/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7475561
Your Fat Momma's Farts

>>7475565
thanks /sci/

>>7475561

Yes. Why are you asking /sci/ instead of a real science site?

Thousands of peer-reviewed publications spread over dozens of journals, yes.

>>7475575
like what ?

>>7475586
i want proof, statistics, visual evidence, logs of previous years about the state of earth, not some drivel some autistic paranoid wrote

>>7475561
Define proof

IT'S AN ANTI-AMURICAN CONSPURACY FROM THE CHINESE TO DAMAGE OUR ECONOMY
-t. dunald tramp

>>7475591
then go fucking look it up

> all shitposting no proof
thanks for letting me know

>>7475561
Remains of beetles are common in freshwater and land sediments. Different species of beetles tend to be found under different climatic conditions. Given the extensive lineage of beetles whose genetic makeup has not altered significantly over the millennia, knowledge of the present climatic range of the different species, and the age of the sediments in which remains are found, past climatic conditions may be inferred.

>>7475629
feel free to start reading
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg2/
http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml

It's not like you don't have several months to figure it out anon.

>starting now to understand climate change
I hope you don't do this.

>>7475629
It's real. You're and idiot. I feel no need to prove anything here.

>>7475561
Global warming is happening and it's not even arguable. Temps and CO2 are rising. The argument is whether human activity is causing it, if we are able to reverse or slow it, and the ramifications it will have on global climate.

Source: licensed environmental engineer

>>7476051
Of course that's a false argument about the antrhopogenic causes.

It assumes that we can't fix it if we didn't cause it, which is completely retarded. Even if the biggest driver isn't human, human contribute enough to the problem that we could manage it.

>>7475561
Yes, nobody is quite sure what the outcome of it will be though.

>>7476051
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
nasa has spoken

>>7476048
I heard the same thing from a jesus freak too lol

>>7475591
>>7475629
if you're really so interested why don't you go do some research yourself rather than asking a bunch of anonymous posters to do all the work for you. It's not hard to find

>>7476092
So Nuclear energy is a contributing factor to the greenhouse effect?
Damn.

>>7475561
No. Sea levels rising is just a myth. Proof. Fill a glass to the brim with water.
Insert ice cube into glass.
Of course glass will over flow due to volume of icecube.
But when ice cube melts glass will still be full to the brim.
Since we have ice on earth in the polar ice caps
Sea levels wont change.
Hysteria to create population control.

>>7475591
>>7475629
>>7476423
>>7479150

>>7475561
A lot of bugs have been moving norther with every year. Also I guess the drought in California.

>>7475561
There's enough meticulous documentation to bore you to tears. The 'controversy' isn't gonna mean much couple decades from now when shit gets real and there's nothing that can be done except vent frustration by murdering all the denialists.

>>7479150
>thinks sea levels rising is the big problem

Crop yields turning to shit, long before that will be an issue, is the big one.
India, Pakistan and China will be at each others throats in a few decades. Nuclear states each one of them. It'll be fun.

This is the amount of ice in the arctic sea as plotted over the years, OP. Proof enough for you?

>>7479150
I recognise that this is a troll, but for the benefit of the people that do not, the issue is not the ice over the sea it is the ice on Greenland and Antarctica. Secondly warming water will thermally expand.

>>7479176
This is debatable. On the one hand the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely beneficial to crop yields. The issue is the impact that a warmer climate will have on rainfall, and that is a case of winners and losers. Thirdly plants are able to use water more efficiently in a more CO2 rich atmosphere, but equally can demand more water when the temperature is high. Another element is that a warmer climate could produce a longer growing season in some parts of the world.

Notwithstanding the fact that we produce more than enough food at present likely even for the expected global population in 2050. The issue is not production it is the distribution of food.

I am not convinced by the global warming = famine. I think there is actually enough basis that it could improve crop yield.

>>7475629
I'm not your daddy. You want something do it yourself.

>>7479257
The issue with food production and global warming is that areas which expect to get significant increases are Canada, Russia and Scandinavia, e.g areas where there is no famine to start with.
Meanwhile the big losers are arid areas of Africa, Mexico and Middle East / Pakistan e.g. the areas that actually have might have famines today.

Another thing is that real life isn't a game of civ where global warming might increase overall food production and hence be usefull.
In real world there is going to be 50 million Mexicans and 150 million Africans looking for new homes which will be by far the biggest issue, not the actual food production. As you said it's a distribution problem, if people were willing to give free shit to Africa to end the famines there they could, when global warming makes things worse in there people won't suddenly become more generous.

>>7479257
Crop yields are most likely going to fall in the agricultural spots that currently produce most of the world's food, while the warming regions are in the north where sunlight hours are scarce and the soil isn't fit for farming.

>>7479257
>increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely beneficial to crop yields

think again
https://youtu.be/aRLg8No0RVQ?t=11m

I think the most funniest thing of all are people who believe in chemtrails but don't believe in global warming. Lots of evidence for chemtrails is also evidence for global warming (i.e. warming of earth, pollution).

>>7479268
Also, the tundra in russia is expected to thaw, and expell additional CO2 into the atmosphere.

What the models tell us is that we could manage a slow change over 100 years, but if there's a rapid dump into the atmosphere from one of the buffers/sinks of carbon, we're in deep shit.

>>7475591
>Based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution.

Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.

>>7475591
CSIRO Coastal tide gauge records.

>>7475591
Change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

>>7475591
Mass of land ice on Antarctica and Greenland.
GRACE satellite data.

>>7475591
Modelling of natural and human contributions to global temperature variation.
bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

>>7475591
Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

>>7475591
>Synchronicity between Large Igneous Province eruptions and large extinction events. Red denotes dated duration, pink denotes date uncertainty. Jourdan et al, Geology 2014.

Temperature changes caused by large, rapid emissions of greenhouse gasses have happened in the past (such as from massive volcanoes). This graph shows mass extinction events by how close in time they occurred.

>>7480022

Change in GISS temperatures relative to GISS

>>7480162
Here

>>7480162
What?

>>7480022
More change in GISS temperatures relative to older GISS.

>>7480052
Atmospheric levels of CO2 over a larger time period.

>>7480187
>>7480164
Okay, here's the uk met office's data.

>>7480192
This suggests that there's a stable mode of Earth's climate that's about ten degrees warmer and that the temperature isn't directly correlated with CO2 concentration, which is exactly what the concern is. CO2 has a direct, short term effect on the energy retained by the atmosphere. There are other much larger influences like surface albedo and ocean carbon sequestration that are in turn effected by temperature. We can control our CO2 output, we can't deacidify the ocean.

>>7480164
>history temperatures change
yeah no

>>7479199
Almost all graphs of Arctic ice start in 1979 where, sea ice was at a very high level. This cherry-picking distorts the results. Satellite data goes back to 1973 when the ice was much lower.

>>7480224
They all use the same basic "homogenization" algorithm. And they all use essentially the same data; GHCN.

>>7480224
Here is a National Academy of Sciences graph showing significant cooling. That cooling has been erased.

>>7480294
You're conflating sea ice cover with ice volume.

>>7480298
Why shouldn't the data be homogenized?

>>7480303
No it hasn't, you can still see cooling from 1940 to 1960, which is exactly what your graph shows. And this is not significant cooling compared to the warming trend we can see today.

>>7480303
>posting old science
>pretending peer view has relegated it to failure
>thinking science doesn't advance.

>>7480303
It's right there dude.

>>7480298
Their papers are publicly available if you want to demystify the processing.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

>GISS analyses beginning with Hansen et al. [1999] include a homogeneity adjustment to minimize local (nonclimatic) anthropogenic effects on measured tempera- ture change. Such effects are usually largest in urban locations where buildings and energy use often cause a warming bias. Local anthropogenic cooling can also occur, for example, from irrigation and planting of vegetation [Oke, 1989], but on average, these effects are probably outweighed by urban warming. The homogeneity adjustment procedure [Hansen et al., 1999, Figure 3] changes the long‐term temperature trend of an urban station to make it agree with the mean trend of nearby rural stations.

The homogenisation that you put in scare quotes tends to adjust recorded temperatures to be *cooler*.

>>7480310
>Thinking that rewriting the temperature record is "new" science.
>Thinking that there's no conflict of interest that the people who process the data are the same people who's funding depends on the data telling an alarmist message.
>believing that tobacco company scientists would distort things to help tobacco companies get more money
>believing that no government scientist would distort things to help government get more $carbon $tax money and regulatory power.

In a word, Naive.

Pic related, Climategate email discussing cooling the past [which makes the warming rate look larger, SST=Sea Surface Temperatures]

>>7480321
>NASA says NASA is doing everything correctly.
Then why is the distant past cooled so much even thought the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is weak back then, but recent temperatures are cooled little, or even warmed, event though the UHI is much stronger. The corrections are the exact opposite of what they should be.

>>7480306
>>>7480303 (You)
>No it hasn't, you can still see cooling from 1940 to 1960, which is exactly what your graph shows. And this is not significant cooling compared to the warming trend we can see today.

The cooling has been cut in half
>>7480315

>>7480330
>being a wing nut
>posting on /sci/

pick one, please or kill yourself.

>>7480330
>Thinking that rewriting the temperature record is "new" science.
Correcting the temperature record due to changes in measurement techniques, outliers, and urban heat island effect is science. Whether or not it's new is irrelevant.

>Thinking that there's no conflict of interest that the people who process the data are the same people who's funding depends on the data telling an alarmist message.
So I guess since you failed at criticizing the science, it's all a conspiracy.

>believing that tobacco company scientists would distort things to help tobacco companies get more money
Who funds the scientists who say climate change isn't real?

>Pic related, Climategate email discussing cooling the past [which makes the warming rate look larger, SST=Sea Surface Temperatures]
He's referring to correcting the warming blip due to changes in the way ocean temperatures were measured in the 1940s. This is a well known anomaly: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html

Did you try to look up the context of these climatologists' emails, or did you just assume they mean what you want them to mean?

You only seem to have a problem with correcting the temperature record when it corrects cooling biases, but not warming biases. If you actually cared about figuring out the truth, why would you attack the conclusion that warming occurred instead of the method to find it? Clearly you just don't like the conclusion and have no valid criticism of the science, which you will only support if it leads to the conclusion you like.

>>7480346
>Then why is the distant past cooled so much even thought the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is weak back then, but recent temperatures are cooled little, or even warmed, event though the UHI is much stronger.
Because UHI is not the only source of errors in the temperature record.

>>7480349
>The cooling has been cut in half
How did you calculate that?

>>7480346
I don't know, I'd be interested to read the paper or the data that graph is based on though. I'm not intimate enough with that particular research to make arguments.

You guys have won either way anyway, no one's doing much aside from making policy promises. If you're right, nothing much happens, and if you're wrong, it's already too late to reverse the changes.

The thing is, hundreds of disparate individuals lying for decades to gain grant money is a massively more difficult proposition compared to a corporation offering money to get individuals to lie. You should try talking to a few climate scientists one day, they're hardly laughing it up on the climate change cash cow. Most of them are incredibly depressed.

>>7480330
>The scientists who find that cigarettes cause cancer are funded by the government. So clearly they are just making this up to increase the government's regulatory power and cigarette tax revenue in exchange for more funding. Therefore cigarettes don't cause cancer.
This is how stupid you are.

>>7480014
Evidence that this contributes to global warming needed

>>7480192
That's actually scary. Every past visible change on that graph corresponds to a major extinction event. We are in the middle of a visible change on that graph.

>>7481656
CO2 reflects any infrared light on its way to space back to earth. So more CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat that can't escape our planet.

Sure, correlation is not causation but I challenge you to find a better explanation for >>7480022

>>7480377
>>Thinking that rewriting the temperature record is "new" science.
>Correcting the temperature record due to changes in measurement techniques, outliers, and urban heat island effect is science. Whether or not it's new is irrelevant.
What they do is here:>>7480346
UHI, not corrected for instead anti-corrected.

BTW, USHCN data is publically available, check it yourself. Compare raw to "corrected."
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/us-historical-climatology-network-ushcn

>>7480377
>>Thinking that there's no conflict of interest that the people who process the data are the same people who's funding depends on the data telling an alarmist message.
>So I guess since you failed at criticizing the science, it's all a conspiracy.

Ah yes, I was counting the seconds until you resorted to Ad Hominem. You have officially lost the argument because you can't provide actual evidence + logic. Only Appeals to authority and Ad Hominem.

>>7480377
>>>7480346 (You)
>>Then why is the distant past cooled so much even thought the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is weak back then, but recent temperatures are cooled little, or even warmed, event though the UHI is much stronger.
>Because UHI is not the only source of errors in the temperature record.

You are indeed correct. The GISS "correcting" algorithm is a huge source of error.
Here is Clean Station Data. These data are from NOAA Class 1 temperature stations. Meaning they have no problems with their temperature record, setting, instrumentation etc. They provide pristine data. Yet these data are "corrected."

First pic here, GISS cooled the past for the suburban station near Baker OR and as well as cooling the past for rural Hobart OK. Check the temp scales on each graph carefully, they are not always the same from left to right.

>>7482144
And here, GISS cooled the past and warmed the present for Suburban Laramie WY. Again, Check the temp scales on each graph carefully, they are not always the same from left to right.
So go ahead, appeal to authority, do the ad hominem conspiracy theory crap. That doesn't change the facts right in front of your eyes. Clean data has been distorted to give it a greater warming trend. That's bad science.

>>7475561
It was a different temperature outside today than yesterday.

Okay next question.

>>7480395
>tobacco company = bad money to influence science
>government = good money to influence science

Money always affects peoples' attitudes. And if you don't understand that, you are stupid.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

>>7480377
>>Pic related, Climategate email discussing cooling the past [which makes the warming rate look larger, SST=Sea Surface Temperatures]
>He's referring to correcting the warming blip due to changes in the way ocean temperatures were measured in the 1940s. This is a well known anomaly: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html

False. That paper tries to provide an excuse to lessen the cooling from the mid/late 40s to about 1975. This email clearly says, ""partly explain the 1940's WARMING blip"

They are trying to erase the WARMING blip. Nice try.
BTW, its hilarious how they complain about all that land warming in the email. They're unhappy about it. Wow. That's what I call impartial, data-driven science.

That is the most retarded thing I have heard since someone said that their is no extra-terrestrial life in outer space, FUCK YEAH THERE IS PROOF. The theory behind *no longer a theory btw its proven* global warming is that large amounts of greenhouse gasses and changing distances from the sun have led to the trapping of heat inside the earths atmosphere. HEAT = temperature COLD = nonexistent , cold does not exist, just less warm. Okay now that is out of the way, the earth goes through cycles, this is proven by the ice age and recent heat events, *semi-recent* Heat is being trapped inside and heated to a further extent from the radioactive rays emitted from the sun, BUT, due to the shifting distance from the sun and rotational differences *however small* this amount has lowered. on a global scale this is a big issue because there is no way to combat it other than to somehow leak the gasses into space and we do not yet possess that kind of technology, basically what i'm trying to say is that the gasses are making it EASIER for heat to enter than to exit, and the distance from the sun is making it HARDER for heat to enter. kind of like an exponential growth thing, we are effectively making a wall of gasses that are prohibiting the heat from entering in the form of UV radiation.

>>7482163
>tobacco company = bad money to influence science
>government = good money to influence science
When did I say anything about anyone's money being bad or good? Stop projecting your bad logic onto others. I simply pointed out that the argument that some scientific conclusion is supported by someone's dollars does nothing to invalidate the science.

But if that is your logic, you shouldn't trust any science since someone is always footing the bill and can always be construed as profiting somehow.

Or you know, we could just talk about the science itself and not invoke conspiracies until we need to explain why bad science was made.

>>7475561
Global warming?
No

Climate Change?
Yes, but that isn't some huge revelation. There is no such thing as a closed, static system. So it isn't a big surprise that our climate system is forever changing.

>>7482317
it is to some

>>7482089
>UHI, not corrected for instead anti-corrected.
So if I move a seesaw up and then down, and you see the seesaw is lower than it was before, that means I never moved it up? Is this really the logic of a "skeptic"?

>Ah yes, I was counting the seconds until you resorted to Ad Hominem.
There's no ad hominem there. Look again or figure out what ad hominem means.

>You have officially lost the argument because you can't provide actual evidence + logic.
There is plenty of evidence in this thread and in the literature, you're the one who has failed to refute it. Stop projecting.

>>7482144
>>7482147
>Clean data has been distorted to give it a greater warming trend. That's bad science.
Looking at single stations tells us nothing about whether or not homogenization works, because the entire point is that it's a method of compiling the data. There are many studies that have shown the warming trend is not caused by homogenization and is robust across all reconstruction methods. Even if you cherrypick the best stations, you'll still see the same trend, because the corrections you are so worried about are insignificant. Homogenization corrects bad stations much more. Did you actually check to see if the trend was significantly effected before you assumed that it was? Obviously not. Please take your pre-conceived narrative elsewhere if you are not going to be scientific.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

>>7482176
>False. That paper tries to provide an excuse to lessen the cooling from the mid/late 40s to about 1975. This email clearly says, ""partly explain the 1940's WARMING blip"
If you actually read the paper, you'll see that it describes the switch from 1939 to 1941 from European ships measuring sea temps with canvas buckets to US ships measuring the temps via engine inlet. This led to the most noticeable anomaly, a WARMING blip. After that, insulated buckets were used, which led to the record cooling back down. See pic.

>>7475561
have you been living under a rock the past 30 years?
actually, even if you lived outside under a rock you should have noticed, especially if you lived outside.
what makes you such a special snowflake that we should present decades of accumulated knowledge on a silver plate to you personally

>>7482426
Why do these charts always stop at about 1990-2000?
And why do any recent charts always show cooling or stagnation before they get "adjusted"?

>>7475561
No it is the effect of a very heated up universe to begin with.

>>7482968
You mean the sun?

>>7482942
>charts always stop at about 1990-2000
>stagnation before they get "adjusted"
Yeah, both RSS land and lower tropo are in dire need of a politically correct adjustment.

>>7482980
what specifically is the graph referring to?
Because to me it looks like a flat line with average taken at a very specific time in history completely unrelated to the average in the graph.

>>7482426
>>UHI, not corrected for instead anti-corrected.
>So if I move a seesaw up and then down, and you see the seesaw is lower than it was before, that means I never moved it up? Is this really the logic of a "skeptic"?

You're just making it up. Seesaws going up, Seesaws going down. Where was this over-correction/over-measurement in the first place? They made bad thermometers, always over-stating the temperature; but the over-stated temperature error got smaller and smaller as time went on? Do you know how utterly ridiculous that sounds? And it ain't SSTs (referencing the data in that graph) because its United States Historical Climate Record Data.

The fact that this trend is the opposite of the UHI trend has not been explained by you. Because you don't have an explanation. Just appeals to "gosh maybe this or that or the other was like a seesaw..."

Now look at the heatwave records. How come they were the worst in the 1940s (this is a recent EPA publication)? Did some evil skeptic travel back in time to alter the data? Seriously, this is just ridiculous.

>>7482426
>>Clean data has been distorted to give it a greater warming trend. That's bad science.
>Looking at single stations tells us nothing about whether or not homogenization works, because the entire point is that it's a method of compiling the data...Please take your pre-conceived narrative elsewhere if you are not going to be scientific.

Exactly as expected. Abject denial when presented with actual data. Clean data was presented before and after. Clean data was changed to increase the rate of warming. Changes were on the order of 0.5 to 1.0 degrees. Remember the warming for past entire 100 years is only about 0.82 degrees C!

BTW, picking the cleanest stations is not cherry-picking; its the opposite. Its the straight-up illustration of whether a "correction" algorithm is working correctly, because the null situation is already clean data. And its not working right. BTW, there are very few completely clean temperature stations. All of them, except one, showed an added temperature gradient.

The corrections:
1. Do not fit the historical record (1940s heatwaves), NASA, NOAA, CIA, NAS etc. talking about global cooling in the 1970s (starting about 1945), as did the data from then:>>7480303
2. Spread the UHI to suburban/rural stations; a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373,
3. Add a warming gradient to clean data:>>7482144 >>7482147
4. Create a divergence between surface data (warming gradient for about 15 years) and the tropospheric data around the equator (no warming for about 15 years) which is physically impossible because the connection between these two places via the lapse rate.

When you were presented with incontrovertible evidence of flawed "correcting," in the form of clean data being altered - you denied the data. Denying the data. That what climate "scientists" do.

>>7482942
>Why do these charts always stop at about 1990-2000?
Why does a chart from 2005 stop at 2005? Stupid question.

>And why do any recent charts always show cooling or stagnation before they get "adjusted"?
Why are you making up these idiotic generalizations?

>>7482426
>>False. That paper tries to provide an excuse to lessen the cooling from the mid/late 40s to about 1975. This email clearly says, ""partly explain the 1940's WARMING blip"
>If you actually read the paper, you'll see that it describes the switch from 1939 to 1941 from European ships measuring sea temps with... which led to the record cooling back down. See pic

Sigh. Why do you insist on wasting my time. OK, here's a direct quote from the paper:
>Hence, the sudden drop in SSTs in late 1945 is consistent with the rapid but uncorrected change from engine room intake measurements (US ships) to uninsulated bucket measurements (UK ships)
at the end of the Second World War. As the drop derives from the composition of the ICOADS data set, it is present in all records of twentieth-century climate variability that include SST data.

"the sudden DROP in SSTs... rapid but UNCORRECTED change," other changes to the SSTs had already been made. They were discussing correcting a sudden cooling.

And I love that quote from the ClimateGate email, "why the blip?" Yeah, that's a great explanation of what they're doing. Trying to rewrite the temperature record is what they're trying to do. They figured no one would ever read their email!

>>7482308
>>The scientists who find that cigarettes cause cancer are funded by the government. So clearly they are >just making this up to increase the government's regulatory power and cigarette tax revenue in exchange >for more funding. Therefore cigarettes don't cause cancer.
>This is how stupid you are

Did you do this commentary? Purposefully making the ridiculous and false idea that I was implying that all conclusions in science are bad because of money. I never said that; don't put words in my mouth.

What you don't understand is that funding can influence results which is exactly why you want funding to come from a dis-interested source. That is why Pharmaceutical companies must outsource their drug testing. (Which they still, unfortunately, try to influence).

Who has the most to gain if people act like climate change is true? Answer, Green-energy types and the rest of their market, The United States Federal Government, and the United Nations. There are literally trillions of dollars at stake here. Yes, the market is that big. And yes, the United Nations wants that level of funding in the next 10 years. And yes, the U.S. government would make hundreds of $billions in carbon taxes.

If you think that only private sector organizations can be corrupted by money then you are denying human nature. And that is stupid.

>>7484154
Before we get into this, let's shorten it down a lot.
Can you please link me some actual raw data?
You can find raw data for a lot of things, why is it impossible to find historic temperatures, if this is supposed to be a "heated debate"?
If you're trying to convince me and not just throw insults, find me some raw data and let's draw some conclusions from there.

>>7484088
actually Bill, we can explain that

>>7484160
Acting frustrated and superior isn't convincing anyone.
From your comments, however, I can see you don't really know much about scientific method.
Quick question, is climatology based on predictions, or postdictions?

>>7484187
well may-may-ed and ad-hominem-ed.
You have converted me with your arguments,

>>7475561
You know what we need, a damn master post with every single bit of evidence we have. That way, whenever someone asks a stupid question, someone just grabs the copy pasta and throws in their face.

>>7484088
>You're just making it up.
What exactly have I made up? I didn't make the algorithm and no one is hiding how it works. Try reading instead of lying:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>They made bad thermometers, always over-stating the temperature; but the over-stated temperature error got smaller and smaller as time went on? Do you know how utterly ridiculous that sounds?
Yes your baseless opinion about climatology does sound ridiculous.

>And it ain't SSTs (referencing the data in that graph) because its United States Historical Climate Record Data.
What are you talking about? The SST chart is there to show the 1940s warming blip. It has nothing to do with USHCRD.

>The fact that this trend is the opposite of the UHI trend has not been explained by you.
Another lie. I already explained that UHI is not the sole source of errors in the temperature record, thus there is no expectation that the temperature trend should follow the "UHI trend". Only someone who is not thinking scientifically, who has a preconceived conclusion, will ignore all evidence except that which would prove their belief correct. That is all you're doing when you argue as if UHI is the only factor that effects temperatures. We get it, now move on.

>Now look at the heatwave records. How come they were the worst in the 1940s
What exactly is this supposed to show? 2012 also had massive heat waves. They're going to be more likely going forward. Try to stay on topic.

>>7484201
I agree, but the big problem would be their ignorance. If we link some really good evidence, they would probably say that the government made up the data or some stupid shit like that.

But at least it's a shot, We could do the same thing for the Nibirufags.

>>7484127
>Clean data was presented before and after. Clean data was changed to increase the rate of warming.
Yes in a homogenization algorithm that could not know which stations are clean and which are not. The only thing it had to go on was which stations were outliers and which were not. Again, this is irrelevant because no matter which reconstruction method you use, no matter which stations you use, the same trend comes out. Corrections to a few stations are insignificant if the broader trend is fleshed out, which is the only thing we care about in a homogenization algorithm.

>BTW, picking the cleanest stations is not cherry-picking; its the opposite.
Lookup what cherry-picking means because that is by definition cherry-picking. Again, you never checked to see if the global trend derived from those stations disagreed with the trend from all stations, and it doesn't, so your argument is moot.

>Its the straight-up illustration of whether a "correction" algorithm is working correctly, because the null situation is already clean data.
You did not compare these correction to corrections to a non-clean station, nor did you look at how these corrections affected the global trend, so you illustrated nothing.

>The corrections:
>1. Do not fit the historical record (1940s heatwaves)
If they don't fit, why are they represented in the corrected data?

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

>2. Spread the UHI to suburban/rural stations; a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373,
That paper does not study the homogenization technique used by climatologists so it's irrelevant. Here is the famous Berkeley Earth study on UHI which skeptics supported until it proved them wrong:

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

>>7484214
If they weren't stupid to begin with they'd just read the Wikipedia article.

>>7484231
Sure. Let me edit that for you, yeah?
Or did you manage to do it this morning?

>>7484127
>4. Create a divergence between surface data (warming gradient for about 15 years) and the tropospheric data around the equator (no warming for about 15 years) which is physically impossible because the connection between these two places via the lapse rate.
Again, it's not creating a divergence because no matter how you slice the data you get the same trend. The troposphere satellite measurements are what diverge from everything else, not just surface temps, but ocean heat content and polar ice extent. A number of reasons for this have been proposed.

>When you were presented with incontrovertible evidence of flawed "correcting," in the form of clean data being altered - you denied the data.
Again, you're lying. I never "denied the data". I simply explained how your argument is misleading.

>>7484226
You don't seem to understand statistics or scientific method.
The correction is not justified.
Additionally, the only thing the correction does, is it creates an upward trend exclusively in the period when the thermometers were being changed.
Why not compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges and go from there? Why include pears and mangoes in the same mix, when trying to get an average change of fruit color through time?


Additionally, can you explain why does climatology take postdiction as a scientific method and then label it as a prediction afterwards?
I'm assuming you are actually familiar with any of the methods.

>>7484235
>implying
still a better source than /sci/

>>7484251
As if.
Wikipedia used to be good when it was being written by people who knew and cared.
Then editing wars started, first by people who were stubborn and incapable of discussion, then by people pushing their interests (scientology being one of the later examples).
Now it's just a pile of shit.
Science and mathematics sections used to be good. Now it's just drivel, probably written by people with liberal arts degrees.

>>7484240
>You don't seem to understand statistics or scientific method.
>The correction is not justified.
You're projecting. The point of homogenization is to correct outliers. Regardless of how you classify a station after the fact, an outlier is an outlier. And again, the question is whether homogenization works, not whether it corrects a certain station or not. You are ignoring the fact that numerous studies, have found that no matter how you slice the data, the same trend comes out: Berkeley Earth, Stokes, Hausfather, Tamino. homogenization works, get over it.

>Additionally, the only thing the correction does, is it creates an upward trend exclusively in the period when the thermometers were being changed.
So you didn't read http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>Why not compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges and go from there? Why include pears and mangoes in the same mix, when trying to get an average change of fruit color through time?
Who says climatologists haven't? You didn't look for alternative reconstructions because you don't care about them. You just care that you get the answer you believe in.

>Additionally, can you explain why does climatology take postdiction as a scientific method and then label it as a prediction afterwards?
Can you explain when you're going to stop beating your wife?

>>7484263
You JUST said the homogenization compares apples to oranges in your previous post and now you're saying it doesn't?
Anyway, let me explain how the science behind climatology is run.

The idea is that the light from sun reaches earth and passes through atmosphere relatively unobstructed due to being of "incorrect" wavelength. The light reaches the earth and interacts with it (heats the ground) which then gets radiated back.

Due to being of different wavelength, the light can now more readily interact with atmosphere. As a result, a lot of it gets trapped in the atmosphere and radiates back to earth.
Cool hypothesis.
Some problems though. How does that interaction in the atmosphere work (I mean the details here, some equations have been known for over a century by now) and what actually causes it?

For the second part, feel free to link some papers where they've measured gasses and their "green house coefficient", while I explain how the first part works.

Ideally, you would want a photon-to-molecule interaction simulation, but that is hard to calculate. So you simulate using layers and a "refraction coefficient".

Cool model.

Except your coefficient and the number of layers you are using are both fudge factors of your model and you have no idea what their values should be.

You announce your models are predicting that best case scenarios (we revert to stone age) mean in 20 years, earth will still warm up by a few degrees.

Turns out your models were wrong, so you adjust your fudge factors and make another claim with less scary predictions.

Repeat a few times.

We are at a stage now where we are discussing whether the earth has warmed by a fraction of a degree in the last 100 years, the evidence being presented by people who do not understand scientific method, modelling or statistics (ignore the emails, go read some actual papers and shit bricks).

So, yeah, I don't beat my wife, but climatology still isn't science.

>>7484316
>You JUST said the homogenization compares apples to oranges in your previous post and now you're saying it doesn't?
Wow, you just can't stop lying can you? Where did I say anything like that?

>Except your coefficient and the number of layers you are using are both fudge factors of your model and you have no idea what their values should be.
I find it funny that because your argument has now shifted to "because I don't understand climatology, no one else does". Really, it's hilarious.

First, models, just like in any other science, are chosen based on their explanatory power. Coefficients aren't just chosen arbitrarily, they are determined from empirical data.

Second, climatologists don't make predictions, they make projections. The difference being that climatologists do not predict how much greenhouse gas will be released in the future and do not predict various natural sources of variability. Climatologists make projections of various scenarios involving different values for these variables. Projections have been accurate for decades. You can see this in IPCC reports. So what is the point of all these models if they don't let us predict the future without predicting the other factors? They show that we can't explain the climate without the greenhouse gas effect. You're denial of this scientific fact is simply borne of your desire for it to not be true and not from scientific reasoning. You are no different from a creationist or anti-vaxxer.

>>7484362
1. Learn to spell.
2. Re-read your posts. I don't lie.
3. You are assuming I don't understand because I don't agree with you. I use scientific methodology in every day life and have been in real sciences and social sciences ends and I have seen the massive differences and gaps in understanding, which is why I insist climatology is not science. The sad thing here is, even you are calling it "projections" to what the climatology community and especially the media continuously refers to as "predictions". How scientific are the "projections" when it comes to, for instance, politics?
4. You have resorted to emotional name-calling, meaning you will stick to your guns and will not listen to reason.


I care not whether it's true or not. I'd prefer it not to be true, as would any sane human, but if you make a claim, especially if you are going to affect politics with that claim, present some evidence and avoid turning the whole thing into a religion.

>>7484391
>1. Learn to spell.
What did I misspell, and why is it relevant?

>2. Re-read your posts. I don't lie.
Re-read my responses to your posts; you have lied frequently.

>3. You are assuming I don't understand because I don't agree with you.
No, I just explained exactly what you don't understand.

>I use scientific methodology in every day life and have been in real sciences and social sciences ends and I have seen the massive differences and gaps in understanding, which is why I insist climatology is not science.
You have no idea what you're talking about and have no connection to science.

>The sad thing here is, even you are calling it "projections" to what the climatology community and especially the media continuously refers to as "predictions".
If you think that how the media describes climatology is relevant then you are just proving once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Read a few papers instead of news articles and you'll see that projections is the preferred term.

>4. You have resorted to emotional name-calling,
Yet another lie. What is the point of lying about things anyone can check by reading the thread?

>I care not whether it's true or not.
That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks for finally admitting it.

>>7484398
Ok, one last attempt.

>What did I misspell, and why is it relevant?
Several mistakes, but you are right, it is irrelevant. That was me getting irritated. The comment brings nothing to discussion.

>Re-read my responses to your posts; you have lied frequently.

I don't lie, and you have accused me of one "lie", which refers to homogenization and comparing apples to oranges.
The statement I referred to was this:
>Yes in a homogenization algorithm that could not know which stations are clean and which are not.
etc.
apples to oranges et cetera.
In short, this approach is unscientific.

>No, I just explained exactly what you don't understand.

Coefficients and number of layers are not calculated. I'm assuming that's what you are referring to? They are guessed and adjusted to fit real world. People refer to these kind of factors as "fudge factors". If your model relies too much on those factors, the model should be revised. At least, that is how it works in physics. I know in social sciences it's a lot different, but then again, there isn't much modelling going on there.

>You have no idea what you're talking about and have no connection to science.
Believe what you want. I'm trying to educate you.

>>4. You have resorted to emotional name-calling,
>Yet another lie. What is the point of lying about things anyone can check by reading the thread?
You keep calling me a liar when you run out of arguments. Have you noticed that?

>If you think that how the media describes climatology is relevant then you are just proving once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Read a few papers instead of news articles and you'll see that projections is the preferred term.

Must be a recent thing. Regardless, it just points out again it's unscientific.

It's hard to convert someone to the path of enlightenment when they are a firm believer in their religion,especially if there is doomsday involved.
There's an article about that.

>>7484457
I am reading Micheal Chrichton's "State of Fear" right now. It is not a very good book. It is preachy but the idea behind it is at least interesting and compelling. He cites lots of sources throughout the novel but I haven't looked at any of them to judge for myself.

Even if/when I get around to it, I am not a scientist anyway.

I'm rather on the fence when it comes to "Climate Change" because emotions around it seem to be so charged, and the consequences one way or the other so significant, that I find it difficult to trust either side.

Though I do think that at the very least pollution and its effects on the environment, on a local level, is certainly obvious to even a casual observer like myself. Depending on where this occurs it can also have a far greater reach than one might think.


I certainly have a pessimistic view of human nature and I do think that some scientists are probably corrupted by money.


So I can believe that the whole "new ice age" then "global warming" and now "climate change" hysteria is just that. However so far in this thread I haven't seen you post much actual data. I've seen plenty from the other side.
Anyway, I have questions of my own.


What has been the actual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as far as its total proportion of the whole at atmosphere?


I've heard in the past that volcanic eruptions emit far more CO2 than mankind ever has. Is that true?

>>7480377
>Who funds the scientists who say climate change isn't real?

>>7484457
>I don't lie, and you have accused me of one "lie", which refers to homogenization and comparing apples to oranges.
1. >>7484202
2. >>7484398
3. >>7484239

>apples to oranges et cetera.
>In short, this approach is unscientific.
It's not comparing apples to oranges because the classification of the station is irrelevant to what the algorithm is trying to achieve. Essentially it's saying that global warming will only have regional effects and thus purely local effects should be ignored. Which station produces the local effect doesn't matter. If you want to only look at certain stations then do so, but this has nothing to do with whether homogenization is valid. What you continue to ignore is that it has been proven a posteriori to work so your attempt to prove it invalid via a priori reasoning can't work, even if the argument "it compares apples to oranges" made sense, which it doesn't.

>Coefficients and number of layers are not calculated.
>They are guessed and adjusted to fit real world.
Yes, that's how models work. That's how science works. I already explained this. Models are chosen based on their explanatory power towards the empirical data. However you are confusing two different things. On the one hand you are talking about coefficients and layers. These are constants. On the other you are talking about inputs such as solar activity and greenhouse gas emissions. These are variables. Describing either as "fudge factors" makes little sense because the former is not changed once the model is made and the latter is calculated empirically. It's not like the IPCC just chooses solar activity data and greenhouse gas emissions so that the model fits temp data.

So the idea that these models are unscientific is baseless. They have been proven to work and are not based on fudge factors. If climatology models were so easily "fudged" it should be easy to make a model without using greenhouse gas effects. It's been shown time and time again that you can't.

>>7484457
>You keep calling me a liar when you run out of arguments. Have you noticed that?
I said you lied and there are plenty of arguments in that post, nor was this even a basis for my argument. This was accurate and not name-calling regardless.

>Must be a recent thing. Regardless, it just points out again it's unscientific.
How is that unscientific?

>It's hard to convert someone to the path of enlightenment when they are a firm believer in their religion
You're projecting again. I have presented several papers and scientific sources as evidence to support my points, most of which you have simply ignored. I have responded to every argument you have made. You're the one denying the science, you're the creationist here. The only argument you have against the vast majority of climatologists disagreeing with you is a vast conspiracy. That's really all that one needs to see.

>>7484507
>conspiracy
Projecting much?

>>7484523
How exactly do I believe in a conspiracy?

>>7484507
>The only argument you have against ALL (not just majority) of astrologists is that they don't know what they're talking about. I've linked you books and articles with lengthy debates about how we should pay attention to the upcoming stellar arrangements. You arguments about it being unscientific are just absurd. Every single prediction astrologers have made HAS come true. Somehow, the vast majority of astrologers disagreeing with you is a vast conspiracy and further proof of your beliefs? You clearly have no understanding how astrology works, do you

That's how you're sounding right now.

>>7484534
Comparing climatology to astrology is like saying evolution is just a theory. No matter how hard you want it not to be, climatology is an established science and the evidence I have presented is scientific. Get over it already.

>>7484501
Coefficients and layers are constants, correct. However, these factors are unknown.
How many layers are you supposed to use? What is the coefficient supposed to be?
Is it calculated?
It is supposed to be a constant, but that constant is determined based on outputs of your results. In other words, fudge factor.

If it weren't for your lack of understanding of how the models actually work, I'd be under the impression you might actually work in the field of climatology, due to the statements you're making.
You are saying that if a model fits the data, regardless as to why, it is a valid model. I'll quote you, so you don't call me a liar:
>What you continue to ignore is that it has been proven a posteriori to work so your attempt to prove it invalid via a priori reasoning can't work, even if the argument "it compares apples to oranges" made sense, which it doesn't.

This statement alone shows you do not understand scientific method, or you forgot how it's supposed to work. How is that approach any different to "God did it!"?
Explanation for friction was that there were little devils in material dragging and pulling on it. You pour some oil and you drown some of the devils, so then the friction is reduced.

It fits the data. Let's just use this model then, yeah?

Scientific method came about to get rid of fallacies like that.

And no, the models don't fit the data, really. As soon as they go outside the defined data range, they break. They can't even predict the past, let alone the future.

>>7484547
>established science
So is astrology, right?

>>7484570
Hell no who brought that shit up.

>>7484566
>Coefficients and layers are constants, correct. However, these factors are unknown.
>How many layers are you supposed to use? What is the coefficient supposed to be?
These are determined by whichever combination produces results that agree the most with the empirical data. This is simply how modeling works and is the same in ever field.

>If it weren't for your lack of understanding of how the models actually work
Yet you're the one who is confused about what changes in the model and doesn't understand how they are chosen, even though this is not specific to climatology.

>You are saying that if a model fits the data, regardless as to why, it is a valid model.
I did not say regardless of why.

>I'll quote you, so you don't call me a liar:
But that quote is about homogenization, not a climactic model. Do you know the difference?

>This statement alone shows you do not understand scientific method, or you forgot how it's supposed to work. How is that approach any different to "God did it!"?
I've already explained to you multiple times the reason homogenization works, and I've posted a very good analysis from Zeke Haufsfather multiple times, but you refuse to read it. So no, it is not at all similar to saying "God did it", the only problem here is that you are plugging your ears and ignoring the science.

>It fits the data. Let's just use this model then, yeah?
You yourself explained how the greenhouse gas effect works, so I'm not sure why you are now acting as if the model is magic and has no rationale. It seems like you are just saying whatever is convenient to you at the moment without thinking.

>Scientific method came about to get rid of fallacies like that.
Well then it's a good thing the scientific method created the models! You have to really be delusional to just wish away the entire field of climatology as not rigorously scientific.

>And no, the models don't fit the data, really.
Again, IPCC reports show you're wrong.

>>7484497

>>7481798
so incorrect its not even funny. that chart does not correlate with temperature charts either, so, you're dumb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kcdTZ2qcB8

>>7480017
today methods of measuring are almost perfect, but their methods of measuring the sea level had a margin of error of up to 200mm in 1870. They have gotten more accurate every year since 1870(145 years ago); their methods improve in accuracy by about 1.4mm a year.
>chart says it was about 200mm different 145 years ago
>1.4mm improvement over *145years=203
margin of error 200mm while difference is only 198mm. started off at 2.5mm less than zero and ended up at 197mm; thats a 199.5 difference when margin of error is 200mm, so you're dumb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kcdTZ2qcB8

>>7480014
>>7480022
YEA, SEE
LOOK, the temp would match up with CO2 if one had something to do with the other but they don't.
BULLSHIT proven wrong right here

>>7484617
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>that chart does not correlate with temperature charts either
That depends what you mean by correlate. There are many factors that can effect temperature. In the past, changes in the Earth's orbit caused the temperature to rise, raising sea levels and releasing CO2 from the ocean, which then led to a positive feedback of warming and CO2 release. But now instead of this occurring naturally, we have rapidly releasing CO2 into the atmosphere without absorbing any. So the CO2 levels are correlated with temperature. Just not in a simple way.

>>7484636
>today methods of measuring are almost perfect, but their methods of measuring the sea level had a margin of error of up to 200mm in 1870.
I'd like to see where you got that info from. I find it hard to believe that in 1870 they had problems measuring the sea level to within half a foot.

>>7484646
The first chart spans 400,000 years while the second only spans 100 years. How do you know they don't match up?

Here watch this if you want to understand better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kcdTZ2qcB8

>>7480014
Carbon Dioxide levels have been climbing for almost 20,000 years

>>7484650
that chart is from wikipedia
>believing anything liberal wiki says

>>7484650
thats dumn anyway. there werent humans around 400,000 years ago to measure the temp or CO2 levels so i know thats fake. your wikinfo is doctored

>>7484667
So are you trying to argue that we aren't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

>>7484668
>that chart is from wikipedia
No, it's not. And it's accurate regardless. Look up Milankovitch cycles at whatever source you want.

>thats dumn anyway. there werent humans around 400,000 years ago to measure the temp or CO2 levels so i know thats fake.
The data is from ice cores.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

>>7484650
>400,000
Time travel?

>without absorbing any
We threw so much CO2 at plants, they protested by refusing to grow any further?

>>7484678
>Time travel?
Ice.

>We threw so much CO2 at plants, they protested by refusing to grow any further?
Plants have always been around absorbing CO2. I'm talking about humans. The current rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is clearly due to our emissions.

>>7484677
ice core are inaccurate

>>7484692
How do you know they're inaccurate?

What global warming? It's getting colder.

>>7484699
It is?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/1/7/1880-2015

>>7484697
everyone in the industry knows

>>7484713
Which industry?

>>7484707
>It is?http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/1/7/1880-2015
Surface temperatures reflect fluctuations due to varying cloud cover, which is function of solar activity modulating the influx of cosmic rays. Satellite data shows that the globe as a whole is cooling.

>>7484718
>Surface temperatures reflect fluctuations due to varying cloud cover
That doesn't explain why the average temperature from month to month would be increasing. Are there less clouds?

>Satellite data shows that the globe as a whole is cooling.
Satellite data agrees remarkably well with surface temps. So everything you just said is wrong.

>>7484716
geology & anthropology

>>7484728
>Satellite data agrees remarkably well with surface temps.
There are different types of satellite data. Satellite surface data will of course correspond with surface temperatures ... duh.

>That doesn't explain why the average temperature from month to month would be increasing. Are there less clouds?
yes, therefore droughts.
>Satellite data agrees remarkably well with surface temps. So everything you just said is wrong.
you misunderstood the statement. go educate yourself, bud. the planet from core to crust is cooling overall; that is a well known fact

>>7484739
OK, show me geologists who think ice cores are too inaccurate to use.

>>7484743
I don't see how any of this is relevant. Surface temps are increasing and this is a problem for us. But regardless, heat content of the earth is rising much faster than the surface temps, so you're wrong again.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794/abstract

>>7484745
>you misunderstood the statement. go educate yourself, bud. the planet from core to crust is cooling overall; that is a well known fact
Why don't you try citing some sources?

>>7484745
>>That doesn't explain why the average temperature from month to month would be increasing. Are there less clouds?yes, therefore droughts.
To some extent, but droughts are mainly an effect of atmospheric blocking events, which in turn is determined by solar modulation of the jet streams.

>>7484755
>Surface temps are increasing and this is a problem for us.
Not really. The alleged rise in temperatures since 1998 is much smaller than the margin of error. We are in other words talking about microscopic fluctuations which might not be occuring at all. I wouldn't worry unless my funding depended on it.

>this thread

>>7484763
>The alleged rise in temperatures since 1998 is much smaller than the margin of error.
Let's see your calculation of the margin of error.

>>7484767
>Let's see your calculation of the margin of error.
You'll find it in the official reports.

>>7484773
Such as...? You don't seem to have any sources to back up any of your claims.

>>7484650
Every time I point the following out, that chart disappears from wiki and a blurrier version of it appears a few months after.
The point is, temperature changes BEFORE temperature does, but because of the adjustments where past CO2 levels are "greater" in this arbitrary comparison, it appears the opposite is true.

Draw some lines, compare, and accept the fact climatology isn't science, but religion on par to scientology.

>>7484870
*temp changes before CO2 levels do.

>>7484870
>>7484872
>The point is, temperature changes BEFORE CO2 levels do
Have you never heard of feedback in your life?
Historically, it was the temperature side that was driven, and the atmospheric composition more-or-less followed it. Human-caused warming is different, so the behaviour is different too; now CO2 is the thing being rapidly driven, and the temperature trend is roughly following along.

Seriously, half an hour of internet of web-searching for "Global Warming" would have told you this. How do you not know it?

>>7484617
>says I'm dumb
>doesn't understand correlation

>>7475561
>...climatology isn't science, but religion on par to scientology.
Scientologists don't like being associated with climatologism.

Enjoy the modern warm period while it lasts.

>>7484914
It's ok, I spent a decade being indoctrinated into the global warming religion and until a few years ago, I was devoutly religions about it too.

Don't assume people don't know science simply because they don't agree with you.

You're getting emotional and insulting. It's a clear sign you're not thinking rationally about this.

The temperature trend is clearly not following along, as CO2 is supposed to be waaaaay off scale. The only thing that is getting way off scale at the moment is weather reports for using shitty models that can't predict weather.
Hell, it has come to the point where I can look out the window and make a better prediction for the next few days than the official brittish weather organisation (metoffice).

Explain this to me, if higher temperatures mean more CO2 and more CO2 means higher temperatures, why are we not living at extremes and why have there been cycles in the past?

Do the following, as I have never managed to see anyone actually posting it. Find me the "greenhouse coefficient" of CO2. not CO, CO2. And compare it to other chemicals/molecules (even nitrogen).


Seriously, half an hour on the internet searching for astrology will tell you how the star positions affect you from birth.

>>7484936
sects tend to hate competition a lot.

>>7484949
>It's ok, I spent a decade being indoctrinated into the global warming religion and until a few years ago, I was devoutly religions about it too.
Are you really pulling out the "I used to be an X" card?

>Don't assume people don't know science simply because they don't agree with you.
>You're getting emotional and insulting. It's a clear sign you're not thinking rationally about this.
Uh huh.

>The temperature trend is clearly not following along, as CO2 is supposed to be waaaaay off scale.
What?
Both C02 and temperature are above where pre-human trends would place them. That sounds like "following along" to me.

>Weather blah blah.
No.

>Explain this to me, if higher temperatures mean more CO2 and more CO2 means higher temperatures, why are we not living at extremes and why have there been cycles in the past?
Holy shit, I was joking. You really don't know what feedback is, do you?

Anyway, feedback causes amplification, no necessarily running off to infinity. Also, there are a lot more factors involved than just temperature and C02.

>Do the following, as I have never managed to see anyone actually posting it. Find me the "greenhouse coefficient" of CO2. not CO, CO2. And compare it to other chemicals/molecules (even nitrogen).
The value you are looking for is called "Radiative efficiency". It's generally presented as a GWP though, as a comparison to C02.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_efficiency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Values

If you want details though, you're going to have to dig them out of the IPPC reports (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm)), or out of actual research papers (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214029865).).

True believer spotted.

>>7484989
talking to you is seriously like talking to a creationist.

>>7485015
Says the person loudly denying actual science.

If you have issues that aren't really "scientific" then you should read The Climate Change Debate
An Epistemic and Ethical Enquiry

>proof

How about more than a century of climatologists saying so?

Do you know how much science have advanced in that time? Climate change was a thing before we even knew what an atom was composed of.

That's plenty of time for something to be proven false and yet evidence has only be supportive in all that time.


Most the the gullible people who believe the shills don't ever bother to check the history of climate change.

>>7485017
insulting again.
you are way too emotionally involved into this.
It's not mentally healthy.
again, like talking to a creationist.

You clearly don't understand science and are only capable of making an appeal to authority.
you do not understand correlation and causation.
you are not capable of fact-checking, but only capable of copying results.
"Global warming potential" and "Radiative efficiency" are fudge factors. If you understood modelling, you would understand that too.
Greenhouse coefficient, however (calculated basically from refractive index), has been around for a while.
Find me some actual measurements, which shouldn't be hard to do, considering how easy it is to do it, and not just fudging of numbers to make incorrect models work.


>>7485034
you have no clue about history of climatology.
saying a century is taking shill's words. It was a tinfoil hat theory until the 90s pretty much, until it got massive media coverage. What are you, 15?

>>7485048
Let's just let the thread die shall we? No one is convincing anyone else on this topic, go read Lubos Motl if you want to find someone that agrees with you. Both sides are invested in this emotionally and otherwise, no amount of persuading will ever lead to both of you agreeing on anything.

I'm not sure if climatologism is a religion or a mental disease. Some believe it is caused by a fungus growing on top of the brain, but we should probably treat it as an ordinary sectarian phenomenon until we have proof of physical brain damage.

>>7485056
This thread has had unusual staying power, and for that reason has been extremely amusing to the few people who have actually studied climate beyond the "I read a few blogs and watched a video on YouTube" level. It would be sad to see it go... although another would surely rise to take its place in a day or two, it wouldn't be the same.

>>7485056

That's exactly what the shill doesn't what to do.

His aim is not to convince anyone. His aim is simply create the illusion that there is serious scientific opposition to climate change.

>>7485056
this thread pops up on a weekly basis, either on pol or on sci. Like clockwork.
Usually, for about 8 hours or so, it is nothing but glorifying global warming with occasional stupid comment like this one:
>>7485066

Then they last another few hours to a day with people arguing about who is a bigger poopoohead. General consensus in the end for whoever is still following the thread tends to be that climatology just might not be science.

Letting the thread die just means postponing it until next time when someone else decides they need to strong-arm their "opponents" into converting into their religion again.

>>7485048
>You clearly don't understand science and are only capable of making an appeal to authority.
I haven't appealed to any authorities.

>you do not understand correlation and causation.
What? If this is about the feedback thing, reality is often more complex than a single cause creating a single, distinct effect.

>you are not capable of fact-checking, but only capable of copying results.
What did I miss?

>"Global warming potential" and "Radiative efficiency" are fudge factors. If you understood modelling, you would understand that too.
What? No.
"Radiative efficiency" Is the strength of a gasses effect on the earth's radiative balance, per mass of gas. It's the thing that causes the greenhouse effect in the first place, not a "fudge factor"

>Greenhouse coefficient, however (calculated basically from refractive index), has been around for a while.
It doesn't seem to get much use. Also, handling it as a simple coefficient sounds like a terrible idea.

>Find me some actual measurements, which shouldn't be hard to do, considering how easy it is to do it, and not just fudging of numbers to make incorrect models work.
Fine, whatever.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm
Happy now?

>>7485086
He will never be happy, whatever you throw at him he will just deny it and say it's rubbish science because X, never backing up X. He should be on the anti global-warming lobby payroll if he isn't already.

>>7485066
>I'm not sure if climatologism is a religion or a mental disease.
Most likely a combination of both.

>>7485086
You don't understand much of physics beyond secondary school, do you?

>http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm

A compiled list of numbers. Were they pulled out of someone's ass? How were they obtained? Damn, even wikipedia has better reference section.

Shall I start quoting passages from quran?


>>7485090
Why with the insults?
And why should I be happy with half-arsed explanations and unscientific arguments?

>>7485086
read the damn link you posted. It's a joke.
I'm ashamed of that and I'm on your side.

>>7484479
I haven't read it in years, but Michael Crichton cherry picks data really hard, and misses the point completely. It's strawmen all over the place.

> "new ice age" then "global warming" and now "climate change
There was never a new ice age prediction, at least not in the scientific community. That's a myth. There were two or three papers in the 1960s/1970s that predicted cooling based on assumptions that the authors knew were not going to describe the entire picture. Basically, they were teasing out the contributions of various effects. But that's been widely misrepresented.

You may like to see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcTYv0VlYDE
Actually, the whole series is very good.

> some scientists are probably corrupted by money.
A small number perhaps, but very very few, because you can make a lot more money being anything but a scientist. I spent ten years going to school, being extremely poor in the best years of my life. Now I'll spend the next decade hopping from insecure job to insecure job, hoping to finally land a tenure track position somewhere. That first decade alone will cost me a million dollars in potential earnings, and a decade from now I still won't make as much as my friends who didn't go to school. I put up with this because I want to know how the world works.

> What has been the actual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as far as its total proportion of the whole at atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
1958 -- 315 ppm
2013 -- 400 ppm
And because it is a feedback mechanism, the rate of increase would now itself increase even if fossil fuel use were to remain constant. Dynamical systems are a bitch.

>>7485092
>A compiled list of numbers. Were they pulled out of someone's ass? How were they obtained? Damn, even wikipedia has better reference section.
Are you blind? There's a reference section at the bottom of the table. Feel free to link to any published criticisms of them.

>>7485095
>read the damn link you posted. It's a joke.
It's a section from the IPCC third report. If you want to dismiss it you're going to need more than vague disapproval.

>I'm on your side.
Sure you are.

Is it possible that corps are paying shills to spread their anti-global warming gospel on 4chan?

What I also find strange is that pretty much all the shilling is directed at American audiences. As a European, I never encounter much anti-global warming shills on European newspaper comment sections and such.

Maybe it's because our governments are basically powerless compared to the US or maybe it's because there are much more Americans employed in some way by the oil and gas industries?

>>7485105
you haven't even read the link you posted.
CO2 greenhouse effects aren't even measured, they are guessed.

The globe is cooling.

>>7485109
It's actually the opposite, m8.
You haven't been following the patterns enough.
And in europe, you lose your job a lot of the time if you go against global warming.
I know a lot of people who had their personas attacked for simply poking holes in climatology.

>>7485109
>Is it possible that corps are paying shills to spread their anti-global warming gospel on 4chan?
You bet. The Koch brothers are spending trillions of shekels each year to keep the lid on the global can of worming. They know that if the public becomes aware of the problem the government will have to confiscate all private property in order to regulate the jewish poisoning of the planet.

>>7485109
>Is it possible that corps are paying shills to spread their anti-global warming gospel
Absolutely confirmed.

>on 4chan?
Probably not. 4chan seems like a pretty hard audience to shill at in general, whereas it's a magnet for trolls and retards with strong opinions.

>>7485111
>CO2 greenhouse effects aren't even measured, they are guessed.
They're estimated, based on measurements.
It's not like there's a magic microscope you can point at the sky to directly measure the forcing competent from each constituent gas.
Read: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm

>>7485112
No.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

>>7485114
>you lose your job a lot of the time if you go against global warming.
Don't worry, I bet the creationists will be happy to share their box of tissues.

>>7485141
Shill confirmed.
Either that, or you really don't understand physics.

What has been done there is wrong. This is unscientific. Which is what the whole deal is with climatology skeptics.

And you still can't explain why older methods predict weather better than climatology-crippled models.

>>7485150
>Shill confirmed.
Make sure you buy stocks in Radiative Forcings Limited!

>Either that, or you really don't understand physics.
>What has been done there is wrong. This is unscientific. Which is what the whole deal is with climatology skeptics.
There's a distinction between saying I'm wrong and actually demonstrating I'm wrong. You don't seem to have any interest in crossing it.

>And you still can't explain why older methods predict weather better than climatology-crippled models.
I honestly don't give a fuck about weather prediction models, because their success or failure don't actually have much to do with global warming,

>>7485111
> guessed
Yes, in the same way that the position of a ball falling under the influence of gravity is "guessed."

>>7485114
>you lose your job a lot of the time if you go against global warming
[citation needed]

In fact, don't even show that it happens "a lot of the time." Just find me one instance.

>>7485119
>>7485141

I know that there are paid shills but I find it strange that they would be working here instead of say on the NYT comments section or on Reddit.

They don't hire people who don't believe in climatologism. It would be like hiring an atheist voodoo priest, or a jewish nazi. Nobody does that.

>>7485207
>I know that there are paid shills but I find it strange that they would be working here instead of say on the NYT comments section or on Reddit.
Just goes to show you how far and wide Cthulhu has spread its tentacles. I wouldn't be surprised if they are creeping into your neighbourhood as we speak. Your mother could be their next target. Before you know it you wake up one day as a full blown climate doomsday denialist. This is probably the biggest conspiracy since the flying saucer chemtrail cover-up.

>>7485111

>guessed

"Guessed" is not an adjective. I bet you're some guy from South East Asia that get paid 2$/day to post your anti-climate change script on the internet.

Probably the same kind of guy who keeps bothering Microsoft customers: "Hello, this is Frank from Microsoft, I am calling because we detected a virus on your computer...

>>7485220

You're not very good at your job. See how easy you got distracted. You should be denying climate change here.

Instead you're denying that you're a shill. That's like mistake number 1.

Maybe it's because not climate change is accepted by pretty much everyone except for a few misfits.

So they figure what better website to find a few misfits to join our crusade unknowing if not 4chan?

>>7484870
>The point is, temperature changes BEFORE temperature does, but because of the adjustments where past CO2 levels are "greater" in this arbitrary comparison, it appears the opposite is true.
If you try reading the post you just replied to, you'll see I explained why this occurs. Temperature spikes start with a tilt in the Earth's orbit around the sun, which then sets off a positive feedback loop between rising sea levels and CO2.

There are no "adjustments" to past CO2 levels, these are determined by taking ice from that era and seeing how much CO2 is in it. It's really one of the most straightforward things we know about the past.

You have no idea what you're talking about and should not be posting this nonsense on the science board if you can't even understand simple concepts.

>>7485221
He is wrong, but he did use "guessed" as a verb in the same way that he used "measured" as a verb earlier in the sentence.

The only thing that sounds stupider than an insult based on pedantry is an insult based on incorrect pedantry.

Herro, crimate change is not rear.

>>7485015
>that complete inability to respond to arguments.

>>7485238
>an insult based on pedantry
only in 'Murika is pedantry a basis for insult

>>7485238

I'm not sure if that's an adjective or a very or whatever but it's definitely does not sound like good English.

A native speaker would say either "they were estimated" or "they were made up".

>>7485252
You don't spend much time speaking to actual people, do you?

When serious (i.e. not shills) tell be about their doubts about climate change I refer them to this:

http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/climate-change-national-security/p14862

or

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint_wForeword_c.pdf
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA552760.pdf

Which tends to work in convincing genuine sceptics who usually happen to be right wing.

The first link is the Council of Foreign Relations which is a right wing corporate think thank and lobbying group.

The second one is the US military.

If those guys are saying "here's what you need to do to prepare your business, your economy, your country, your military, your national security from the immediate affects of climate change" then you bet your ass it's fucking happening.

I'm said this thread went from somewhat capable but still meme-tier arguments against GW to non-response trolling. Or it's just someone on the extremely retarded side of the denier stupidity index.

>>7485262

Enough to recognize bad English when I see it.

>>7485270
You're the only one who thinks it's bad English. Stop bumping this shitty thread with your even shittier grammar analysis.

>>7485268

>anti-global warming bollocks
>somewhat capable

It was shillery from the start. It's only now getting good because the shill seems to have given up.

>>7475561

Climate is changing all the fucking time.

I'm appalled by the fact that everyone is rubbing one off to "man made global warming" while not giving a fuck about the pacific gyre, and Jew engineered built in engineering piling up plastic garbage...

>>7485275

You could contribute to better threads if you want?

Why are you discussing my shitty English grammar analysis on a shilling thread?

>>7485276
Deniers are common enough that shillery isn't needed. I was the guy responding to

>>7480330
>>7482089
>>7484127
>>7484240
>>7484316
etc.

I've seen him before and he always posts the same general arguments that I've refuted already but at least his posts have some argumentative content instead of the boilerplate of the retard that replaced him.

>>7485267

Few people doubt it's happening, the climate has been changing for 3.5 billion years. You should know what the debate is about before you attempt to engage in it.

Want to know if the extremely small amount of Co2 humans have added to the atmosphere is causing warming? Find a control Earth.

Climate science is a misnomer. It's not a science.

The best we can do is model the climate and attempt to make predictions. When the models we have are used to retrodict temperature, they fail miserably, missing entire climatic events like the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.

0.04% of the atmosphere is Co2. 5% of that is manmade. Estimates in the scientific community for the share of the greenhouse effect provided by Co2 range from 33 to 66%. What, exactly, is "settled" about that?

>>7485280
Because I was in this thread having an enjoyable argument before you fucks shitted it up with a bunch of nonsense.

>>7485286

>Deniers are common enough that shillery isn't needed.

Oh really? How did you figure that? By browsing the internet or maybe you saw them on TV...

I never met a climate change denier in real life. Not once. And it's not like I'm always surrounded by geniuses.

Now maybe there is a higher percentage of quacks to be find online but also maybe there are plenty of shills around and you're just bad at spotting them.

>>7485289

The documents posted are about how to deal with climate change, not about whether it is real or not.

But of course you didn't even bother opening them because you're a shill.

Whatever you say, is moot because here there are these right wing business lobbyists and the military and they are both saying that we need to do this and that to guard against climate change.

Now excuse me but I'd rather take their word than that of some random shill on the internet.

I think it's happening, but it's part of an earth cycle and not caused by humans entirely. However it can only be stopped by humans, so the most important scientists teamed up to lie about it and make governments feel responsible of their "own" fuck up in order to get them to fix it before it's too late.

>>7485289
>Few people doubt it's happening, the climate has been changing for 3.5 billion years.
There are plenty of people who doubt it's happening. Just look at the guy in this thread who will deny all data including Vostok ice cores simply because climatologists said so. Hilariously you then deny that climate science is a science. So how do you know the climate changed if you deny all climate science?

>You should know what the debate is about before you attempt to engage in it.
There's a difference between how deniers like you like to frame the debate, and the actual debate.

>Want to know if the extremely small amount of Co2 humans have added to the atmosphere is causing warming? Find a control Earth.
There is a control Earth, the Earth before humans were ever here. That's part of what climatology studies and has been discussed in this thread. Pay attention.

>Climate science is a misnomer. It's not a science.
Climate science is an established science. You plugging your ears and not wanting certain conclusion to be true doesn't change that.

>The best we can do is model the climate and attempt to make predictions.
First of all, that's not the only thing we can do, as I explained above, but it's valid nonetheless.

>When the models we have are used to retrodict temperature, they fail miserably, missing entire climatic events like the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.
But that's wrong. Very simple models that only use solar activity cycles, volcanic action, and anthropogenic forcing predict both.

>0.04% of the atmosphere is Co2. 5% of that is manmade.
5% of the annual load, but this is a very very misleading point. This small addition to the atmosphere each year has increased the amount of CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 in only 100 years, when in the past an increas of 100ppm would take thousands of years. Trying to deny that humans have massively affected the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is idiotic and you should be ashamed of yourself for peddling shit.

>>7485297
>I never met a climate change denier in real life. Not once.
I have. Consider this: you are just traveling in the wrong political circles.

Frankly your kneejerk reaction to conjure up shills instead of typical internet stupidity is just silly.

>>7485327
You're an idiot.

>>7485335
Yeah sure, as if it hadn't happened before

>>7484755
>Derp, okay, let me google that for you, Derp, Derp.
>Why don't you try doing some research for yourself?
So, far you have only spoken of the things that are spoon fed to the public by people with an agenda. There are more convincing proofs on both sides than the ones you provided.
>does data support the global warming hypothesis? Yes, some does, but not all data does, and it can not sufficiently be explained away, no matter how much you or anyone else wants it to.
No other subject, besides a politicised one, would be treated as if it was an empirical truth, when, in fact, it is still an unknown phenomenon with too many axioms to determine the true cause at this juncture.
>The thing is, yes, scientist overwhelmingly agree that "global warming" is taking place. The thing that is still up for debate is the CAUSE of that warming, I don't think there are too many people out there arguing that the temperature of earths atmosphere isn't rising.
You really have to look it up for yourself. I can't make you learn something. If you go into the subject with an open mind, you will not be so convinced that you know why the warming is taking place, but if you do then you will experience cognitive dissonance every time you hear something you don't like. keep trying and maybe some day you will break through your prejudices

>>7485297
>I never met a climate change denier in real life.
Me neither. I don't think they exist. Global cooling deniers are, on the other hand, quite numerous.

>>7485338
100 ppms of CO2 has never been added so rapidly to the atmosphere in 400,000 years. CO2 levels have never been close to the levels they are at now in the last 400,000 years. No, this has never happened before. And even if it did, how does that make it not a problem?

>>7485342
Another substance-less response. Climatology is an established science regardless of your opinions. You're no different from a creationist or anti-vaxxer.

>>7485408
See this is the problem with these discussions, somebody explains how it really works in detail, with sources and all, until the point where any argument becomes very context dependant. The only thing a (lobbying) troll then has to do is resort to compact half truths like >>7485338 and boom, there goes the audience.

Nobody knows how the climate works.

>>7485433
There you go, thanks for trolling in my favor.

>>7485306
>The documents posted are about how to deal with climate change, not about whether it is real or not.

I guess you didn't read my post because i said it's real. The debate isn't about whether or not it's real, the debate is about whether or not we're a significant cause.

Those who say we are have tens of climate models. Those models routinely fail to predict future temperatures and retrodict the past.

Fail to reject the null hyposthesis. Time to reformulate. You know, how real science works (which also involves more than calling people shills because you don't like what they have to say).

>>7485289
>Find a control Earth.
No, that's quite unnecessary. We understand all the underlying processes to a pretty good extent, and we have reasonably accurate models to put them together. The physics is complicated as a whole, but each part can be (and has been) independently measured and verified.

You don't build an office tower to test out your idea for an HVAC system. You model it. You don't build an airplane wing and just hope it works. You model it.

And the models do not, as you say, "fail miserably." Modern ones tend to be very good.
> Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.
And right here, you show how little you know about this whole subject.

>>7485328
>There are plenty of people who doubt it's happening. Just look at the guy in this thread who will deny all data including Vostok ice cores simply because climatologists said so. Hilariously you then deny that climate science is a science. So how do you know the climate changed if you deny all climate science?

Plenty of people doubt it, just look at the guy? You mean the one guy?

And knowing whether or not the climate changed has nothing to do with the fact that anthropogenic climate change study is non-scientific. One involves factual study of the past based on many proxies for temperature and many other factors, the other involves running an experiment without a control. The latter isn't scientific.

>There's a difference between how deniers like you like to frame the debate, and the actual debate.

There's a difference between responding with attacks because you don't like what you've heard and actually responding to it like an adult who doesn't cover his or her ears and cry.

>There is a control Earth, the Earth before humans were ever here. That's part of what climatology studies and has been discussed in this thread. Pay attention.

Wrong. A control Earth would be the exact same Earth over the exact same period under the exact same conditions MINUS any CO2 humans have added. That's impossible because we don't have access to a time machine.

>>7485328

>Climate science is an established science. You plugging your ears and not wanting certain conclusion to be true doesn't change that.

Wrong. See above. And I don't want any conclusions. A true scientist doesn't allow desires to get in the way of the search for truth. But, you'd have to be a scientist to know that. Not your fault.

>But that's wrong. Very simple models that only use solar activity cycles, volcanic action, and anthropogenic forcing predict both.

Wrong again. See pic.

>5% of the annual load, but this is a very very misleading point.

Not really. Humans increase CO2 by a small amount. Much more CO2 has been released naturally, as a result of the slight warming we've experienced over the past century. These 2 occurrences are moderately connected but:

1) You can't prove it because you have no control.

2) There's no evidence it will run away. CO2 has been much higher in the past and warming didn't run away until the Earth was burnt to a crisp.

You should really be ashamed of yourself for being so ignorant and trusting what others tell you, instead of doing research on your own like any good scientist should. But, again, it's not your fault that you don't know that.

>>7485471

Oh my god he's back

Here's to a climate change denial post with an indecipherable graph attached to it on every fucking thread.

>>7485452
>Plenty of people doubt it, just look at the guy? You mean the one guy?
So you don't understand how examples work?

>And knowing whether or not the climate changed has nothing to do with the fact that anthropogenic climate change study is non-scientific.
You just said climate science is not a science. Now you are saying that only climate science which concludes that humans are causing climate change is not science. Clearly this is about you not being able to accept an answer rather than you being scientific.

>One involves factual study of the past based on many proxies for temperature and many other factors, the other involves running an experiment without a control.
This is like saying that biology is science because it studies life but evolution isn't. AGW directly results from what we know about the climate, just as evolution directly results from what we know about life. There is no experiment here, just a powerful explanatory model supported by all the empirical evidence. You have not shown how this is unscientific, and you can't because climatology is obviously a well established and well founded science. It's flat out delusional to deny the massive amounts of published, peer reviewed work on this issue, plug your ears, and scream NOT SCIENCE. You have no argument, just a puerile wish for the massive amount of evidence against you to not exist.

>There's a difference between responding with attacks because you don't like what you've heard and actually responding to it like an adult who doesn't cover his or her ears and cry.
I'm waiting for you to learn that difference.

>Wrong. A control Earth would be the exact same Earth over the exact same period under the exact same conditions MINUS any CO2 humans have added. That's impossible because we don't have access to a time machine.
It's not only impossible, it's unnecessary.

>>7485433
>Nobody knows how the climate works.
It's the sun stupid.

>>7485471
Look at the elite research scientist, schooling all of the poor sheeple on a Taiwanese crab exchange message board by day, and doing ground-breaking "research" at night (i.e. swallowing wholesale conspiratard semen like it's going out of style). Your arguments are cookie-cutter, your schtick is tired, old and useless. You are the antithesis of a scientist.

>>7485471
>Wrong again. See pic.
That pic is laughable. Yet again you've shown that either you are making purposely misleading arguments or are just so grossly incompetent that you can't see that someone else's argument is purposely misleading. I'm betting the latter.

All that's been done is they took 102 possible scenarios (involving variables such as solar and volcanic activity) and averaged them. So it's essentially taking everything that didn't happen plus what did happen, and saying that the average of these is not what happened. Not very surprising! If you want to see if the model is actually accurate, try putting in the true values for the variables. This is done every time the IPCC has tested its model. Not only is it accurate, it shows that without the anthropogenic contribution temperatures can't be predicted.

>Not really. Humans increase CO2 by a small amount.
How is going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm a small amount?

>Much more CO2 has been released naturally, as a result of the slight warming we've experienced over the past century.
Then why aren't the CO2 levels decreasing once 300 ppm is hit like the other Milankovitch cycles in the past? The difference between now and then is solely man's emissions.

>1) You can't prove it because you have no control.
One does not need a control to measure how much CO2 is being released into the atmosphere. Nor do you need a control to deduce the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

>2) There's no evidence it will run away. CO2 has been much higher in the past and warming didn't run away until the Earth was burnt to a crisp.
No one is saying it will run away. The problem is the rapid warming, not that the Earth will be burnt to a crisp. Once again you have misleadingly phrased the argument.

Why is the globe cooling?

>>7485156
>I honestly don't give a fuck about weather prediction models, because their success or failure don't actually have much to do with global warming,

Explains it all, really...

>>7485595
When did you stop beating your wife?

>>7485598
So weather = climate?

>>7485413
you seem to misunderstand what climatology is. take a hike with your feeble mind

>>7485618
Climatology is the scientific study of the climate. Hopefully that cleared things up for you.

>>7485595
>Why is the globe cooling?
Impossible to tell. The climate moves in cycles. Could have something to do with low solar activity.

>>7484914
Recent data shows that CO2 rise is still following temperature rise.

>>7485653
Why should it not? The feedback effect works regardless of what causes CO2 to rise.

>>7485267
>The second one is the US military.
No, its the office of the secretary of defense, a civilian position. That is mostly bureaucrats, many of which are kool-aid drinkers.

>>7475561
It might be a thing, I don't know. But much of the focus is likely to move focus from the more pressing matters - like increased unemployment and intellectual monopolies.

>>7485445
>>7485342
>>7485433
>>7485471
These people are only saying they are willing to admit that science doesn't have sufficient information to make a well enough informed decision and people are arguing with them as if they know everything in the world, even though every single climate model produced has been wildly incorrect when it comes to predicting the future.
>Yes, it's very easy to make a model that is consistent with past observations and that is all that has been achieved.
I read this thread and it's the same as reading an argument about religion. We have the Global Warming(creationists) pushers claiming they know everything, then we have the absolute deniers(atheists) who claim to know for a fact that Global Warming isn't even happening, then we have the rest who say they admit that they just don't know(agnostics, see tagged posts above) yet.
The only people arguing with the agnostics are the creationists, as usual, who need their side to be true and are prone to(not always of course) have something invested in the matter. However, we all know who's is more likely to be right.

>>7475561
Yes but humans aren't causing it. Global Warming has been happening since the ice age ended and it's going to keep happening whether we like it or not.

>>7485720
>Global Warming has been happening since the ice age ended and it's going to keep happening whether we like it or not.
Satellite data shows that the globe is getting colder.

>>7485714
>These people are only saying they are willing to admit that science doesn't have sufficient information to make a well enough informed decision
If the science doesn't have enough information to determine that AGW is real, why did it determine that AGW is real? You can't have it both ways. Either climatologists are experts on the climate or are part of a massive conspiracy to create fake science. Which is it?

>even though every single climate model produced has been wildly incorrect when it comes to predicting the future.
Climate models' projections have been accurate for decades. Read the IPCC reports.

>We have the Global Warming(creationists) pushers claiming they know everything, then we have the absolute deniers(atheists)
You're the one denying the science, so you're the creationist. Stop projecting retard.

>>7485720
>Yes but humans aren't causing it.
Climatology says we are.

>>7485727
[citation needed]

Theses posts have gotten stupider and stupider so I'm assuming they are all just some samefag troll.

>>7485733
>If the science doesn't have enough information to determine that AGW is real, why did it determine that AGW is real?
It didn't. The CO2 hypothesis has been debunked. No climate scientist claims to know how the climate works. It's an open question.

>>7485286
>him
You are aware that's more than one poster, right?

I would like to see even one single study done about the effect of over 3,000 nuclear explosions in our atmosphere since 1940(around the same time since 1890, that we saw the warming start to rise significantly) on our atmosphere.
And what about the fact that since 1890 we have been bombarding our atmosphere all day and night, every single day with radio & microwaves(for Radar and radio/tv/phones), which heat up solids and especially liquids&gases, and also, do not allow liquid/gases to cool; especially H2O molecules, like clouds and other moisture that fills our entire atmosphere.
What if that moisture and other gas is constantly being heated by all the radar and other broadcast systems that pervade our atmosphere? How would that affect things?Why wouldn't that cause at least some global warming? The warming really started to pick up when atomic bombs were starting to be tested and everybody knows that radiation hit with microwaves also produces heat.

>>7485744
>The CO2 hypothesis has been debunked.
[citation needed]

>No climate scientist claims to know how the climate works.
Then why are there entire organizations whose purpose is to model the climate? Are these not climate scientists?

>>7485747
One of the posts might not be him, but I've argued with him before and he repeats the same things.

>>7485607
you are right, weather and climate are completely unrelated. The fact that using ideas to model weather contradict models for climate and vice versa just proves they are two completely separate aspects of reality.

>>7485757
you've been shilling in this thread the whole weekend, haven't you?

>>7485751
>I would like to see even one single study done about the effect of over 3,000 nuclear explosions in our atmosphere since 1940
So why don't you just use google?

>What if that moisture and other gas is constantly being heated by all the radar and other broadcast systems that pervade our atmosphere? How would that affect things?Why wouldn't that cause at least some global warming?
I'd bet that even if you assume all the energy from all man-made transmissions were trapped in the atmosphere, the forcing from all of it would be several orders of magnitude lower than the forcing from emissions.

>>7485751
They aren't made of CO2, so they don't count.
Every idiot knows that.

>>7485766
I didn't say they are unrelated, I said they aren't the same thing. Weather is a local highly variable phenomenon, climate is regional and averaged. Climatologists are trying to find global trends, meteorologists are trying to predict local events.

>The fact that using ideas to model weather contradict models for climate and vice versa
This is barely comprehensible and yet another baseless claim. Stop trolling and add to the discussion or get out.

>>7475561
I got grant money one day to research it. This means global warming is true because I am a scientist.

>>7475561
>proof

There is no such thing as proof in science. There are facts, and there are models that explain those facts. Proof belongs to mathematics, science runs on evidence.

>>7485806
I sit in my Mom's basement and don't agree with climatologists. This means global warming is false and climatology is not science.

>>7485802
>different models
>different ideas

read the basics first:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction

>>7485809
You are confusing proof with proofs. Mathematics deals with proofs, science deals with proof. The former is a rigorous logical deduction while the latter is evidence supporting an argument.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

>>7485814
I don't see how this counters anything you're replying to. Again, weather and climate are not the same thing, thus we should expect that studying them requires different models and different ideas.

>>7485814
Saying that meteorology "contradicts" climatology is like saying microbiology contradicts zoology.

We could be heading for a new ice age according to prominent solar scientists.

>>7485841
It's really a sunspot minimum, not an ice age.

>>7485885
They talk about a mini ice age by 2030.

>>7485834
exactly, so why do older models not tainted by climatology "findings" work better when predicting weather?

>>7485809
You actually can't conclusively prove or disprove global warming is the problem. The data disagrees with global warming being a fact and the data also doesn't correlate with CO2 increase in any way. Despite using sensor data that was gathered close to cities.

>>7485841
solar science has nothing to do with weather, you idiot.

>>7485895
Yeah but what they mean by "mini-ice age" is that sunspot activity is going to be at a minimum not seen since 300 years ago. This does not mean temperatures are going to be any cooler though. They are just going to increase slower.

>>7485902
Climate models don't predict weather. Please stop trolling and leave.

>>7485895
>>7485912
And if you want some further reading, here is a paper from 5 years ago about what would happen if a new Maunder Minimum occurs (which it probably is)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract

>>7485909
>You actually can't conclusively prove or disprove global warming is the problem. The data disagrees with global warming being a fact and the data also doesn't correlate with CO2 increase in any way. Despite using sensor data that was gathered close to cities.
Surface temperatures are not even relevant. The globe is actually cooling according to broader satellite data.

>>7485921
Yea, that was actually my point, even using twisted data to get the result you want you still can't make it fit the model. Maybe it's time to toss the model out?

>>7485701
IP and unemployment are not "important matters" and anyone who says so we will make sure to become losers in all relevant aspects of the word until they become old and die a bitter death knowing they did not make any considerable contribution in the world.

>>7485921
>Surface temperatures are not even relevant.
How are they not relevant? We are living on the surface.

>The globe is actually cooling according to broader satellite data.
[citation needed]

>>7485912
never said climate models predict weather.
i'm saying using group theory to solve rubik's cube should produce the same results as using a geometric model computation.
can you see that?

>>7485935
>never said climate models predict weather.
You just older climate models work better when predicting the weather. Can you prove this? Not only did you not provide a evidence that this is true (like all of your claims), it doesn't even make sense (like most of your claims).

>i'm saying using group theory to solve rubik's cube should produce the same results as using a geometric model computation.
>can you see that?
I can see that you are very confused about the differences between climatology and meteorology even though I explained this in very simple terms.

>>7485927
Don't be so edgy and bitter. That's not gonna help anyone. Just remember "a kingdom for a heart", anon.

>>7485940
weather models
And in Britain, you can test it yourself by buying a barometer. No joke.

>>7485733
>>even though every single climate model produced has been wildly incorrect when it comes to predicting the future.
>Climate models' projections have been accurate for decades. Read the IPCC reports

UN IPCC AR4 Fig. 10-26 temperature predictions with updated instrumental temperature data. As the graph shows, the predictions failed miserably.

Why bother? We're dealing with a person who believes that an algorithm that "corrects" clean data by adding a warming trend is good science. And here's the excuse:
>Yes in a homogenization algorithm that could not know which stations are clean and which are not. The only thing it had to go on was which stations were outliers and which were not.
That's the definition of a BAD algorithm; it can't avoid correcting clean data. Instead it treats them as bad.

And then the inevitable appeal to authority:
>a very good analysis from Zeke Haufsfather
Haufsfather cowrote a paper with an NOAA employee. What was their argument that the algorithm corrects the urban heat island (UHI) effect? After "corrections" the rate of warming of rural stations is equal to the rate of warming of urban stations.

However, this alone is not proof. There are two ways this can happen. First, urban temperatures are corrected downward to fit rural temperatures. Or second, rural temperatures are "corrected" upward to match urban temperatures. Gosh which one do you think is happening? Pic related. Thus does the appeal to authority fall to pieces when the cold light of logic and evidence is shined upon it.

Seriously, you sound no different from a creationist or a fundamentalist. The appeals to authority, the its right ("correcting good data into bad data") because that's what the authorities do. And the sprinkling of ad hominem (conspiracy theory!). Do you realize how poorly your ability to reason/think scientifically is? It is this sort of thinking which forces climate "scientists" to refuse to debate. They would inevitably get their ass kicked.

>>7486123
Huh? Are we not talking about climate models? Weather models have nothing to do with this thread.

All this global cooling is scary stuff.

>>7486156
Picture order reversed.

Here is the UN IPCC AR4 Fig. 10-26. Previous pic is Raw vs. "Corrected" temperature.

>>7486156
>>7486163
>UN IPCC AR4 Fig. 10-26 temperature predictions with updated instrumental temperature data. As the graph shows, the predictions failed miserably.
AR5 shows updated temps fall within the correct range. No, a badly photoshopped graph is not valid and tells us nothing. Not to mention that you are ignoring the new natural forcing data that has to be input into the model.

>That's the definition of a BAD algorithm; it can't avoid correcting clean data. Instead it treats them as bad.
I already explained this to you here: >>7484501
>It's not comparing apples to oranges because the classification of the station is irrelevant to what the algorithm is trying to achieve. Essentially it's saying that global warming will only have regional effects and thus purely local effects should be ignored. Which station produces the local effect doesn't matter. If you want to only look at certain stations then do so, but this has nothing to do with whether homogenization is valid.

>And then the inevitable appeal to authority:
So linking you to an article explaining homogenization is an appeal to authority? That makes no sense. When are you going to read the article so you can actually understand how homogenization works?

>What was their argument that the algorithm corrects the urban heat island (UHI) effect? After "corrections" the rate of warming of rural stations is equal to the rate of warming of urban stations.
This is yet another lie. If you actually read the paper (I know this is very hard for you), you'll see that he first calculates the effect of UHI by comparing equivalent raw urban and rural data pairs. He then uses a homogenization algorithm on the urban data and compares it again to the rural data and finds that this removes the difference correlated with urban sites up to the 1930s. So it's actually the opposite of what you described.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf

>>7486156
>Thus does the appeal to authority fall to pieces when the cold light of logic and evidence is shined upon it.
First of all, you don't understand what an appeal to authority is. Second, you don't even understand what you're trying to argue against, so clearly you have done nothing to shine logic or evidence on it.

>Seriously, you sound no different from a creationist or a fundamentalist.
Again, you're the one denying established science.

>The appeals to authority
Where have I appealed to authority? I have appealed to science. Do you understand the difference? If you do not think peer reviewed papers are valid sources then you shouldn't be posting on /sci/. If you can't read scientific sources, you shouldn't be posting on /sci/. If you can't provide scientific evidence for your claims, you shouldn't be posting on /sci/.

>And the sprinkling of ad hominem (conspiracy theory!).
So you don't know what an ad hominem is either. Look up what these words mean before you use them.

>Do you realize how poorly your ability to reason/think scientifically is?
Projecting. You have not shown any ability to think scientifically and you deny that science is science.

>>7486256

It's obvious from your writing style that you've been arguing this since Thursday.

1) You've been wrong for days just like your alarmist gods have been consistently wrong about every prediction they've made since James Hansen kicked this hysteria off with his Senate testimony in 1988 (which, by the way, included the stagecraft of picking a boiling hot day, closing all the windows and turning off the A/C. So much for honesty and integrity).

2 or 3 or wtv number we're on) Get a fucking life.

>>7486266
>It's obvious from your writing style that you've been arguing this since Thursday.
so have you, otherwise you wouldn't be replying to old posts.

Keep spouting your memes, climatology is established and there's nothing you can do about it. You lost the debate before you started posting.

>>7486281

Nope. Just noticed two posts looked the same, scrolled up and saw posts from well before the weekend using the same style. But please, keep trying to drag me down to your retards-fighting-over-a-potato level to alleviate your own shame.

Also no. Alarmists predictions have failed to come true. They proceeded to then not modify their hypothesis. That's not good science. You're arguing against objective reality here.

It's ok, though. In 10-20 years (or however long it takes, hopefully less than that), when this entire sham falls apart, just try your best to remember how very, very wrong your were about it all before you go jumping onto the next bandwagon, ok kid?

Good. Have a great semester. I'm sure Cal 2 will be lots of fun.

>>7485777
>So why don't you just use google?
good 1 sherlock, but there arent any

>I'd bet that even if you assume all the energy from all man-made transmissions were trapped in the atmosphere, the forcing from all of it would be several orders of magnitude lower than the forcing from emissions.
LOL you have NO CLUE, son, take a hike.
you think breathing co2 on a potato will cook it faster than putting it in the microwave? this is the kind of intellect on here?
> I'd bet...
Am I supposed to take your wild assumptions serious? you are way off base by the way. CO^2 forcing? 1st off, you use the word incorrectly and don't mention the variable, so you clearly have no clue what you're talking about if you think radiative forcing from microwaves aren't way higher than your forcing from all greenhouse gases, especially in the stratosphere.and you would have to add up all the radiative heat left over from all the nuclear explosions(very small[less than 0.7 of a degree rise over100 years] and i don't want to get the math wrong, so i didn't include it)
pic related- chart welded showing all troposphere & stratospheric forcings and also all the aerosals affected by microwaves along with black carbon and other gases, the same way they added all greenhouse gases together, then on top of that you would also include and surplus from the greenhouse gases affected by electromagnetic waves with a wavelength between 1.03m and .96mm, so, nope greenhouse forcing are much less as a matter of fact.

>>7485733
>If the science doesn't have enough information to determine that AGW is real, why did it determine that AGW is real?
it didn't, there is not 1 single conclusive finding or study

>You can't have it both ways. Either climatologists are experts on the climate or are part of a massive conspiracy to create fake science. Which is it?
Well, again you're wrong; the 2 are not mutually exclusive. I don't think there's a conspiracy, per say. I just think thousands of experts are jumping the gun and on top of that it is wholly possible that they are all simply incorrect. Maybe they just have differing opinions. There have been many times before where, literally, the entire scientific community was wrong while only a 2 or 3 scientists were right. Don't be so naive to think it can't ever happen again.

>all the corporate shills in this thread

the earth is doomed

>>7486310
LOL you have NO CLUE, son, take a hike.
you think breathing co2 on a potato will cook it faster than putting it in the microwave? this is the kind of intellect on here?

Seriously bruh just stop.

>>7486310
>good 1 sherlock, but there arent any
You're not very good at googling.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/222/4630/1283.short

The main effect of nuclear explosions vis a vis climate is the dust, which will actually cause cooling, not warming. All the energy from every nuclear explosion is miniscule compared to the forcing required for the warming trend we're seeing.

>you think breathing co2 on a potato will cook it faster than putting it in the microwave? this is the kind of intellect on here?
That analogy would make a lot of sense if the potato was Earth sized, had a giant Sun shining on it, and the microwave was dwarfed by its size. Yes, the trapped sunlight from CO2 will cook it faster than all of man's puny microwave transmissions. Let's do a rough calculation:

Let's say there are 1500 satellites around Earth and they each have about 20,000 W of power (both figures are extremely generous). That's 30 MW. Let's also say that they shoot ALL of their power at the Earth and it stays trapped (also incredibly generous). That's 30 MW / 510 million km^2 = 0.00000006 W/m^2. And what's the total anthropogenic forcing calculated by the IPCC? In AR4 it was 1.6 W/m^2. So even if we assume all power produced by all satellites goes into the Earth's atmosphere, it's still 8 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE lower than the total anthropogenic forcing from aerosols and CO2.

>Am I supposed to take your wild assumptions serious?
Am I supposed to take your simpleton arguments seriously?

>you are way off base by the way. CO^2 forcing? 1st off, you use the word incorrectly
How have I used it incorrectly?

>and don't mention the variable
What variable? You mean the *unit of measurement*? How is that relevant when I wasn't talking about numbers?

>so you clearly have no clue what you're talking about if you think radiative forcing from microwaves aren't way higher than your forcing from all greenhouse gases, especially in the stratosphere.
You're an idiot.

>>7485751
just found this while looking stuff up about this thread. here's the only study ever done even close to fitting those criteria, and the results show a huge increase in temp of CO2 when even a small sample of microwaves were introduced into the environment, interesting. http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/2012_Spencer_thesis.pdf

>>7486333
microwaves make CO2 heat more than it would otherwise, same with all other gases, so it could be a combination of the 2 theories. Our atmosphere is very discretely bombarded with microwaves all day every day by processes that seem innocuous like RADAR Systems, or WireLess Phones, or Radio, or TV signals, but all of these produce microwaves and have been for 100 years. We have been microwaving our atmosphere non-stop for over 100 years. heres a couple vids showing different forms of carbon in a microwave, just to get an idea of how responsive it is. the stuff in the atmosphere would be ionized so it would get hot easier, which is good because the atmospheric microwaves are not as focused as the ones in a microwave of course. could be the reason for the uptick in storms also as more ionized particles are microwaved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-0Ad-zmtOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WABthlGTy74

>>7486363
>>7485751
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp4076965

Let me end this with a few illustrated graph. here i will present proof that carbon dioxide does not heat the atmosphere and neither do the other 5 greenhouse gases.

the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less it starts to affect things

OH WOW LOOK at all the climate model pfft and not even a single one is correct.HAHAHA LOLOLOsers give it up

>>7486310
>and you would have to add up all the radiative heat left over from all the nuclear explosions
According to wikipedia, the total yield of all nuclear explosions is 2,135,000 TJ over 50 years of testing (but let's be generous and say it's only 20 years since this is when most of the testing was done).

2,135,000 TJ / 20 years / 510 million km^2 = 0.000007 W/m^2

So I was correct. We see that this is six orders of magnitude lower than the anthropogenic forcing of 1.6 W/m^2. The energy that man has released is no match for the energy from the sun we've trapped.

>then on top of that you would also include and surplus from the greenhouse gases affected by electromagnetic waves with a wavelength between 1.03m and .96mm, so, nope greenhouse forcing are much less as a matter of fact.
Except even if ALL the energy from nukes and microwaves goes back into the atmosphere, it adds literally 0 W/m^2 to anthropogenic forcing. You lose.

again they just cant get it together, still disagreeing on how much it contributes to temp changes. well if all the glob war agencies take wild guesses then one will eventually be right, right? well, not yet.

>>7486322
>it didn't, there is not 1 single conclusive finding or study
Delusional.

>I just think thousands of experts are jumping the gun and on top of that it is wholly possible that they are all simply incorrect.
So if they are experts but wrong, what makes you qualified to say that they're wrong? You have not presented any scientific evidence to counter the massive amount of evidence in my favor. You have simply plugged your ears and denied that essentially the entire field of modern climatology exists. That is what you would have to do to say that there is no conclusive study that determines AGW is real.

>There have been many times before where, literally, the entire scientific community was wrong while only a 2 or 3 scientists were right. Don't be so naive to think it can't ever happen again.
Sure it could happen, but you have not given a reason why we should think it has happened. You have just claimed it has.

Last one. You interpret it for yourself, but thisis it, it is infallible absolute truth now that global warming is not really happening. Look at this and even try to argue and you are a total asshole. this is pretty much absolute proof, i will not even respond after this because i have proven my case, here:

Yay, the thread can die now.

>>7486363
Let's read the paper... Oh look at the first thing it says:
>Overwhelming scientific evidence has shown that human activities are changing the
composition of the earth’s atmosphere to include increasing amounts of greenhouse
gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2). It is well understood that the burning of fossil
fuels, the world’s primary source of energy, causes the emission of CO2 and that
levels of atmospheric CO2 have dramatically increased since the industrial revolution.
Increasing concentrations of CO2 that remain trapped in the atmosphere contribute
to global warming by re-radiating energy from the sun back to the earth’s surface,
preventing radiation from escaping the atmosphere. This effect leads to a global
warming trend which has been documented over the last century to show an increase
in surface temperature of about 1 - 1.7F [49]. This change in global temperature
may seem trivial, but in reality it can have drastic effects on the earth’s physical and
biological systems.

Well thanks for finally agreeing that AGW is real. /thread

>>7486396
this thread is filled with evidence, you are experiencing something called 'cognitive dissonance,' so you ignore the proof. sit down. go away. you been PWNED shitbag i wont even respond to you anymore, bye faggot LOL

>>7486376
>Let me end this with a few illustrated graph. here i will present proof that carbon dioxide does not heat the atmosphere and neither do the other 5 greenhouse gases.
All of the images you posted show CO2 increasing the temperature of the atmosphere, so you just proved yourself wrong. Arguing against the greenhouse effect is just stupid. This is proven chemistry.

>>7486401
>this thread is filled with evidence
This thread is filled with links to scientific papers that support AGW, and denier memes that I have debunked. That's it. You have literally no science on your side, just denial.

>>7486400
yes, moron. i said exactly that in my reply.maybe you are both right. has somebody got you so butthurt now that you are paranoid now? is that how you live nowadays? No1 ever said global warming was fake even the "deniers," people are just arguing over the cause.

>>7486417
So you said that humans are increasing CO2 and this effect leads to a global warming trend? Because it seems more like you're saying that we can't no nuffin, the science isn't good enough, and the deniers are probably right, while posting scientific papers that say the exact opposite.

>>7486408
the images are made by people like you and none of them agree with each other. you didnt understand that? how can they be right when they are all saying each other is wrong. they cant even agreee with eachother. get it together mcfly. LOL wow, if youre gonna make a claim at least try to make it match with the past BS you said, your lies must be consistent to be believable. how does it feel to getget PWNED?

>>7486422
nope, silly, you do not understand those papers kid. they say green house gases alone cant be the cause of global warming. smarten up, kid. those papers prove there has to be another factor in play. whether it is man-made i didnt say, could be, i dont know but at least i am willing to say i dont know. You, in fact, dont know and neither does anyone else. If you think you do know then that is because you suffer from the dunning-kruger effect. i am done making you look like garbage for now good night, foolish child
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

>>7486423
I thought you said you were taking your ball home and leaving? I guess not.

>the images are made by people like you and none of them agree with each other. you didnt understand that?
Well let's see, you cite three non-skeptic sources and one of them is Lindzen, which is a notoriously flawed study that has been debunked numerous times. Here is one paper that points out some of the flaws and tries to fix them:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL042314/full

Anyway, you claimed that these images are "proof that carbon dioxide does not heat the atmosphere and neither do the other 5 greenhouse gases." When in fact all they prove is that climatologists are uncertain about the exact value for the sensitivity. Every study you posted agrees that CO2 does increase the temperature.

>>7486422
YOU in 5 years, oh well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,oh well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,oh well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,oh well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,oh well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,oh well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,oh well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years,well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, my estimates were a little off, then in another 5 years, oh, well, OMG its an estimate its not supposed to be exactly correct, whew i m gay mommy

>>7486436
>Here is one paper that points out some of the flaws and tries to fix them:

>tries

>>7486433
>nope, silly, you do not understand those papers kid. they say green house gases alone cant be the cause of global warming. smarten up, kid.
This is not exactly news to climatologists. All climate models include natural forcings along with greenhouse gas forcings. But regardless, the paper does not contradict anything in standard AGW theory.

>those papers prove there has to be another factor in play.
Where exactly does it say that?

>>7486441
If you actually believed you were correct you wouldn't need to shitpost. Your insecurity is showing.

>>7486448
LOL look at your model and how wrong it is.
oh wait i am never wrong if you let me keep fixing the answer5 i previously gave LOL none of the climate models have been accurate. its easy to get the past correct lets see how right they are in 5 years. wrong as usual LOLOLOL

>>7486448
I post what i want precisely because i am correct. if i wasnt right i would try to prove it more like you ut i know i am correct so i wouldnt argue with a 7 year old about how old the universe is, right? youre dumbb ass thinks it what 14 bill years old zlOLOLOL alex jones teach you that? loser

>>7486463
Wow, just wow. Amazing logic. Truly I cannot compete with your massive intellect.

i won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=24&v=RkdbSxyXftc

>>7486469

>I post what i want precisely because i am correct. if i wasnt right i would try to prove it more like you ut i know i am correct so i wouldnt argue with a 7 year old about how old the universe is, right? youre dumbb ass thinks it what 14 bill years old zlOLOLOL alex jones teach you that? loser

I'll just let your posts speak for themselves. Pure comedy gold.

>>7486479
aww you resorted to arguing point i already agree with awww poor baby doesnt even know what hes talking about anymore. ok, here lil baby, the cause of warming, not the warming itself. we went over this a couple times now, you keep going back to repeating oh its getting warmer outside lol no shit baby boy

>>7486506

Do you have Down syndrome?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820152817.htm

>>7486448
>>7486463
>>7486469
>>7486487
>>7486506
>>7486548


This is just sad.
You started arguing with yourself...
Go get some fresh air.

>>7486235
>>UN IPCC AR4 Fig. 10-26 temperature predictions with updated instrumental temperature data. As the graph shows, the predictions failed miserably.
>AR5 shows updated temps fall within the correct range. No, a badly photoshopped graph is not valid and tells us nothing.
> Not to mention that you are ignoring the new natural forcing data that has to be input into the model.
>Look how accurate our retrodiction is, amazing how well we can predict the past.
> Please send more of your tax dollars.

How could you stoop so low?
Here is the source, of the failed prediction, stop making things up!
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html

Lower left corner graph, with updated temps.

>>7486235
>>And then the inevitable appeal to authority:
>So linking you to an article explaining homogenization is an appeal to authority?

Yes, you gave no substance just a declaration implying "this explains things" [which it didn't]. And the authors? Zeke + NOAA employee saying "NOAA done good." Not impressed.