>>6867488

So that graphic doesn't exist?
So that graphic, produced in the 1970s, demonstrating global cooling moving the polar vortex doesn't exist?
So information and data which does not jibe with current popular beliefs can be dismissed out of hand?

Exactly how is that a scientific world view?

>>6867492
>Exactly how is that a scientific world view?

You must understand that global cooling is in reality GlobalWarming(tm), just like 2+2=5.

You don't want to be a DENIALISTIST, do you.

Thanks to political intervention climatology is in transition from a pseudo science to a religion. It has become a 'spiritual' event that is independent of physical observations. It no longer matters whether global temperatures are rising or falling. It only matters that you believe in the proclamations of the holy climate models. To do otherwise is to commit blasphemy, which will get you excommunicated from most scientific organizations, universities, and even newspaper forums.

>>6867507

This.

>>6867488

Are you saying that this publication never happened?

>>6867434
Doesn't surprise me, I'm using a plugin so that's not coming up yet for some reason, but there's a lot of overuse of the more fruity punctuation marks with strange formatting, a lot of memearrows, a lot of THEYs,, etc. There's another poster that just reposts the same content and graphs from right wing blogs, the posts themselves might be pasta. The responses are the same, graphs posted from various sources like skeptical science. Nobody convinces the other.

>>6867514
>Time
nice paper bro

>C02 emissions are trapping more solar energy than usual.

>Call the phenomenon global warming, because conventional wisdom says more energy = higher temperatures.

>Turns out global weather is a highly complex system in which cause and effect are very hard to pinpoint on a clear cut basis, and is rife with counter-intuitive answers.

>People start decrying the phenomenon because "This year's winter is cold"

Being a climate scientist is suffering.

>>6867492

The viewpoint that "scientific understanding changes over time, therefore all scientists are liars and I don't need no book learnin'" is what makes it worthy of >>>/foxnews/.

>>6867524

Great counter-argument bro.
What are you saying, Time Magazine was lying?
Scientists DIDN'T say that they had found indications of global cooling?

Anything that doesn't fit the Climate Change narrative is waived away with source denigration; if not downright ad hominem.

I suppose the fact that the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed significant cooling is irrelevant, huh?

>>6867592

> "scientific understanding changes over time, therefore all scientists are liars and I don't need no book learnin'"
DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH
I didn't say that. If you have to resort to strawman arguments instead of fact based arguments then you shouldn't be arguing at all.

>>6867575
>Being a climate scientist is suffering.
It seems pretty easy.

>Prediction goes to shit
"It's complex"
>Models are awful
"Well those were the old models!"
>Someone disagrees with you
"DENIER!"

You can literally not do anything wrong.

>>6867598
>What are you saying, Time Magazine was lying?
I don't know. I doubt it, but I don't know who "scientists" represents. It's a magazine article.

That graph is a bit better, it has a source for the data, and presumably paper authors down the bottom, so it could potentially be sought out with some effort, but there's no context. That's why papers are best. You get methods, you get results, you get context.

I'll take "Averages" for $200, Alex.

>>6866339
I live in a rural southern Canadian town. Back in the 1980s, our pond was usually frozen over by Hallowe'en, and we'd be playing hockey on it by this time. Since about 1995, it has hardly ever fully iced over, much less gotten thick enough to skate on.

>>6867608
>I live in a rural southern Canadian town. Back in the 1980s, our pond was usually frozen over by Hallowe'en, and we'd be playing hockey on it by this time. Since about 1995, it has hardly ever fully iced over, much less gotten thick enough to skate on.

And this supposedly is because of CO2 emissions?

I don't see the link.

>>6867598
1.) Is that global average temperatures?
2.) How was the data gathered?
3.) Why does this trend not persist in any modern data sets of global temperatures?
4.) What is the causative mechanism for global cooling?
5.) Why id data from 30+ years ago better than present data?

I highly doubt that the data shown has been thrown out. I would suspect that it represents a regional average rather than a global average and so variation is to be expected. If the region is fairly small, then large statistical fluctuations could be expected as the averaging has lower significance and far less information contributing to it.

The answer to what should be done about AGW lies in the middle between the warmists/alarmists and the deniers/sceptics. But, the warmists/alarmists have turned their cause into a cult following, which is why I am a denier/sceptic.

>>6867599
>DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH
>I didn't say that.

You pretty much did, actually.

>>6867630

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

>>6867642
>which is why I am a denier/sceptic.

>>6867623
I didn't say anything about CO2 emissions.

However, the link is well studied. There are many resources. For an overview which provides analysis from a variety of views and cites peer-reviewed research, I recommend:
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>6867704
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&sns=em

>>6867719
Wrist slap? What? No no no... that's dishonest, right up. The context of that graph is clearly written down in the paper in which it is published. If you can't be bothered to read the damn paper, than it's your fault.

Explained properly, in context, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&index=6&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Skip to about 4:15 to get to the meat of it.

>>6867679

That's even dumber. Try again.

>>6867623
If the link is not obvious, you do not understand the concept of half-lives or mean-free-path and probably should learn something about them when partaking in a conversation where they play the central roll. More carbon dioxide reduces the mean-free-path for radiation in the peak of the earth's emission spectrum. Thus, the half-life of any energy entering the system is increased and more energy accumulates as the amount of carbon dioxide increases. It is a straight forward problem and a failure to understand it to this degree indicates retardation or that you are willfully ignorant, which is just a nicer way of saying "fucking moron,"

>>6867736
tis all I got m80!

You can run around with your hair on fire. I ain't worried about the plant food in the atmosphere!

>>6867750
> plant food
Confirmed for dumbest post in thread.

I know, the thread's not done yet, but there can't possibly be anything said that is more willfully stupid, and that's the lowest form of stupidity that there is.

>>6867740
>If the link is not obvious
If the link is so obvious then why isn't any warming happening since 17 years back despite record CO2 emissions.
Or maybe you're a denier of satellite temperature records?

>>6867751
Are you denying that CO2 is plant food?

>>6867758
Are you confirming that you actually think that is relevant?

>>6867767
Not at all, I am just not worried about the amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere.

I gots me a questions for y'all about the earth warming up. If the earth warms up will there be more water in the atmosphere? and if so will there be more storms? If there are more storms how will that affect the temperature?

>>6867753
Well, over the same period of time, incoming energy has been low for an extended time period. There are a number of other more complex processes that may also contribute.

This all has no impact upon the fact that increasing atmospheric CO2 necessarily leads to warming so long as energy input remains constant and no new thermal sinks arise. The fact that the world is more complex than this does not change the spectrum of CO2.

>>6867608

>conveniently stops at 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

>>6868258
>conveniently starts at 2012

>>6867838
>CO2 necessarily leads to warming

Sure, but the effect may be so weak that it is barely noticeable.

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide." -- Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin and one of the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. (Argumentum ad auctoritatem, of course.)

Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, computer models predicting a rapidly rising temperature depend on the small amount of warming from CO2 being amplified by increased evaporation of water. But in the many documented periods of higher carbon dioxide, even during much warmer climate periods, that never happened.

The other adjustable parameter is the CO2 absorption time constant. The popular models use a value between 50 and 200 years. I have a research paper that claims to have arrived at 5 years...

>>6868351

But what is even worse, the effect (∆temp) mostly seems to precede the cause (∆co2)! Since 'we all know' that this can't be true (because "CO2..leads to..") I only used data from the last 50 years for both series (CO2 measurement began in 1958) to make sure the data are in sync and there's no mismatch. (The stats tool has access to all major series.)

This result may simply reflect the temperature-dependend solubility of CO2 in the ocean. A brief survey yielded that others found and published the same relation:

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.
Global and Planetary Change, August 30, 2012.
Conclusion: Changes in temperatures are seen to take place 9-12 months before corresponding changes in atmospheric CO2.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5

Finally, it is good practice to honor Richard Feynman's dictum that "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" which is kind of a self-neutralizing argumentum ad auctoritatem (^_^)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2012/dec/12/chasing-ice-iceberg-greenland-video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

>>6868351
>I have a research paper that claims to have arrived at 5 years...
And I have a paper that says the Hubble constant is 700 km/s/Mpc, doesn't mean it is. Contrasting values means nothing without context.

>that never happened.
Show us another time in history when the system changed like we have now, e.g. CO2 driving temperature on short scales.

>>6868356
Huh, that's neat. Thanks for the paper; it is something that I will have to look into later.

>>6868356
You're graph has absolutely no explanation or scale.

>Since 'we all know' that this can't be true
Complete strawman. A drives B does not mean B can't drive A. Basic logic.

>>6868380
I should add that I am not dissuaded from the picture of CO2 playing a roll in warming, and I already recognize that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, but it appears to be an interesting effect that may imply forceings from another source or possible oddities in the CO2 distribution such that some contributor is missing from measurement and whose fluctuations lead to a delayed effect that we measure.

It blows my mind that denialists live in the developed world.

temperature extremes ending in a mini ice age calling it now

>>6868382

It's called causality. A comes before B therefore B can't cause A.

On the other hand there IS a causal explanation for temperature driving CO2.
As the oceans warm up, solubility of CO2
DECREASES leading to CO2 outgassing. This leads to increased atmospheric CO2.

On the time scale of glaciers, temperatures go up 800 years BEFORE CO2 goes up.

>nb4 Simpleton science says that there's a feedback mechanism.
Nope, that would create a non-linearity in the temperature record. That hypothesis has been tested and there is no non-linearity.

>>6866731
>>6867261
I'm pretty sure /pol/ found its way in

something like 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring due to human activity. do you fucktards seriously that's some huge conspiracy?

>>6867811
More water in the atmosphere as a whole, yes. More storms? Depends on where you are. Some areas will get wetter, and others will get much drier. Some will have fewer storms, but they'll be stronger.

This is the real issue with climate change. It's not so much the overall average warming that will affect humans (except indirectly by fucking with ocean currents and so on). It's the rapid change in climate from what we've built our civilization upon.

As an example, you get higher ocean temperatures. That means tropical storms can draw more energy from them and get stronger at the outset. New York has been hit by something like 80 tropical storms in the last three hundred years. The strongest was only category 3, because they wind down by the time they make it that far north. NYC isn't built to withstand serious hurricanes... so what happens if one hits? Very bad news. The danger is that the change in climate will allow a much stronger storm to make its way up there.

Will an increase in storms affect the mean surface temperature? Yeah, a bit. I don't know the parameters offhand, but I think it's a fairly small term in most models. Changes to the jetstream and major ocean currents are the biggest things.

>>6868258
> getting news from the Daily Mail

You people are hilarious. We've 100% fucked the environment (in more ways than just the climate), and we're going to pay the price before anyone here dies of old age. There's nothing we can do about it at this point. It's gonna get fucking crazy.

>>6866093
Concerning the arctic air coming down the next few days.
-Super Typhoon Nuri, one of the strongest Bering Sea storms in recorded history.
-Disturbs air mass and jet stream over Arctic and Canada
-This sends the jet stream and arctic air to lower 48 and thereby gives colder than usual weather.

>Unusually strong storm caused by climate change causes extreme weather in a faraway place because climate is global, not just in buttfuck nowhere Kentucky.

>>6868258
I was going to point out that the observed volume for September 2013 was about the same as 2010, and that 2014 is expected to be similar to that (I haven't seen those data published yet).

But... then I read the first couple sentences of that article and realized that you are the kind of person who walks on and then drowns in frozen ponds in April, because the concept of thickness (curiously) does not occur to you. Explanatory greentext follows.
> implying that sea ice volume and surface area are the same thing

2010-2012 were anomalously low years. Everyone expected a brief rebound to this point.

What you're saying is akin to saying that if you got brutally raped in the ass by 50 big black dicks yesterday, then because you only got raped by 30 today, that should be okay. Well, I have unfortunate news: those 20 who didn't get in are lined up outside with tomorrow's 50.

>>6868539

Nobody said its a conspiracy - you're just making that up. In fact, its psychological projection since you believe that Big Oil and the Koch brothers are conspiring to maintain "deniers." Basically, you have to resort to ad hominem since every substantive prediction (not after-the-fact) of Climate Change has failed.

BTW, there has been many scientific consensuses that have proven to be false:

Geocentric Solar System
Classical Mechanics
Wave/ether theory of light
Constancy of space and time
Atoms are the smallest thing

Science is NOT a popularity contest. Besides, the silly "97% consensus" thing has been debunked.

>>6868553

Exactly how does that falsify those satellite photos?

>>6868351
>>6868356
>>6868380

>lol Isolate command

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/from:1958/normalise

>>6868356
Congratulations, you have reached the state of art of climate science as it was in the 1950s. Well, not quite.

This thing you have posted is well known and well studied in the published literature. Historically, CO2 has been a feedback mechanism after an initial forcing perturbation. That's what you see in many major extinction events, and that's what you're seeing here, to an extent. But underlying the year-to-year trend (which is affected by other factors) is a smaller upward trend due to human emissions, and that makes CO2 act also as the current forcing mechanism.

I notice you left insolation, aerosols, and amplification due to things like methane and water vapour out of your graph. They'd make it work out quite nicely.

>>6868597
see >>6868587

>>6868601
>http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/from:1958/normalise

Clever. You, of course, have compared two completely different vertical scales. There's been no global warming for the past 18 years even though CO2 atmospheric concentration has gone up significantly during the same period of time.

In fact, rates of temperature increase have been constant over very different rates of CO2 increase. There was a HUGE increase in CO2 from about 1945 to 1975, yet NO temperature increase.

Remember, correlation is not causation.
>>6868356
>>6868518

>>6868590
regardless of that exact percentage, the overwhelming majority support the notion climate change due to human activity
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
those disproved scientific consensuses you listed simply did not have sufficient information and were updated as new information became available; they were not based hundreds of studies with years and years of with observed data.

>>6868590
>every substantive prediction (not after-the-fact) of Climate Change has failed.

Someone better tell the vast majority of climate science which disagrees with you.

>Nobody said its a conspiracy

Nobody but you. The alternative to you being wrong is that the international science community is all "in" on a big coverup.

>>6868590
>there has been many scientific consensuses that have proven to be false

This is never, ever a remotely useful or valid argument against a current strong-standing scientific theory.

>>6868618

Name a single substantive prediction of climate change theory that has been proven true.

Prediction = stated/published before-the-fact
Substantive = causally connected to anthropogenic CO2, specific (quantitative), and clearly distinguished from natural climate variation.

>No, flooding streets in Florida does not distinguish form normal climate.

>>6868619

So classical mechanics, which held true for centuries is suddenly not a significant theory?

And why your deep faith in a "consensus?" What of this mockery?:
>>6867592
>The viewpoint that "scientific understanding changes over time, therefore all scientists are liars and I don't need no book learnin'" is what makes it worthy of >>>/foxnews/

Which is it?
Consensus == ultimate truth OR
>"Scientific understanding changes all the time"

How convenient. Heads you win, tails I lose.

The hallmark of a dogmatic belief system.

>>6868590

>That pic

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

>In fact, its psychological projection since you believe that Big Oil and the Koch brothers are conspiring to maintain "deniers."

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

>Basically, you have to resort to ad hominem since every substantive prediction (not after-the-fact) of Climate Change has failed.

>That pic

>Science is NOT a popularity contest. Besides, the silly "97% consensus" thing has been debunked.

>As the bunnies may recall, Richard Tol was inconsolable that the Cook et al. survey only included ten of his 122 papers

>>Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral: 1:43 AM - 22 May 13

>Eli was very hard on Poor Richard, but the Rabett is happy to learn that Richard really didn't think that any of his papers should be included. Over at Joanne Nova's he says he was only kidding

>>Richard Tol August 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm · Reply

>>You omit the commonest error. Most papers on climate change do not explicitly test the hypothesis of human-made climate change. Only a few hundred papers do that. Most papers are about impacts of climate change, or climate policy, or a particular feature of atmospheric physics, or … Many of these paper do contain some words on human-made climate change in the abstract, and were thus counted as endorsements.

>Of course, that means that by picking up only a few of Mike Mann's papers, Cook et al. made a huge mistake. Might have been 98%

>>6868635

This post is completely incoherent.

>>6868640
>http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

The Environmental Defense Fund Alone gets
$120,000,000. Meanwhile smear merchants say OMFG! Willie Soon got a few thousands dollars.

Yeah, great comparison. U.S. spent $7,000,000,000 on climate 'science' in 2009. How much went to "deniers?' ZERO.

What do you call a government funded scientist who publicly denies climate change?
UNEMPLOYED!

>>6868643

Let me parse it for you:
It has been asserted that "science changes," evolves so to speak. And that anyone who points that out as an inconsistencies in scientific results is a FoxNews watching wack job. Why? Because they're too stupid to understand that science "evolves."

Now you come along and talk about "consensus = truth."

So which is it? Consensus yields truth?
Or 'science evolves?' The latter holds that maybe, just maybe "Climate Science" could be a current fad that will be recognized as false in the future.

Which is it?

>>6866554
>that source is wrong
youre whats great about /sci/

>>6868635
>So classical mechanics, which held true for centuries is suddenly not a significant theory?

Current consensual theories are consensual because all of the current evidence supports the theory. What you're saying is that a current theory with all of the evidence for it is wrong because theories have been proven wrong in the past.

It's a fucking stupid argument.

>>6868627

Nice goalposts.

>>6868663

Since you're so sure of Climate Change truth that your resort to obscenities, answer this question:

Name a single substantive prediction of climate change theory that has been proven true.

Prediction = stated/published before-the-fact
Substantive = causally connected to anthropogenic CO2, specific (quantitative), and clearly distinguished from natural climate variation.

>No, flooding streets in Florida does not distinguish form normal climate.
> No, hiding behind authority and yelling IPCC is not an answer.

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>>6868667

Pathetic. Can't cover up the failures of "climate science" so you pretend its a rhetorical trick.

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>>6868650
>The Environmental Defense Fund Alone gets
>$120,000,000. Meanwhile smear merchants say OMFG! Willie Soon got a few thousands dollars.

Those The Environmental Defense Fund guys are gonna have to quadruple their efforts.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

>>6868680

Have you actually read that paper? I mean the original paper? Its a joke. A veritable conspiracy theory. It shows that foundations that might be conservative give out money. And it shows that think tanks - not identified, yet purportedly "denier" (no definition given) are also receiving money.

Then, get this, it hypothesizes that the EVIL=Conservative foundations are the sources of money for these think tanks. And ALL of the think tank's money (despite a refusal to name or even define the think tanks) goes to Climate Denial.

A ridiculous conspiracy theory. The only thing substantive about the paper is that is asserts that Conservative Foundations probably give money to Conservative think tanks. Duh!

>>6868668

>Name a single substantive prediction of climate change theory that has been proven true.

>No, flooding streets in Florida does not distinguish form normal climate.

Why not?

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/363.php

>>6868691

I quit falling for the denialists' disingenuous requests for predictions because every example you give them they have a special plead for as to why it doesn't count.

Just like creationists.

>>6868674

If you're not going to address my points I won't address yours.

>>6868697
>I quit falling for the denialists' disingenuous requests for predictions because every example you give them they have a special plead for as to why it doesn't count.

Can't answer the question? Why? Because "Climate Change" is a predictive failure.

>If you're not going to address my points I won't address yours.

What points?

>>6868691

Because it doesn't distinguish for normal variability in sea level and land (beach area) level. The ocean has been rising since the end of the ice age!!!

>>6868708
>What points?

Your utter dismissal of the inescapable global-scale conspiracy theory that your argument implies.

Are you a creationist? serious question.

Like everything else, the quality of an imageboard is determined by the people who happen to be posting on it at the time.

That said, I could tell /sci/ was shit today just by looking at the last few posts in this thread.

>I won't say any names

Kansas here. We were having a very mild autumn, and then bam, this shit hits. Fucking unpleasant.

That said, November isn't exactly outside the winter season.

>>6868711
>Because it doesn't distinguish for normal variability in sea level and land (beach area) level. The ocean has been rising since the end of the ice age!!!

Maybe you should stop getting your information from Steven Goddard.

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.diagrams/363.php

http://sflwww.er.usgs.gov/eden/benchmarks/benchmark.php?benchmark=WCA3-BM6

>dumbass makes thread about global warming
>assumes climate and temperature are the same thing
>hurr durr you faggots are stupid
>learn2atmospheric science you faggots

>>6868619
It's "strong-standing" because that's all you sheeple fuckers care to hear about it. Wake up and smell the roses.
>tl;dr How dare you question the holiness of government scientists who get paid to paint pretty pictures.

>>6866093
People refer to "climate change science" as a science, but for what it's worth, the majority of climate change is an observational field. It's practically impossible to create experiments that simulate the entire planet's reaction to increased carbon levels, and if there is no experiment being made, then you can't claim anything about cause and effect. This is literally high school stats.
For future reference with all global warming arguments:
Consensus doesn't imply causation
Lack of scope ruins observation
CO2 levels have only been measured since about the beginning of the century. Everything before that has been measured through scientific guesses concerning the formation of rock layers.
Not enough time has passed to determine if global warming is actually caused by people.

>>6866377

another day, literally 20 years from the "all time high"

>>6872153

>thisi entire week has been 10 degrees under the highest
>MUH GLOBAL TEMP IS RISING EACH DAY THO!
>ALGOR PROOFED IT!

>look at these photos taken in the summer time but said to be during the winter
>wow such melting
>if you dont agree with our new tax system your just a racist

It's only november and my backyard has already turned into a tundra. Ground is hard as rock.

>>6872183

BUT THATS CAUSE ITS SO HOT THAT NOW ITS ALSO GETTING COLDER!

>>6867261
>if you deny government propaganda you are a "science denier"

grow up

>get sick of unscientific nonsense in /pol/
>come to /sci/
>people debating the existence of climate change
>mfw

>guys it's cold outside right now
>gradual heating of the entire earth must be bullshit.

/sci/ - Science & Math

>conservatives still don't realize that global warming would lead to overall colder temperatures thanks to the icecaps melting and all that cold water goes into the ocean proper

Do conservatives go to a different school or something? How do they not learn this shit? Do they all learn science from the same guy that taught that one R congressman that the female body has ways of shutting down a legitimate rape?

Climate != weather.

>>6866093
>global
>BUT IN THE USA

I'll give you a minute to find the error on your own

>>6868919
lel nice climate denying.... denier...

>>6866501
>Drawing an arbitrary straight line through data
Beautiful

wft is a great tool

>>6872769

>>6868601

>>6866429
that's different, it's Almighty God's wrath for legalizing gay marriage

>>6866093
>Usa
>Global

>>6866377
>Still not understanding what the word global means
>"B-But muh meaningless personal experience!"

>>6868919
>What are simulations
It's not 1900 anymore, grandpa.

>>6866474
AL gore said there would be no snow in America after 2013 :^)

It's -15 up here in the woods in the pacific northwest. What the fuck. It's not even winter yet. It's only -5 in town but here. Feels like the apocalypse. All the animals are gone but there's no snow, it's very eerie.

>>6868731

>hurr durr conspiracy. Got to use ad hominem to hid utter failure of predictive climate 'science.'

There is no conspiracy, or do you think belief in classical mechanics was a conspiracy?

Or the constancy of space and time?

Or that atoms are the smallest unit in the universe?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

>>6868731

No, I am not a creationist. And for the record, I'm an atheist who believes in evolution.

now ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>>6872723

Not arbitrary, the reference given proves that statistically speaking, there has been no global warming for almost two decades.

>>6873143

>al theses proclamations 10 years ago centered around a US goverment push followed by a US only taxation (not even china is willing to buy in after obama sucked their cock last week)

>proclaimed a bunch of natural disaters like katrina to occur more ofent
>literally no hurricanes at all
>one randomly migrated up to NY where the infrastructure was literally still in the fucking 1950s which bloated the damage totals
>NOAA said this year would be the biggest ever for the south east
>literally nothing
>now for the 2nd time outisde of last winter and prior to this up coming winter the entire north america is going to be in the 20s as far as the gulf coast states

>MUH FRACTION OF A DEGREE IN AFRICA THO!

>THE POLAR TIPS ARE ACTUALLY WARMER!
>well this year its the thickest ever on record

>M-MUH BUT ITS STILL MELTED BELOW THE WATER!
>MUH PIE CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS

>meanwhile any of you can go to weather.com, plug in your zip code each and every day and see the same shit
>record highs decades ago
>record low usually occuring after that date

>>6866370
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Midwest and east coast gets cool ass weather during winter

Wish it would rain in SD ;_;

>Individual events at individual times in individual places disprove a constant trend
Go back to /pol/.

>>6873340
>one randomly migrated up to NY where the infrastructure was literally still in the fucking 1950s which bloated the damage totals

It's too bad I already posted my picture of the West Side Highway during Sandy.

>well this year its the thickest ever on record

Pic Related.

Unrelated:
Can anyone familiar with the Gulf of Mexico basin tell me what type of oil is most abundant there?
I found studies on everything about the stratigraphy and Louan Salt and types of traps they find it in. But none of them tell me the type of oil.

>>6873540
>antarctic sea ice record high
>arctic low, but not record low.
The coin have two sides, if you make propaganda for one and ignore the other you're doing politics not science.

Of course this is /sci/, the dumbest board of 4chan, so having any expectations of quality postings is as stupid as the posters themself.

>>6872565

go back to reddit.

Record heat was recorded in other parts of the world
The global average temperature has been well above the norm for the last 2 years
>ignoring general trends and cherry picking a single event to support your claim
If that's not shit tier trolling I don't know what is

>>6873623
>The global average temperature has been well above the norm for the last 2 years
Satellite temperature records show a flat trend. I don't know what data sources you use.

>>6866093
>described as arctic air invasion
>"yeah this probably means it's getting colder in general"

>>6873626
"well above the norm" does not mean "increasing"
reading comprehension
my point is that temperature didn't crash the past 2 years

>>6866093
>this is how retarded deniers are

>>6873340
Why are you posting here? Does ranting like a fucking idiot about a topic you're wrong on make you feel like you're "proving" something?

>no global warming
>glaciers melting
must be magic

I agree there's Climate Change, but I dont agree Humans are completely responsible. Anytime there's some political agenda involved I get wary specially in science.

>thinking that pumping megatonnes of greenhouses gases into the atmostphere is unrelated to changes in atmosphere and poles

holy shit i thought /sci/ was abit smarter than /pol/

>>6873804
>I agree there's Climate Change, but I dont agree Humans are completely responsible. Anytime there's some political agenda involved I get wary specially in science.

The "political agenda" is casting doubt on climate change. So you're not "wary" of the political agenda, you're buying right into it.

>>6873603
>The coin have two sides, if you make propaganda for one and ignore the other you're doing politics not science.

Google GRACE satellite.