/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7742325
There are too many variables and too little research to have anything be 'concrete' - But really the matter of the fact is that mass coal burning and such isn't good for our health.

>>7742325
Ice cores give a snapshot of what the atmosphere was like at different points in history. CO2 concentration and global temperature tend to show a correlation. Humans produce CO2, which is believed to be a "greenhouse gas".

bitches don't know about El Nino.

Seriously, this is a normal weather phenomenon. It happens every decade or so. Weather/climate has so many variables pumping into it, we just don't have enough information to reliably project weather/climate.

>>7742325
Weather is affected by everything

This includes humans

Therefore

Weather is affected by humans.


Now as to whether or not we have had a large impact on it is hard to say. Nobody really knows and it doesnt help that all of our models have been wrong at predicting all this global warming bullshit and doomsday predictions.

>>7742325
>What is the actual evidence to support the claim that it is caused by humans?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Didn't Exon do a study in the 70's confirming that global warming would occur due to oil and coal usage? We've just found out I think they're being sued for hiding it.

>>7742696
>A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

There it is. They're still paying people to spread misinformation.
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

Freedom speech also means propaganda, misinformation, and lieing to the general public is perfectly legal. The real question is how can people be so stupid to believe this global warming ISN'T caused by humans. Such dumb people.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/nasa-stunner-burning-fossil-fuels-cools-earth/

Tell me anon, do you believe this because it came from NASA?

>>7742718
>Not knowing the difference between aerosol and CO2
Anon, I don't know if you actually believe that, but either way you should kill yourself for posting it

We know what the greenhouse effect is and what causes it, and we know which substances create the effects. Carbon dioxide rates have skyrocketed since the industrial age, attributed to fossil fuels. The agents that usually keep this in check, forests and oceans, are prevented by deforestation and water pollution respectively. The average temperatures on earth have risen by 1.8 degrees so far, greater than any previous record in such a short time span. Even if you can ignore all that, we still have to do something about it.

>>7742329
This now stop asking we don't know. BUT we need to stop polluting the air and sea.

>>7744258
>greater than any previous record
oh riiiight, and those records go back how far?

>>7744268
As someone has said before, the ice rings of permafrost regions can give an analysis to previous surface temperatures.

>>7744268
At least several millions of years

No amount of CO2 can prevent it.

>>7742325
First things first: weather fluctuates wildly year to year but climate is the general trend of the weather over a longer period of time. It takes about 10 years to gather enough weather input to get a trendline going (obviously more data gives a better, more accurate representation).

The picture is the balanced chemical equation for combustion. This states that for every combustion process, CO2 and H20 WILL be produced. Water vapor is an even more power greenhouse gas than either carbon dioxide or methane. As these gases build up in the atmosphere, solar radiation cannot escape Earth's atmosphere nearly as easily as before. This excess radiation heats the Earth, raising the global temperature, melting permafrost (which in turn releases methane as the ground rots) and ice, thereby adding more water to the ocean that will be evaporated.

Climate change is very much a domino effect. It isn't a question of belief or opinion, it is simply a fact and direct result of combustion.

It seems obvious to me that human beings releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would cause warming. We've disrupted a relatively balanced natural cycle of carbon release and absorption, and triggered various secondary forces,such as the melting of ice meaning that less sunlight gets reflected off of it and further warms newly melted oceans.

In my opinion, we need to move over to using things like nuclear power, wind power and some solar power, transition to using electric cars, and work to plant vast numbers of new trees to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Hell, if we get fusion going, we will be so fucking power-rich that we can just build gigantic Co2 scrubbers to un-rape the atmosphere.

>>7742394
>bloomberg

>>7742947
>tfw we can't beat the Soviets

>>7744382
How will fusion allow us to scrub CO2

>>7744289
just 2.5 million tears, not that much in geologic time scale

>liberals who go "muh oil money!" while ignoring the massive green industry that exists only because of government handouts

>>7744258
We don't "know" any of those things
Higher CO2 is a good thing for plants
And any claims of average temperatures runs into the issue of prior records being shit quality.

>>7744476
Are you really this dense? Was I talking about CO2 affecting plants? No, I was talking about the atmosphere. And it doesn't matter if it's good for plants- stay with me here - if you cut down the fucking trees. The greenhouse effect is well documented, in fact it's one of the reasons Venus is so hot. Get that; the greenhouse effect happens on other fucking planets but you think it doesn't exist. We know how much heat CO2 absorbs. We have an idea of the conditions of the Earth before plants took over and sealed most of the carbon on the planet underground in the form of fossil fuels. We can test the air trapped in ice deposits years ago to record the conditions. There's skepticism, then there's outright denial of facts.

>>7744520
>if you cut down the fucking trees
>muh trees
any plant works, even grass
photosynthesis is a surface reaction, it depends on illuminated area, not the size of the plant
amd trees are actually worse, because they have trunks that waste sunlight when they are illuminated
grass is about as efficient as it gets, as it doesnt have any exposed part that does not contain chlorophyle

>>7744395

>I can't construct a rebuttal, so I'll just use meme arrows

:^)

>>7744476
CO2 concentration isn't the limiting factor for growth in most plants

>>7744436
http://carbonengineering.com/our-technology/

Having a shitload of cheap power makes shit like this much easier, and the collected carbon could be monstrously useful in material applications. Imagine having a carbon fiber car made out of condensed air-how sexy is that shit mah nigga?

>>7744520
>in fact it's one of the reasons Venus is so hot.
The one and only relevant reason for Venus' heat is being closer to the sun and having 100 times the atmospheric density

You can "know" and "test" all these things, and you are still making blatant assumptions based on uncertain data.

>>7742325
Basically this time the problem is CO2 it let the hot enter but not leave. Since the past century the polution by CO2 is raising, and the global temperature with it.

>>7742325
Well, there's not a huge amount of data either side that /sci/ considers relevant. Consider the possible scenarios
>it is real, but we act, and it's unclear if it ever existed, and looks wasted
>it is real, and we don't act, and earth sucks ass
>it isn't real, and we act, and it still looks like wasted funds
>it isn't real, and we don't act, saving resources, but running a risk still in not acting
There isn't much way to win

>>7742325
>What is the actual evidence to support the claim that it is caused by humans?
1. CO2 reflects heat radiating off of the earth back onto the earth
2. Humans add lots of CO2 to the atmosphere but don't recycle it like nature does

Therefore, humans cause heating of the earth

>There have been points in history were the earth has warmed and cooled and warmed again, how do we know its not just part of a natural cycle?
Historically, CO2 correlates well with long term temperature trends because temperature and CO2 concentration are in a positive feedback loop. But if humans are causing the CO2 concentration to rise it's not natural is it?

>>7744545
>The one and only relevant reason for Venus' heat is being closer to the sun and having 100 times the atmospheric density
That's an inaccurate statement. It is a fact that Venus had liquid water. The surplus of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere lead to a runaway greenhouse effect that eventually turned it into the hell it is today.

One of my sources:
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1999792,00.html

>>7744755
>found trace amounts of hydrogen and oxygen
>this means it used to be a water planet!

see: Unfounded assumptions

The greenhouse effect on venus is negligible, the heat is caused by a vastly more dense atmosphere. At 1 atms pressure on venus, the temperature is similar to earth.

>>7744758
>The greenhouse effect on Venus is negligible
No.

>>7744762
mars is almost all CO2 as well
But it's cold as fuck

>>7744777
>mars is almost all CO2 as well
"Almost all" doesn't mean much when the atmosphere is incredibly thin.

>>7744777
Mars is so far from the sun that it would be cold no matter what without volcanic activity. If anything, a thick atmosphere would turn it into a snowball.

>>7744812
>Mars is so far from the sun that it would be cold no matter what without volcanic activity. If anything, a thick atmosphere would turn it into a snowball.
If Mars hadn't lost most of its atmosphere, it would be significantly warmer.

>>7742332

Of course there's a correlation. A warmer Earth is a more productive Earth. The more productive, the more plants and the more atmospheric CO2.

>>7744258

The warming at the end of the Younger Dryas may have been considerably faster than this.

Also, warming is natural and very good for us. Or would you rather return to the cold period known as the Little Ice Age?

The thing is it's all 100% hindsight stuff. CLIMATE is basically a summary of the weather over a period of >40 years. The reason being that WITHIN 40 years, random events and noise are too strong to predict a trend.

However what has been happening over the last 20-30 years is people have been predicting trends based on data from consecutive years because it makes for much more drama. Which is also why the whole climate thing suddenly flares up when it's a warm year.

And that's all BEFORE you even get started on is this nature vs humans. That being said burning oil and coal is limited and bad for our health, but alternatives are already pretty strong and we'll definitely make it to 100% renewables/fusion with decades if not centuries of oil left to burn.

>>7744382

Obvious is often misleading.

But it is clear that a cooler Earth is vastly less productive. If you want to see a disaster, just stay around for the current interglacial warm period, the Holocene, to end and the next period of glaciation in this ice age to begin. Starvation and death by starvation will become very common.

>>7744520

CO2 absorbs all that heat? Wow!

I thought it acted by trapping infrared radiation radiating back into space from the ground.

Of course, water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2. However, depending on the circumstances, it can also reflect sunlight back into space.

>>7744535

No, but it does help plants grow.

Did you know that many greenhouse operators artificially increase the CO2 levels in the greenhouses because of its positive effects on the growth of plants?

>>7744833
that's a legitimate point. More CO2 and warmth is basically what ever farmer since the dawn of agriculture could only dream of. The problem though might be more extreme weather conditions like both hotter summers and colder winters, heavier and irregular rain etc. Not sure if this is a meme but if you believe the media climate change will pretty much make volcanoes erupt in Belgium or something

>>7744823
>The more productive, the more plants and the more atmospheric CO2.
What the fuck?

>>7744828
>Also, warming is natural and very good for us.
The current warming isn't natural, and while the impacts are complex, most seem to be negative.

>Or would you rather return to the cold period known as the Little Ice Age?
That has nothing to do with this.

>>7744832
>CLIMATE is basically a summary of the weather over a period of >40 years.
The normal figure is 30, but yes.

>However what has been happening over the last 20-30 years is people have been predicting trends based on data from consecutive years because it makes for much more drama.
People have been predicting human-driven global warming for a lot longer than 30 or 40 years. And we have plenty of historical data too.

>And that's all BEFORE you even get started on is this nature vs humans.
We can actually tell the two apart pretty well.

>>7744843

Do you realize that todays temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are roughly about 5F cooler than during the Holocene Climatic Optimum?

And that Holocene Climatic Optimum is when our ancestors took their first steps toward civilization. I would argue that without the warmer temperatures that allowed mankind to stop being nomadic wanders and to settle down and farm are necessary for civilization to become possible.

>>7742325
>Liberals argue global warming is the worse than hitler
>causes terrorism
>will cause global hurricanes
>will cause the sea level to rise 2000 feet
>will cause the summer temperatures to be 6 gorillion degrees

>reality
>warm winters

DEAR FUCKING GOD GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL STOP FUCKING CONSUMING OIL AND SHIT.

>>7742325
The climate has always been in a state of change.

Didn't Al "the money whore" Gore say the ice caps would have melted by this point in time?

>B-but, muh carbon taxes!

Can we all agree carbon taxes would not do anything to solve this alleged problem, and instead would further collapse the economy?

>We need to develop new technologies and make them available and affordable to the general populous and industry. ∞

>>7744883
>>7744881
also since 50 years people have said oil will run out within 30 years. Now estimates are >100-200 years provided we keep increasing consumption and keep finding increasingly smaller fields

>>7744898
True, also our consumption of oil is becoming much more efficient over time.

I know forcing carbon taxes will do nothing good for the ecology of earth or the economy of man. The answer lies in technology and responsibility for our actions.

Is there a solid evidence for global warming at all? Or is it all medical-research-tier?

>>7744866
I would argue that without the warmer temperatures that allowed mankind to stop being nomadic wanders and to settle down and farm are necessary for civilization to become possible.
That's nice.
I don't really care what "you would argue". The vast majority of studies show clear reductions in agricultural output, for example.
Also, assuming our needs now are the same as our needs prior to the rise of civilisation is pretty dumb.

>>7744883
>Didn't Al "the money whore" Gore say the ice caps would have melted by this point in time?
Who cares what a politician said?
Do you need me to list of a bunch of bullshit denier politicians said? Would that make you feel better?

>Can we all agree carbon taxes would not do anything to solve this alleged problem, and instead would further collapse the economy?
No, we can't all just agree on whatever you would like to be true.
Taxing shit is the normally accepted means of including externalities into the price.

>>7744898
We aren't every going to actually run out of oil. Our finds will just continue to get and smaller and the difficulty of extraction will continue to get harder.

>>7744917
>Is there a solid evidence for global warming at all?
Yes, but you're not going to find in on 4chan.
Check the actual IPCC reports, they're pretty readable.

>>7744258
There is no consistent record. The observations are just too brief to make a meaningful claim.

Friendly reminder that if people of contemporary political mindsets had measured temperature changes during the Medieval warming period, they'd have asserted it was man-made climate change.

>>7744917

It's all based on mathematical modeling with certain implicit assumptions.

From what I understand, the assumptions in many model assumes that our use of fossil fuels will continue to increase. In reality, as existing oil becomes harder and harder to mine and new oil finds are smaller and rarer we are going to continue working at getting more and more out of the oil that we have.

As for coal, experts on coal mining say that we have got most of the easily available supplies and that it will be increasing more difficult and costly to find and mine coal. They have good arguments that we may see Peak Coal within the next ten to thirty years.

>>7744949
>>7744952
Nice assertions.

>>7745009
>It's all based on mathematical modeling with certain implicit assumptions.
No, it's actually based on direct measurement and known laws of physics.
The details and the exact when & how much comes from modelling, but the foundation (the greenhouse effect) is basic thermodynamics.

>>7745009
>Peak Coal
Wait, really?
I'm under the impression that coal was still incredibly available. Do you have a source?

Friendly reminder there's nothing any western country can do to stop global warming
Friendly reminder that even if western Europe and the United States went back to a 1700s style economy with zero emissions The People's Republic of China would still pump out enough pollution to literally choke its citizens and block out the sun
Friendly reminder that the Republic of India is only two steps behind the People's Republic of China
Friendly reminder there is no point in throwing yourself on this economic sword to "try to save the planet"

>>7745090
>Since other people aren't trying, we shouldn't try either

>>7745096
>we should raise food prices, gas prices, everything prices for no reason because it will make me feel better about living in the 21st century

Don't you know that hurts the poor?
Don't you know the poor already spend a disproportionate amount on food and transportation as it is?
And you want to raise the prices when it won't do anything?
Why don't you care about the poor?

>>7745102
How do you propose we fix China and India then?

>>7745108
>>7745102
inb4 nuke

>>7744545
>ignores literally every other point I make to point out Venus bring closer to the sun
Kek
Listen dude, even if it is closer to the sun, it isn't close enough to be hotter than Mercury. The atmosphere is filled with carbon dioxide and methane, so all the heat just sits there in the atmosphere. 5th grade science, everyone. Also, are you denying the fact that gases absorb heat in different amounts? Because it sounds like you are.

>>7745090
>Friendly reminder there's nothing any western country can do to stop global warming
We can definitely stop making it worse.

>Friendly reminder that even if western Europe and the United States went back to a 1700s style economy with zero emissions The People's Republic of China would still pump out enough pollution to literally choke its citizens and block out the sun
The PRC is actually doing a pretty job of decreasing emissions than we are.

>Friendly reminder there is no point in throwing yourself on this economic sword to "try to save the planet"
>We make as well fuck things up worse, because I can be bothered fixing them.
You're an idiot.

>>7745102
>Don't you know that hurts the poor?
Fossil fuels externalises disproportionately harm the poor.
Global warming will disproportionately harm the poor.

>Don't you know the poor already spend a disproportionate amount on food and transportation as it is?
We better fix things before gobal warming makes that worse then.

>Why don't you care about the poor?
Why do you want to fuck them over?

>>7745123
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that global warming is real & will have a tangible effect on the world & won't be easily solved with various existing or new technologies.

>>7745055
>I'm under the impression that coal was still incredibly available. Do you have a source?

I used to have a link to a research study of the issue but lost it.

But check out this from http://e360.yale.edu/feature/peak_coal_why_the_industrys_dominance_may_soon_be_over/2777/ about the reduction in the rate of coal use and the expected decline in the immediate future.

>Having outstripped its own large coal reserves, China has been ransacking the world for coal, driving massive investments in new mining, notably in Australia, Indonesia, and Mongolia, but also in South Africa, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Its state-owned Shenhua Group is the world’s largest coal company, almost twice the size of U.S. giant Peabody Energy.

>,,, As a report from Greenpeace East Asia in April noted: “China’s coal consumption has become the single most significant determinant for the future of the world’s climate.” According to Ajay Gambhir of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, if China continues on the same trajectory, it would double its coal burning again by 2030.

>But it won’t, say analysts. China is changing. A decade ago growth in China’s coal consumption was 18 percent a year; now it is down to below 3 percent. Peak coal is imminent in China.

...

>Since China burns half the world’s coal, this matters hugely for the planet. But it is more than that. Because where China goes, other developing countries follow. India, the other coal superpower, is increasingly beset by smog and rampant corruption in the coal industry, which provides 70 percent of the country’s
electricity. But there are signs that India could be ripe for change too.

From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100908-energy-peak-coal/

>A new study seeks to shake up the assumption that use of coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, is bound to continue its inexorable rise. In fact, the authors predict that world coal production may reach its peak as early as next year, and then begin a permanent decline.

>The study, led by Tad Patzek, chairman of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and published in the August issue of Energy, predicts that by mid-century, the world's coal mining will supply only half as much energy as today.

...

>However, the Patzek study paints a far different picture—and not because people will use up the last of the coal in the ground. Rather, the world will finish off the coal that is easy to reach and high-quality—the coal that produces a large amount of energy per ton, the new study says. What remains will often be of lower quality, and progressively harder to dig up and bring to where it is used.

...

>“The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal,” said President Barack Obama earlier this year, referring to estimates that the United States has the largest coal reserves of any country. Citing the huge stores and the need for clean energy, Obama made the remark at the launch of a task force to study how to deploy technology to “clean up” coal, through carbon capture and storage technology, in the next 10 years.

>However, Patzek argues that the reserves estimates of the United States and other countries overstate how much coal is actually practical to mine and use.

>"In my study, I disregard completely these [reserve] estimates," Patzek said. "They're not credible."

>"The only estimate that's credible,” he argued, “is what actually comes out of the mines, and how you project that into the future."

>>7744946
>>>7744917
>>Is there a solid evidence for global warming at all?
>Yes, but you're not going to find in on 4chan.
>Check the actual IPCC reports, they're pretty readable.

>IPCC
>Science

>>7745369

>>7745055
>>>7745009
>>It's all based on mathematical modeling with certain implicit assumptions.
>No, it's actually based on direct measurement and known laws of physics.
>The details and the exact when & how much comes from modelling, but the foundation (the greenhouse effect) is basic thermodynamics

Direct measurement?

>>7745370
>>7745055
>Direct measurement
>Known laws of physics

>>7745370
Must be hard spending your days staring at a chinese image board.
What agency do you work for?

>>7745316
>Your whole argument is based on the assumption that global warming is real & will have a tangible effect on the world
That is the current consensus.

>& won't be easily solved with various existing technologies
If it could be we would have done it already.

>or new technologies.
Nothing that's coming out soon looks like a magic bullet. Unless someone finds a fusion plant design under a rock tomorrow we're going to have to do this the hard way.

>>7745328
>>7745342
This is interesting. I'll give it a proper read later.

However, I do somewhat struggle to see how coal quality issues will bring about "peak coal", when here in Australia we're just digging up every rock that'll burn.
The whole world would need a serious step towards better environmental standards before coal quality would be vital.

>>7745369
If you don't like the IPCC you're free to read the individual published papers.
The IPCC reports are free and more digestible, though. And it's not like the journals will say anything different.

>>7745394
>However, I do somewhat struggle to see how coal quality issues will bring about "peak coal", when here in Australia we're just digging up every rock that'll burn.

Part of that is likely due to the fact that easily minable coal is getting harder to find.

From what I've read, the vast majority of our coal now is from strip mining and good quality coal in large amounts at such shallow depths is becoming harder and harder to find.

We could return more to digging mines deep in the ground. The problem is not only that it is more labor intensive and therefore expensive, I don't think that the speed with which coal can be dug out and brought up the mine shafts to the serface will limit the amount of production.

One thing to keep in mind, too, is the use of CO2 scrubbers from power plants to that use coal. As more and more scrubbers are used we will see a corresponding drop in CO2 emissions from what coal will still be used.

>>7745394
>However, I do somewhat struggle to see how coal quality issues will bring about "peak coal", when here in Australia we're just digging up every rock that'll burn.

Part of that is likely due to the fact that easily minable coal is getting harder to find.

From what I've read, the vast majority of our coal now is from strip mining and good quality coal in large amounts at such shallow depths is becoming harder and harder to find.

While we could return more to digging mines deep in the ground, we will face problems in that not only that it is more labor intensive and therefore expensive, but the speed with which coal can be dug out and brought up the mine shafts to the serface will limit the maximum production.

One thing to keep in mind, too, is the use of CO2 scrubbers from power plants to that use coal. As more and more scrubbers are used we will see a corresponding drop in CO2 emissions from what coal will still be used.

>>7745373
>>7745372
Exxon please, the proof is here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/1/10/1880-2015?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2015

>>7745431
> Banks says bank mortgage bonds are reliable!
> Tobacco company says tobacco is safe!
> NOAA says NOAA data changes are true!
>

But seriously how much are you getting paid?

I thought /sci/ would be a good place to have this discussion. Please people, actually read the peer reviewed articles instead of the summaries on news sites.

There are mountains of evidence to suggest that increasing CO2 in high concentrations has a high radiative forcing effect. There are a number of positive feedback mechanisms that have been identified to occur as a result of a warming climate. The timescale on which the warming over the last 100 years has occurred is faster than any natural variability known to occur. This is the science that is nearly settled, and would require a smoking gun research study to undermine.

>>7744828
The Younger Dryas warming occurred AFTER a cooling occurred, which as most likely due to a volcano eruption. It was an adjustment period that is not analogous to current warming in any way shape or form.

>>7745471

A volcano would not have accounted for a 3,000 year cold spell.

I've seen legitimate estimates that the end of the younger dryas may have seen a shift of temperature of about 10 C in as short a time as a century of less.

But if you want to argue that temperature change is normal, go right ahead. Remember that in the Earth's climatological history, we are living in abnormally cool times.

>>7745394

By the way, the IPCC apparently agrees that Global Warming will be beneficial at least for another 65 years.

>>7745525
Not according to anything I've read from them.

>>7745446
Seriously? You're confused. It is the oil & gas companies spending gobs of money in an attempt to claim climate change is a fallacy. It's organizations like NOAA and NASA that present facts and data.

Greenland isotopes.

Let's look at the evidence we have of the earths climate. Not just the past hundred years.

>>7746823
further reading

>http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/

"The warming trend to the present interglacial period started around 15,000 years ago."

And it was a big ass change. This is the time period of the Quaternary extinction event and we need to include the Clovis cultures disappearance as part of that.. event.

What we're seeing is a cause and effect of human population growth. The world cant even decide on what the definition of an ideal environment is so im not sure what worrying about carbon levels is going to do.

humans need Hydrocarbons to survive at current population levels.

>>7746841
All real science points to a cooling planet over geological time, more ice ages, less tectonic activity.

>>7747041
Yeah, at first I thought the global fascist hydrocarbon tax propaganda was strictly targeted at third world countries until the Pope of Rome jumped on the bandwagon and started shit talking the first world. Now its all crystal clear, reduce standards of living globally to third world levels, operate new age dark ages with the iron hand in a velvet glove using up all the remaining fossil fuels for themselves to restore the death grip they had all through the original dark ages.

Obviously raising the third world to first world standards of living is not even an option anymore. There is only one option left, but regardless a substantial depopulation will occur in the 21st century be it man made or natural. Some figure about 1 billion apes without fossil fuels is "sustainable".

>>7747062
>All real science points to a cooling planet over geological time, more ice ages, less tectonic activity.

Yeah. It's cyclical. Right now we are in a geologic summer. The norm for this planet, as per the data, is ice age broken up by intermittent thaws.

>>7746610
>NASA GISS rewrites history
Thems facts and data!

>>7746610
>Hurr durr, me, the paid shill is being oppressed.

>>7744382
Don't forget all those cows and their methane.

>>7746610
Part of the Crusher Crew? Part of the "Rapid Response Team?" Which neo-Brown Shirt crew are you working for?

BELOW: Your paid shill brethren discuss their Brown Shirt like tactics.

"I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences." - Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

"I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the "team of crushers" then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I've been advocating the need to create a "crusher crew" for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife's chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website [...] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?" - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

>>7747104
I repeat the question, What agency do you work for? How much are you getting paid?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More from your brethern, the Climate Fundamentalist brownshirts:

"Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated "Crusher Crew" where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* "Watts up with that"? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort." - Robert Way [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"I think it might be better to start out with smaller fish. Build a community and a team. Find some methods and strategies that work. Then start moving up the denier food chain with our targets set on WUWT. I could see this expanding into a broad team of 100 or more people (outside the scope of this SkS forum of course). [...] We just need to raise our collective voices to drown them out. I would venture to guess that most people here know of 4 or 5 regulars on comments sections that would be interested in coordinating their efforts. I know probably 10 or 20 people who would like to help with this." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

>>7747098
>All that funding.

Does anyone consider that by throwing money around like this will ensure the results they are wanting?

Would you get a grant just as easily if you were out spoken about the possibility that climate change is not man made?

>>7746610
> If the data doesn't fit the narrative, so much the worse for the data.
Love those facts.

And the dirty secrets revealed by warmists' emails:

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has..." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"...it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, that's nothing but direct measurements.
>nb4 panels of warmists reviewed warmists' emails and decided warmists were OK.
Not a single skeptic on any of the panels. Pal review == nothing.

>>7747120
Warmest Christmas ever and you goy shills still think global warming is a reptillian hoax. Kill yourself my lad.

>>7747122
2/10

>>7746610
EVIL oil companies tell lies to get money. Caring sensitive warmists couldn't care less about money.

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

>>7747122
Once you kill yourself, and broadcast it to the world. I'll carefully consider your suggestion.

>>7747130
Why do you have all these quotes ready?

I want to believe this really hard.

>>7747097
Didn't the 1980s graph come from one source in Europe? Can't remember if the author corrected it or distanced himself from it afterward.

Almost like more data leads to a more accurate history.

>>7747068

No.

If I remember correctly, there have only been five ice ages in the last couple of billion years or so. Collectively, they lasted maybe 700 million years.

The norm for this Earth is considerably warmer than now.

Nobody knows how long this ice age will last. It began more than two and a half million years ago and will likely last several million years more. When it ends, temperatures will climb well above the temperatures we have today.

>>7747097
>>7747120

Congratulations, you've discovered that scientists re-evaluate their data when new methods of analysis arise, as they would in approximately 30 years of climate science.

>>7747098

This chart is useless because it makes no comparison to other fields. The US government already provides huge amounts of research funding across all fields of study. Also, for some reason it's only considering the independent funding for Harvard-Smithsonian. What that means, I have no idea, but that's not all independent funding for climate science research in general.

>>7747120

What exactly is the full context for those quotes? I'm fairly certain that those are taken out of context. Also, the CRU is a group of a handful of researchers, and the climate science community is made up of thousands. One corrupt group does not make years of verifiable data suddenly disappear.

>>7747130

This is just a list of quotes from politicians. Also, there is good reason to support policies that would solve global warming, as they also provide a solution to the fact that oil and other fossil fuel resources are finite, and will eventually run out. Furthermore, a bunch of dubious quotes does not make verifiable data disappear.

>>7742325
>What is the actual evidence to support the claim that it is caused by humans?

There isn't any. The whole facade is implying causation through correlation, and even that is weak.

>There have been points in history were the earth has warmed and cooled and warmed again, how do we know its not just part of a natural cycle?

We don't, which is why AGW people have systemically altered data and hidden past evidence of warm climates. See: the "hockey stick graph," that deliberately cut out the medieval warming period.

The whole thing is an elitist doomsday cult that demands that peasants give up luxuries (like air travel and reliable electricity) best reserved for their betters (who fly to climate conferences in 5-star hotels and live in mansions on the coasts; which according to them should be underwater as of last year).

It's all bullshit and nonsense.

In the real world (i.e. outside of a laboratory), you can make a better case that temperature leads CO2 than you can that CO2 leads temperature.

>>7747458

>See: the "hockey stick graph," that deliberately cut out the medieval warming period.

Even if you add the Medieval Warm Period, the data doesn't significantly change.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

Pic related.

>The whole thing is an elitist doomsday cult that demands that peasants give up luxuries (like air travel and reliable electricity) best reserved for their betters (who fly to climate conferences in 5-star hotels and live in mansions on the coasts; which according to them should be underwater as of last year).

Politicians being dicks means nothing about climate science. This is a worthless criticism.

>>7747476

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by carbon dioxide but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So carbon dioxide causes warming and rising temperature causes carbon dioxide levels to rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the carbon dioxide increase.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5849/435.abstract
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

>>7744883
>>B-but, muh carbon taxes!

Not a single person brings up carbon taxes in these threads until one of you paranoid poltards imagines they saw the boogeyman coming for his Hard Earned Money™ and shits out a post. It should be a clue that you're arguing with strawmen when you're the one that has to introduce the supposed argument.

>>7747458
>The whole thing is an elitist doomsday cult

>>7744823

If a warmer Earth is a more productive Earth, then why are all the rich industrialized countries in the north?

>>7747098
>20 years of an entire government's spending on a subject compared to 1 year of private funding for a single institution

Even assuming that's a marginally accurate figure (why do these pictures never have a source other than the blog that authored them?), it's hardly the grand gotcha you seem to think it is.

>>7747941
the north has more land

The North is for the Nords, elven scum.

>Ctrl F Isotopes
>Only one post

Carbon emissions from fossil fuels produces carbon-12 since it's been sitting for millions of years. Most of the carbon cycling in the earths carbonate silicate cycle is carbon-14. The impact humans have on carbon emissions have been quantitatively described in several studies.

>>7747936
>Pejorative argument
You aren't cut out to be a scientist

>>7748052
I think you're confusing 4chan with a scientific journal. Easy mistake to make if you're an illiterate retard.

>>7747869

You seem to be confusing periods of glaciations with ice ages.

Ice ages appear likely to be the result of things like continental drift and other changes that affect ocean currents.

Periods of glaciation appear to be tied, to a degree, to the orbit.

One thing that bothers me about Global Warming is that so many "scientists" are doing their best to reinterpret the evidence to rationalize their belief that CO2 is responsible. It is pretty laughable sometimes.

>>7747941

Perhaps because it was not in the equatorial regions where people changed from wandering foragers to take up agriculture.

>>7748190

Okay, then replace where I said "ice age" with "glaciation" then, if you want to get technical. And, furthermore, even if you change the initial cause of warming to continental drift or changes in ocean currents, the point still stands that the initial warming will be amplified via positive feedback loops with carbon dioxide. Released carbon dioxide from the ocean would still do much of the legwork.

>One thing that bothers me about Global Warming is that so many "scientists" are doing their best to reinterpret the evidence to rationalize their belief that CO2 is responsible.

So, are you suggesting continents have drifted, ocean currents have changed, or the Earth's orbit has shifted enough within 30 years that we see significant warming across the planet? I find such an idea laughable, considering that such changes normally occur over thousands of years.

>>7742325
It's all very simple actually
>go the Arctic
>measure the bubbles for percentages of certain gases
>able to get a pretty good guess of what the atmosphere was like however long ago you're guessing

It is true that the climate has cooled and warmed over time however what we're seeing now is unprecedented. We're in a time where solar output is around normal yet the climate is changing rapidly. In addition we're seeing the oceans start to acidify and warm which is a big deal if you like living.

You might say that this is normal however every time there's been a major change in the climate it usually causes mass extinctions. So whether or not you actually believe that climate change is some mass conspiracy I'd be more worried about food shortages and all life on earth ending as the oceans become more toxic.

As for why we know it's man made has to do with the fact that there is a metric fuck load of green house gases being put in the atmosphere by not only automobiles but agriculture. Agriculture has the biggest effect on the climate believe it or not. Mostly because it trickles into so many different areas.

>>7748209
Does anyone into Younger Dryas?

>>7748542

The Younger Dryas was a period of cooling, not warming, and its cause is presumed to have been a large impact event or a volcanic eruption. It also may have only been a local change in climate, not a global change. It is not wrong to say that the planet's climate can change rapidly, though it normally doesn't, but you're not suggesting why it might be changing now. The Earth's climate does not change without cause, whether that be from orbital shifts, tectonic movements, asteroid impacts, or otherwise. If you have some other cause for the modern warming trend other than anthropogenic carbon dioxide that would produce a quick enough effect, with credible data to back it up, then state it.

>>7744567
Well there's also the problem of running out of fossil fuels...

>>7745471
I believe in math proofs when I read them. I believe in physics when its laws do work up to practically infinitesimal precision. I believe in chemistry when chemical reactions are explicitly and precisely described and lead to concrete and predictable results. And so on and so forth.

I DO NOT BLINDLY believe in everything that heavily relies on statistics.

Boy, just read about confidence interval and try to understand precisely what it is. Protip: confidence is not even probability. Further, depending on significance, you may or may not reject the null-hypothesis. Many researchers can't even pick the right distribution. In most of the cases, they don't give a damn about checking the distribution.

All those medical researchers, climate changers, sociologists are just so poor at math. Everything they can is to plug their shit in SAS or some shit, when not Excel, click "calculate muh stats'n'shit", and then tune the parameters to get the desired result, when not simply falsify it. After all, who will check???

Regression analysis in summary is just like a wooden leg.

Up to 70% of reported results in medical research nowadays are non-reproducible.

The observation period is too short, the data are non-reliable and hard to check, the reports are bullshit. I am not a blunt denier, but I prefer to having doubts rather than accept global warming at this moment.

>>7748209
>So, are you suggesting continents have drifted, ocean currents have changed, or the Earth's orbit has shifted enough within 30 years that we see significant warming across the planet? I find such an idea laughable, considering that such changes normally occur over thousands of years.
Binary logic

>>7748800

If you have some other cause for the modern warming trend other than anthropogenic carbon dioxide that would produce a quick enough effect, with credible data to back it up, then state it. Those were just the three causes of change that were mentioned.

>>7749060
>the modern warming trend
There would of course, have to be such a trend, for your assumption to be true. Which is far from established, simply because there might be changes in the short period we have recorded it doesn't mean its actually a trend.
Focusing on CO2 is also based on deliberately ignoring water vapor.
Finally this all assumes that some "runaway heating" catastrophe will develop and that a warmer earth wouldn't actually be a good thing.

>>7744442
its enough to observe the cycles and trends

>>7742340
The evidence for global warming isn't related to El Nino, A level geography man

>>7742325
Even if it's not caused by man, the response will be the same, man did it. If it comes out that man didn't and there is nothing we can do, well there would be panic, basic breakdown of civil society. So the message will be man did it even if we didn't.

>>7749079
Climate Change has also become a political tool. If the climate is alterable by man then the government needs to step in and fix it. That requires more taxes. Taxes which will go to anything but resolving climate fluctuation.

>>7744476
Not sure if you're in denial or generally believe what you're saying, Co2 is bad for our atmosphere despite plants taking it in because it traps heat, look at Venus, it's the hottest planet on average by a gap of about 200°c because of the immense ratio of carbon in its atmosphere. I don't know what you mean by "shit quality", what's your reasoning for them being shit? It clearly shows that the temperature of the earth is rising faster than it has in the past. it's not about being liberal or having any political standpoint, it's about observation and common fucking sense.

>>7744545
>having 100 times the atmospheric density
You realize that emitting more gases into the atmosphere will make the atmosphere denser? You just proved yourself wrong nitwit

>>7749072

>There would of course, have to be such a trend, for your assumption to be true.

Pic related. There's your trend. From http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf..

>Which is far from established, simply because there might be changes in the short period we have recorded it doesn't mean its actually a trend.

And that would simply depend on your definition of "short period" and "trend." Global warming is generally cited as a trend on the scale of decades, so that's what I mean when I refer to a "modern warming trend," as opposed to even longer-term, geologic scale trends.

>Focusing on CO2 is also based on deliberately ignoring water vapor.

Any increase in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature is going to lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere as well. Water vapor is part of the positive feedback loop caused by inputting more carbon dioxide.

>this all assumes that some "runaway heating" catastrophe will develop

What makes you think I assumed that? There is no requirement for a "runaway heating catastrophe" to develop for the results to be the same, it's just that the timescale would be longer.

>a warmer earth wouldn't actually be a good thing.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-spm-2.html

The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.

>>7749088
Most likely goes to keeping the public calm and survival of the political class when crops start to fail.

>>7742325
Those changes normally happen in geological time spans of thousands or ten thousands of years. Meanwhile we've had an increase of nearly 2°C in the last century, which is unholy fast. Man made climate change is the only answer that makes sense.

>>7745116
kek

>>7747062
wat dis

>>7749072
>There would of course, have to be such a trend, for your assumption to be true.
There demonstrably has been.

>Focusing on CO2 is also based on deliberately ignoring water vapor.
Water vapor is held in an incredibly tight equilibrium. It serves as a strong positive feedback, but directly adding it to the atmosphere doesn't do shit.

>Finally this all assumes that some "runaway heating" catastrophe will develop
No it doesn't.
Where the hell did you get that idea from?

>and that a warmer earth wouldn't actually be a good thing.
Any change in the global climate is going to ruin a lot of people's shit.
Particularly, a warmer climate is thought to reduce the total agricultural output (IIRC, mainly due to shrinking of good farming areas), increasing food prices.

>>7749079
>If it comes out that man didn't and there is nothing we can do, well there would be panic, basic breakdown of civil society.
What?
Why?

>>7749088
>That requires more taxes. Taxes which will go to anything but resolving climate fluctuation.
A bunch of the proposed solutions don't suffer from that.
Also, denying science because you don't like what politicians will think of it is downright retarded.

>>7749108
If it's not man made there is nothing anyone can do, there is no meaningful actions to be taken to stop the change. This alone will shatter some people's world view. Then some will come to the conclusion that starvation will be the main results of climate change. This is where civil society will start to breakdown.

If you tell everyone it is man made then there is hope we can stop it, and civil society keeps running. Order is maintained, and no one has to make the tough calls

>>7749108
>Also, denying science
Ah, so this is dogma for you? You have issue with people not accepting a very narrow, blind, arrogant stand on a short window of data? Barely over a hundred years of data. That is minuscule. Data is available for the past couple million years. You choose only the past hundred?

the rest of your statement is nonsensical. Are you attempting to strawman?

>>7742325
We humans are taking fucktons of carbon out of the earth that's been sequestered for millions of years and pumping it into the sky. No doubt we are warming the planet. Try to ignore the politics and $$$ and keep your eye on the physics. Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about political parties or payolla.

>>7742325
its not global warming. fukushima meltdown caused the sea life to be altered, and its causing a change in the ocean currents which is causing the weather to be changed, since the ocean currents and the jet stream are vital to each other, and when one is broken the other breaks. aside from that, a recent volcano blew so much ash into the sky that it may affect the weather for upto 4 more years.

The ocean dies. Then the sky dies.
The wind dies. The bees die. Then life dies.

>>7749154

> You have issue with people not accepting a very narrow, blind, arrogant stand on a short window of data? Barely over a hundred years of data. That is minuscule. Data is available for the past couple million years. You choose only the past hundred?

What are you trying to prove here? If you're saying that global warming is part of a longer-term trend, then 1. you'd have to suggest a reason why, a potential cause, and 2. you'd need to actually show that there is a trend.

Also, the timescales for global warming are usually chosen because they are within the start of the Industrial Revolution. They are not arbitrary like you seem to be suggesting. You're trying to compare relatively short-term trends to long-term trends.

>>7748225

If the models were correct, we'd have seen many times the minimal warming that we have seen. There really hasn't been much warming over the last hundred years.

And we are still about 5 F below what we were during the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 9,000 or so years ago.

>>7748570

At the end of the Younger Dryas, the warming was, I think, faster than the cooling at the start.

>>7749095
>Any increase in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature is going to lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere as well. Water vapor is part of the positive feedback loop caused by inputting more carbon dioxide.

My understanding from a climate researcher is that the water vapor is not the positive feedback assumed by the models. That is supposedly a major reason why the models have been predicting far higher warming than anything we have actually seen.

>>7749095
>The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.

If 2 C is that damaging, then why are we here? We were approximately 2 C higher than now about 9,000 years ago.

A disaster? Not hardly. The warmer temperatures made agriculture possible.

>>7749101

Hahahahaha.

Nonsense.

The only way you are going to get 2 C change in the last century is if you did the measurement at the start of the century hundreds or thousands of miles further from the equator than the measurements at the end of the century.

But if you feel you are right, please provide legitimate citations from peer reviewed journals demonstrating a 2 C rise in the last century.

>>7744522
>trees are inefficient
Idiot, what happens when it's dry for a few years like muh NorCal? The grass dies. fag.

>>7744545
>idiot falknerian man-child detected

>>7749631

Then why did that occur, and are the same conditions occurring now? The point still stands that you would have to provide some reasoning as to why the Earth is undergoing similar warming. Warming or cooling does not occur without reason.

>>7749629

>If the models were correct, we'd have seen many times the minimal warming that we have seen.

Except there are models that correctly predict warming, you're either looking at the most extreme cases or have created a strawman. Pic related, plus:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html

>>7749635

Which researcher? Also, if water vapor is not the positive feedback and you're assuming that it would cause a stronger effect than carbon dioxide, as you stating that focusing on carbon dioxide ignores the effect of water vapor, why would the models predict higher warming? And, regardless of that, there are models that do match the warming trend, so your point is irrelevant.

>>7749639

Because the change 9000 years ago occurred gradually over centuries instead of quickly over decades, giving things time to adapt; human population is much larger than it was 9000 years ago and thus effects on agriculture and disease spreading are going to be more dramatic; there are significantly larger population centers along coastlines with more permanent structures than early human civilizations; etc. etc.

>>7749653
>dry for a few years
that kills trees too

>>7749697

I forgot who it was, but in the 1930s, a scientist made an estimate of warming based only on CO2. That esitmate is reportedly more accurate than the modern models that assume that there is a positive feedback from water vapor.

In other words, get rid of the water vapor assumptions and you get useful results.

>>7748727
>Many researchers can't even pick the right distribution.

I don't know much about stats, but some of my friends doing phds have bitched about this issue. How do you "pick the right distribution"?

>>7749867

To start, why would you trust information from the 1930s? That's 80 years of technological advancement - computers, satellites, etc. - that such a model would not be able to make use of. I really have no reason to believe that such a model would even be accurate, considering that we simply have so much more information now than 80 years ago. It seems like willful blindness. Furthermore, you still haven't shown me this model, so I have no reason to believe it even exists. And, finally, there are models that I have shown you that presumably do include the positive feedback loop from water vapor and still make reasonably accurate predictions, so I don't see what your point even is anymore.

Literally the only graph you need to understand this "controversy".

>>7749893

80 years of technological advancement to become less accurate?

In any case, you missed the point entirely. Basing his estimates on CO2 only he came up with predictions at least as accurate and as those of any modern researcher.

Why do you think that is?

>>7749894
*tips fedora*

Religious people deserve your RESPECT.

>>7749903

Trying to convince me that a model from over 80 years ago, which you have shown no proof even exists - not even the name of the researcher who came up with it - is as accurate as models produced by satellite data gathering, modern computing methods, etc. is really pointless. Unless you can actually find this model, I have no reason to believe anything you're saying.

>>7749108
Muh never been this warm before.

>>7749979
Yes, the climate has changed by actions not caused by humans before in the past. How does that disprove that humans are the cause of the current change?

>>7749108
Human alterations of temperature data has never been this strong before!

>>7749994

You tried to made this same point earlier in this thread and failed spectacularly. Congratulations, all you've discovered that scientists re-evaluate their data when new methods of analysis arise (e.g. figuring out how to account for purely local patterns that could affect temperature readings at stations), as they would in approximately 30 years of climate science.

>>7749108
>>>7749088
>>That requires more taxes. Taxes which will go to anything but resolving climate fluctuation.
>Also, believing in an unfalsifiable pseudo-science because you believe in a professional shill like me is really pathetic.
ftfy

The GCF is an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention... and is intended to be the main fund for global climate change finance in the context of mobilizing USD 100 billion by 2020.
http://unfccc.int/bodies/green_climate_fund_board/body/6974.php

http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/Climate-Finance-in-2013-14-and-the-USD-billion-goal.pdf

Remember its not about the money. Except for that $100,000,000,000 a year. Paid for by your tax dollars.

>>7749108
We love to compare old, low resolution/variance data to new, high resolution/variance data. Never mind that this is a statistical abomination.

Pic related. Proxies all the way through. Nothing unusual about today.

>>7749994

Even if humans are the cause, why does that make it bad?

>>7749941

Guy Stewart Callendar

>>7749108
>Water vapor is held in an incredibly tight equilibrium.
>It serves as a strong positive feedback, In Our Models
in the real world, not so much.
ftfy

>nb4 increased humidity in lower troposphere.
evaporation from surface heating == heat transfer =/= positive feedback
> but here are my (un)skeptical scienz copypasta references about lower troposphere humidity!
You sure love to demonstrate your copypasta abilities.

>>7750017
Human data tampering is the (false) "cause."

>>7750002
>I tried to counter this same point earlier in this thread and failed spectacularly.

>>7747120
Look at the careful "re-evaluation!" and pic related.

>nb4 here's an article reference i found in simpleton scienz!
That article talks about reducing a cooling trend. This climategate email discusses data tampering to reduce a warming trend.

>>7749983
Nothing outside the range of normal variation. Therefore to ascribe potential disaster/disruption/fright-du-jour to the very weak greenhouse gas, C02. Pic related. This strikes a rational person as a money-grabbing >>7750007
"the sky is falling" scheme.

>>7750011
Here's an improved version.

>>7750007
I wonder how many non-profit desk workers will be pulling a 6 figure salary from that billion dollars a year.

>CLIMATE DENIER SCIENCE DENIER

Or the new pollution credits the government wants to start handing out to different industries. Appropriating more in taxes isn't enough. They've found a way to monetize pollution while doing absolutely nothing to cut it down.

Real talk, bros.

>>7749697
Don't forget children, we pretend that only weakly varying solar influence exists.

Whatever you do, don't look behind that curtain (or at that pic) and see all those papers that demonstrate strongly varying solar influence.

>>7749697
Remember, only simple-minded linear explanations of temperature are allowed. Even very reasonable non-linear explanations like cumulative solar activity (combined with ocean oscillations) are not allowed. After all, that might lead to a highly plausible natural explanation of what is going on, and then we'd be out of a job.

>>7750050
>>CLIMATE DENIER SCIENCE DENIER
Thanks for the complement. I am proud to deny what is probably the greatest pseudo-scientific fraud since Lysenkoism.

BTW, that money will be going to well connected U.N. politicos and leaders of 3rd world countries. If you really want to help poor people, find a trustworthy charity and donate. I do.

>>7749095
>>7749108
>>7749697
I swear to god. Who would really give credence to such a tiny window of questionable data?

>>7749979
Oh, shit. I like this graph. It helps me to understand what life was like at around 7500 BP where find a lot of massacring of peoples in central Europe. They were experiencing intense cooling. Explains a lot.

>>http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/08/archaeologists-uncover-neolithic-massacre-early-europe

>>7750022

The reason for the data tampering is to try to make the temperatures match the models since they are unable to make the models match the temperatures.

>>7750057
>>7750057
oy veyyy, where did you find this graph goyim?

d-don't look at the solar activity goyim, it has nothing to do with weather, it's so far away how could a few sunspots affect anything.

pay me and dr shekelstein more shekels to figure out if this CO2 is causing global warming hehe.

>>7750072
>pay me and dr shekelstein more shekels to figure out if this CO2 is causing global warming hehe.

That really is what it feels like. You get funding to find evidence of Man Made climate change. It's getting paid to further a specific agenda.

>>7750020

Okay. Apparently he did have some decent data, pic related. I don't really know what to say, but it seems like the argument flip-flopped somewhere in there. I started out arguing against someone who was saying that water vapor wasn't being considered and then was arguing against someone who was saying water vapor shouldn't be considered. So I don't really know where to stand. Neat, I guess.

>>7750031

This says nothing about what these scientist were actually doing except vaguely; for all I know, they were constructing a temperature model and needed it to match "blips" in their observations. Unless you actually know what all this talk of "reducing blips" refers to, this really proves nothing.

>>7750042

Temperature changes of ~0.5 degrees Centigrade occurring over decades are not "within the normal range of variation."

>>7750045

This data is from Loehle 2007. The Loehle reconstruction mistakenly shifts all three of these records forward by 50 years due to erroneously assuming a 2000 start date for the BP time scale. Paleoclimatologists conventionally use 1950 as the BP (Before Present) base year. Loehle later acknowledged this error, and published a correction the following year. In the correction, he concludes that there was "little change in the results" after the aforementioned errors are corrected for. However, Loehle's paper suffers from other flaws, such as the fact that some of the sediment records Loehle uses to construct his graph are based on only a few measurements spread out over a 2,000-year period, and that, as a result, the uncertainty range around these measurements is too large for them to be compared to present-day temperatures.

>>7750052

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf

"The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

1/2

>>7750121


>>7750057

The only source I can find for this chart is a bunch of anti-global warming blogs. I really have no reason to believe any of this information considering that it comes from no credible sources. I mean, just to take a look at this, I started by Google reverse searching it, just got a bunch of blogs. Then I Googled "sunspot integrals," and got basically nothing on what that method actually is or why you would use it, although I got plenty of links to that chart. Then I decided to Google the paper the chart cites for sunspot data, Svalgaard 2014, and got a couple papers by the guy, but nothing that mentions sunspot integrals, plus plenty more links to that chart. Also I got a link to this site:

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/328

Which lambastes Svalgaard as a hack who denies any correlation between the sun and climate. I don't really have a judgement on it; it's some guy's blog with a link to some papers refuting Svalgaard's findings. Back to the main point, I really have no reason to believe the information your chart presents. It's like it literally has no source other than itself or some random people posting whatever they want on blogs. The method it uses isn't reasonable because I can't find any evidence that it's a valid method to use at all. Unless you can find verifiable sources for this information, I see no reason to believe it.

2/2

>>7750011
Where the hell did you get that graph from?

>>7750022
>Human data tampering is the (false) "cause."
The total "corrections" applied to datasets is tiny, and doesn't alter the long-term trends at all. Multiple people have demonstrated this.
Hell, you can just pull uncorrected data of most groups websites and FTP servers.

>>7750045
>published in Energy & Environment
I'm surprised the graph isn't made with finger painting.
There's no point throwing out graphs and data if you're sourcing them from places that aren't remotely trustworthy. I can draw graphs too, but that doesn't make them credible.

>>7750057
>Look how these two independent trends are both positive!
>Correlation implies causation!
Are you actually trying to prove something?

>>7750067
>I swear to god. Who would really give credence to such a tiny window of questionable data?
If we're interested in industrial influences on climate, how is 150 years a tiny window?
There are plenty of other, multi-millennia plots if you're into that.

>>7750099
>You get funding to find evidence of Man Made climate change.
And I'm sure you'll have no trouble posting evidence for your conspiracy theories?

>>7750031

I feel like I didn't address this fully in >>7750121.

To begin with, citing the CRU is a small group of researchers among thousands; even if they were as corrupt as some claim, it would not defeat empirical evidence acquired by other research groups. Second, the fact that this e-mail is taken completely out of context makes it virtually undecipherable, as I already said. There could be perfectly legitimate reasons as to why sea surface temperatures need corrections such as to account for local weather patterns from station sites or other sources of natural variation. Furthermore, I have no reference to what this 1940s blip is, what data set it's a part of (other than some set of sea surface temperatures), if changing it changes a broader change, anything at all. Once again, there could be perfectly fair reasoning for all this, but you've simply deliberately obscured that by highlighting this section and this section alone, and then further highlighting two sections talking about changing temperature data, when there could be perfectly good reason to do that.

You do this all the time with your arguments, posting incomplete or unreliable information, thinking it's some kind of "Gotcha!" when all you've found is exactly that, incomplete or unreliable information. It just reeks of confirmation bias. Then you claim that any attempt to disprove your information with more reliable sources is just proof that global warming is unfalsifiable, which feels almost like Kafka-trapping, i.e. any attempt to defend oneself is proof of guilt.

Tell me again how CO2 drives temperature?

geoengineeringwatch,org

>>7750724
How do we have CO2 and temperature data from millions of years ago?

>>7750724

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by carbon dioxide but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So carbon dioxide causes warming and rising temperature causes carbon dioxide levels to rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the carbon dioxide increase.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5849/435.abstract
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

>>7742342

Wow, this was dumb, you realize climate != weather?

>>7750867

Ice cores.

>>7750881

You are confusing ice ages with periods of glaciations.

And what you describe is a correlation.

Did you even read your citations?

Just opening one at random, I opened the third. There in the abstract we see this: "the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately know because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. ... This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years"

>>7751039
It's not simply a correlation, it's an observed mechanism. The greenhouse gas effect is an established fact. The absorption and release of CO2 by oceans is an established fact. Your ideological need to ignore these facts doesn't make them go away.

>>7751039

>You are confusing ice ages with periods of glaciations.

Semantics. Change "ice age" with "period of glaciation," and the argument remains the same.

>Just opening one at random, I opened the third.

Then there are still two papers there which support what I'm saying.

>"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years."

Except I never said there was no lag, I simply explained why there is one. Your argument is that there is a lag between carbon dioxide and temperature, therefore carbon dioxide cannot drive temperature. But the reason there is a lag is that the initial warming is caused by shifts in the Earth's orbit or other factors other than atmospheric carbon dioxide. This leads to a positive feedback loop where carbon dioxide is released from the oceans and causes further warming. Thus, carbon dioxide does still drive temperature.

>>7751068

Yes. They are well established -- in a laboratory environment.

But the Earthis not a pristine laboratory environment. What is not established is all the other factors that must be taken into account in a real world situation.

>>7751104
>Yes. They are well established -- in a laboratory environment.
They are well established as real phenomena in the real world. I am baffled by what it even means to say that ocean acidifcation is a "laboratory phenomenon". And yes, there are other factors, which is why climatology studies them. But you don't seem to care about all the factors, just the ones that confirm whatever you believe.

>>7751076
>Then there are still two papers there which support what I'm saying.

I looked at the second. It's actually the abstract of a paper, not the paper itself.

It looks to me like it is saying that the deep sea warming preceded both CO2 and temperature, both by ~1,000 years.

There is nothing in the abstract that says anything about CO2 leading temperature or temperature leading CO2.

So I'm not sure how that supports your claims.

>>7751115

You seem to be the one who ignores the other factors. What I say is that the factors make it far more complicated than the naive and simple view you are espousing.

>>7751104

You seem to effectively be saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist and/or the solubility of gases isn't affected by temperature, i.e. gases are more soluble at colder temperatures and less soluble at warmer temperatures. These aren't properties we have only observed in the laboratory; we have observed them in the natural world as well.

>>7751120

Because it's not in the abstract, it is in the body of the paper.

>>7751125

What other factors then? What factors would interfere with the greenhouse effect or the solubility of gases?

>>7751133

Nope.

What I'm saying is that we really don't understand it sufficiently to make the predictions that are being predicted.

Also, I'm not arguing about CO2 being released first by the oceans.

What I said earlier, and it still stands, is that based on the real data, you could make about as good a case that the temperature drives CO2 as you can that CO2 drives temperature.

Personally, I think there is some warming from CO2, but far less than what the alarmists think.

And I welcome that warming. For any amount of warming that we are likely to see, I think that it will be mostly beneficial.

For what it's worth, I used to worry about Global Warming. But when I saw how far off the predictions are and how crazy some of the predictions are, I started questioning the hysteria.

Are we seeing some warming? Probably. And I sure hope so. Is it going to be a disaster? Not likely.

If Global Warming helps postpone the beginning of the next glaciation, the people of the future will owe us an enormous debt of gratitude.

>>7751125
What exactly is my naive and simple view? All I have said are that these are main reasons climatologists have found for why the Earth is warming. This does not mean that these were the only factors considered. Yes, climatology is a very complicated field, but I don't think you understand it if you think that it cannot conclude what it's concluded.

>>7751152
>What I said earlier, and it still stands, is that based on the real data, you could make about as good a case that the temperature drives CO2 as you can that CO2 drives temperature.
That's because both are true. But the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be blamed on rising temperatures.

>Personally, I think there is some warming from CO2, but far less than what the alarmists think.
Based on what research?

>For what it's worth, I used to worry about Global Warming. But when I saw how far off the predictions are and how crazy some of the predictions are, I started questioning the hysteria.
such as? And please do not try to argue that tabloid media reports are scientific predictions.

This made me hard

>>7751183
Kinky

>>7751152

>What I'm saying is that we really don't understand it sufficiently to make the predictions that are being predicted.

What would lead you to think this? What exactly do we not understand? What information do you think we don't have? This would also cut both ways; your predictions would be hampered by the same lack of information as mine. So, instead of worrying about lack of information, let's deal with what we have and go from there.

>What I said earlier, and it still stands, is that based on the real data, you could make about as good a case that the temperature drives CO2 as you can that CO2 drives temperature.

You cannot make a case that temperature is driving carbon dioxide for the modern warming trend.

>Personally, I think there is some warming from CO2, but far less than what the alarmists think.

Why?

>And I welcome that warming. For any amount of warming that we are likely to see, I think that it will be mostly beneficial.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-spm-2.html

No, it will not.

>But when I saw how far off the predictions are and how crazy some of the predictions are, I started questioning the hysteria.

Except the predictions are not off. See >>7749697.

>>7750121
>>>7750052 (You)
>http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
>"The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
>warmist dismisses solar variability to maintain profitability.

You'll never get it will you. Warmists, who's financial solvency depend on continually reciting "much climate change," have zero credibility.

In reality, the best explanation of the rapid rise (beside coming out of a cooling period from about 1975) is data tampering.>>7749994

Pic related. Satellite data, the most accurate data in the mid-troposphere (where AGW is supposed to be strongest) rose a whopping 0.25 degrees. Don't tell me that's horrifically unnatural. Warmist quote or no

>>7751430

>Warmists, who's financial solvency depend on continually reciting "much climate change," have zero credibility.

You're not posting any evidence proving the paper's findings wrong. You're just dismissing it because it conflicts with your point of view.

>(beside coming out of a cooling period from about 1975)

And what mechanism do you propose for this? The Earth does not warm without cause.

>data tampering

You have yet to prove that any data has actually been tampered with. The only thing you've managed to drag up are some random e-mails.

>Satellite data, the most accurate data in the mid-troposphere (where AGW is supposed to be strongest) rose a whopping 0.25 degrees.

And where does this data come from, exactly? All it lists is "average 2 satellite data sets." So, which satellites?

Also, satellites do show significant warming in the troposphere, so your overall point is moot anyways. Pic related, data from:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean.txt

>>7751430
>mid-troposphere
and lower stratosphere in pic
RSS and UAH are the only quality class 1 series not considered inconsistent because of (too) frequent administrative adjustments.

>>7751468
You really do sit, staring at /sci/ all day. Must be nice to be a paid shill.

>You're not posting any evidence
I post satellite data, the most accurate data, showing 0.25 degrees warming.

>>7751468
>You have yet to prove that any data has actually been tampered with.
>Don't believe your lying eyes!
>>7745371
>>7745372
>>7747097
>>7747120
>>7749994
>>7750031
>The only thing you've managed to drag up are some e-mails proving fraud on the part of climate scientists.
ftfy

Just because you warmists are dreadfully gullible does not mean normal people are.

The moment they start shrieking about muh conspiracy is the moment they lose the argument, just don't reply.

>>7751468
>Also, satellites do show significant warming in the troposphere, so your overall point is moot anyways. Pic related, data from:
Link Does Not Work >http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Link Does Not Include Satellite Data >https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Link Does Not Work >ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean.txt

You really are a paid shill. Just throwing up as much crap as possible and hoping nobody calls you on it.

These satellite data show 0.25 degrees warming from 1985
>>7751430
>>7751538

>>7751468
LADIES AND GENTLEMAN
This thread is infected with a group of professional shills AKA "Crusher Crew"
>>7747104
and/or "The Rapid Response Team" you need to know how they operate.
>>7747107
1) they give references and links that often don't work or are not what they claim them to be:
>>7751468
2) they try to overwhelm by using the "Gish Gallop" technique. A technique name in honor of the Creationist debator Duane Gish. Like Mr. Gish, they defend their fundamentalist dogma by spewing large amounts of posts, often with references which are not what they claim to be an statements filled with half-truths and outright lies:
>>7744258 Utterly false, 0.8 degrees C from 1890 (maybe more after data tampering)
>>7744356 Strawman and tangential, CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas
>>7744843 People predicted global cooling in 1975
>>7744946 References to the political organization, the IPCC as if it were the gospel truth
>>7745055 Flat out lies like "based on direct measurements" temp data are vastly altered
>>7745123 incredible naivete or just making it up, "PRC doing good job" - does suggest communist sympathies
>>7745394 Appeals to popularity and authority "muh consensus"
>>7747438 Desperate euphemisms "re-evaluate temp data" = rewriting temp history
>>7747869 Defending the indefensible, like the fraudulent hockey stick. + Strawman references discussing CO2 covaries with temps. Never mentions that global temps always go up BEFORE CO2
>>7748225 Ad hominem, AGW is a "vast conspiracy" to skeptics. As if there's never been a wrong theory before.
>>7749092 Deceptive graphs which bury information (bottom graphs are satellite data which show no warming for 15 years)
>>7749108 Endless reliance on cherry-picked graphs which conveniently start at the end of the Little Ice Age
>>7749697 Deceptive arguments from ignorance. "If I use tampered data and cherry-pick low variance solar data, nothing natural can explain temperatures"
1/2

>>7751538
>>7751591

If you want further proof that there has been warming in the troposphere, here is a chart from Vinnikov et al. 2005 (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/TrendsJGRrevised3InPress.pdf).).

>>7751601

Is it really just inconceivable to you that scientists re-evaluate their data as new methods of analysis arise? That is all those charts suggest. You're making completely unfounded claims. And the e-mail I have already dismissed, and you have not presented any rebuttal.

>>7751634

The surface data is from Jones and Moberg 2003 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C0206%3AHALSSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2)..

The UAH data is from Christy et al. 2003 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0426(2003)20%3C613%3AEEOVOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2)..

And the RSS data is from Schabel et al. 2002 (http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/Stable_Tropospheric_Time_Series_IGARSS.pdf).).

>>7751687
Cont.
>>7750121 Endless reliance on hockey stick graphs which are statistical garbage because they take old very low resolution data (thus low variance) and add new high variance data to the end of the graph.
>>7750135 The usual authoritarian excuses, "anti-global warming blogs"
>>7750217 More whoppers: "total "corrections" applied to datasets is tiny,", see, e.g., >>7749994
>>7750235 Apologetics for fraud getting unexpectedly exposed
>>7750881 Irrelevant references: 1) CO2&temp varies (so what) 2) got warmer first in south hemisphere (so what) 3) CO2 goes up AFTER temps go up; EXACTLY
>>7751179 More ad hominem, to get people to accept a long history of failed predictions

And so on...
LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, if you don't want groups of professional shills to infect your threads, dog these people as much as possible. Call them out when they lie, when they give bad references and non-references. When they display tampered data and dismiss ClimateGate emails.
In short, when they try to protect and grow what could turn out to be one of the greatest cases of financial fraud in history: >>7750007

>>7751687
>>7751709

>they try to overwhelm by using the "Gish Gallop" technique.

I mean, if we want to talk about "Gish Galloping," isn't that exactly what you're doing now? You've made a total of 17 arguments all at once here. And, furthermore, you've received responses, usually with evidence to back them up to basically all of these arguments, all of which you've made before and are now just reiterating without evidence. Some of them are even irrelevant to the post or the topic at hand, like you call some posts strawmen, even though they are not presenting someone's argument in a weaker form. You call out a post for deceptive graphs, even though it has no graphs in it and makes no reference to any posts with graphs. You call out the IPCC for being a political organization, as if that really matters or has any bearing on the truth of its publications or the data those publications are based off of. It's like you just ignored everything that's been said to prove you wrong. You're claiming to be the rational party here, and yet you seem to be ignoring any counterarguments to yours. Instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears and crying about shills, why don't you actually examine the evidence presented before you and come up with a rebuttal? Repeating the same arguments over and over again will not make them true or convince anyone of their validity.

Oh, and one other thing:

>People predicted global cooling in 1975

Significantly more papers were published on warming. Pic related, from Peterson 2008 (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf).).

>>7751687
>>7751709
Wait, are you really "calling out" people for ignoring graphs that come from WUWT, in favor of graphs from actual climatologists?
Jesus Fucking Christ.

>>7751133
>Because it's not in the abstract, it is in the body of the paper.

How convenient since it's behind a pay wall.

>>7751857

Not my problem.

>>7742325
First of all, 'global warming' is a scam, but climate change is very real. To say the globe is experiencing a general warming, is just wrong, but the fact that our climate is changing is well known. Things affecting climate change are directly related to human activities. The term 'anthropogenic' is used to differentiate between human and natural causes. By releasing mega tons upon mega tons a day of green house gases, we are making it harder to understand and predict future climate. Other anthropogenic sources of climate change include deforestation, removal of swamp/marsh lands, pollution of water bodies, adding fertilizers water bodies leading to massive algae growth and removal of oxygen from water from the decay of said algae.

But obviously the Sun is the major player in our climate. The cycles it goes through correlate directly with our weather patterns. Uncovering more data from the Sun and understanding how to predict future activity would greatly help us to predict our weather. But this doesn't mean our actions are negligible. It doesn't take a genius to see that we are releasing more carbon into our environment then the natural carbon cycles can handle. All of this carbon has taken millions upon millions of years to be stored under the ground. To dig/pipe it up to the surface and burn off in the blink of an eye, in geological terms, can't be ignored.

Some people use the plants defense when it comes to too much carbon in the air, saying "the plants will just grow faster and bigger". But this is a lie. The plants will only take in as much CO2 as they can given other environmental conditions. The extra will find a different place to sequester. The oceans are a potential sink for this extra carbon, resulting in a decrease in pH (our oceans become more acidic). This in turn harms biological life and sends ripple effects elsewhere.

TLDR
Not enough evidence to say global warming is real, but climate change is. Sun is major, humans minor.

>>7751868

Many greenhouse owners pipe in CO2 to make the plants grow faster and bigger.

>>7751867

So we should trust you what it says?

That sounds just like an alarmist.

>>7751868
Nice assertions.

>>7751868
>'global warming' is a scam

>>7751890

No, you have no reason to trust what you cannot read. But unless you disagree with any of the following:

1. Previous warming periods were initiated by causes other than carbon dioxide.
2. Gases (such as carbon dioxide) are more soluble at colder temperatures than at warmer temperatures.
3. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and heightened concentrations in the atmosphere cause warming.

I would believe those things to be common knowledge. Then the reasoning behind why showing a carbon dioxide lag for previous warming periods does not prove that this warming period is not caused by carbon dioxide is valid. Changes in the Earth's orbit or other factors lead to warming of the planet and, thus, the oceans, thus releasing carbon dioxide as it becomes less soluble in water at the higher temperature. This carbon dioxide can then go on to cause further warming in a positive feedback loop. Thus, carbon dioxide levels appear to lag temperature historically. But the modern warming trend was started by carbon dioxide and is being continued by carbon dioxide. So there's no reason to suggest there would be some sort of lag. An increased temperature beforehand isn't necessary for increased carbon dioxide levels to cause warming; carbon dioxide can just do that on its own, if that makes sense.

I now realize that the papers just go into detail about how carbon dioxide spread from the oceans to the atmosphere or discuss carbon dioxide records; they're not really that relevant and my argument really didn't rest on them. I apologize for the confusion.

>>7751923

Are you saying that about 1,000 years after the oceans warm they reduce CO2 which raises temperatures?

Or are you saying that the oceans warm and release CO2 that results in higher temperatures about 1,000 years later?

>>7751923
>Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and heightened concentrations in the atmosphere cause warming.
Higher CO2=Higher photosynthetic rates.
Higher photosynthetic rates=Less CO2.

The great thing about nature is that is very much self-correcting.

>>7751923

Are you saying that about 1,000 years after the oceans warm they release CO2 which raises temperatures?

Or are you saying that the oceans warm and release CO2 that results in higher temperatures about 1,000 years later?

>>7751936

What happens when there aren't enough plants to correct for the amount of carbon dioxide you've inputted into the atmosphere? Or you are actively destroying the number of large plants that could help mitigate its effect? You can't just assume things will stay in equilibrium.

>>7751938

I don't see much of a difference between the two, but I would say the second one.

One thing that should be clearly obvious is that any feedback loops are limited.

If they weren't limited, then over the bilions of years that the Earth has been here, with feedback loops making things worse and worse, the climate would not be expected to be very hospitable for life.

In the case of water vapor, some types of clouds do act as greenhouse gases and absorb the infrared being radiated into space. But other types of clouds act to reflect sunlight back into space and thus reduce the energy that reaches the Earth.

As the Earth warms, there would clearly be more water vapor in the air since warmer air can naturally carry more water vapor. So is there any evidence that the types of clouds that act to absorb the infrared radiated from the ground change in number? How about for those types of clouds that act to reflect sunlight back into space?

>>7751942

If it takes 1,000 years for CO2 to affect the temperature, then doesn't that destroy many of the alarmist arguments we see here and elsewhere?

>>7751947
>If it takes 1,000 years for CO2 to affect the temperature, then doesn't that destroy many of the alarmist arguments we see here and elsewhere?

Yup, you solved it. You outsmarted all those scientists

>>7751947

No, I think I was confused because the suggestions were so similar. The paper says that tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after deep-sea warming, around the same time as the carbon dioxide rise, "Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ∼2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ∼1000 years."

I guess that's your first suggestion, my mistake. Sorry.

>>7742332
this

>>7742340
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/14-15-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming
It has nothing to do with El Nino, my man.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.
Typical warmist drivel. Again, the circle jerk where a warmist writes a paper that attempts to rewrite the past. Never mind the actual history. Just like tampered data, they try to rewrite history.

National Academy of Sciences said there was Global Cooling, pic related.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

CIA believed in Global Cooling

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

A consensus of Climatologists believed in Global Cooling

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

NCAR, part of the NOAA believed in Global Cooling

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

Climatologists saw no end to Global Cooling

>>7753240
>>7753243
>>7753245
>>7753247
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Exxon still going at it hard I see, never gets old you guys.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

Untampered NASA GISS data showed significant Global Cooling
Sorry paid shill. Perhaps you can take a time machine and get them to change their old data.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

Hurbert Lamb, former director of Hadley Climate Research Unit and the father of modern climate science (pre AGW) beleived in global cooling.

Sorry paid shill. Your standard technique of rewriting the past ain't work.

>>7744442
>lets ignore the available evidence because being completely ignorant is useful

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.
Almost all warming occurred by 1918 as of 1989. Compare to new, tampered data.>>7749994


Paid shill, this is what happens when people check that past and find out you're full of crap.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

NCAR's data showed global cooling.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

James Hansen, former director of NASA GISS believed in Global Cooling, pic related.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

A NASA scientist discusses a coming ice age.

>>7753240
>>7753243
>>7753245
>>7753247
>>7753253
>>7753258
>>7753263
>>7753269
>>7753273
>>7753277
>All this denial
You don't even see shit like this about the holocaust on /pol/, surely a new age for /sci/.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

Climatologist, Dr. Schneider of NCAR discusses global cooling.

>>7753258
>Global Cooling
I think this is pretty solid science when looking at geological time, cooling molten core of earth and all that. It's weird because when they kicked off the climate propaganda in earnest back in the 70's it was ice age mongering, reckon they couldn't spin that into a hydrocarbon tax, warming was easier, or they figured since the last glacial maximum was only 20k years ago things would indeed warm for a bit.

The monkey cult grows dull after thousands of years I guess. Obviously some despots want to shut the taps off and save what is left for some totalitarian wet dream and globalized sheeple farming. The dialect has amazing traction, you can see why some people are suckered into "saving earth" and the "even if it's wrong fossil fuels are bad" lines but whoa, they are going to wake up with a real hangover should they enable a world government based on horseshit. It's already been done, they were called the dark ages.

>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
FTFY.

Bonus. Pre-AGW fraud, climatologists agreed that there was a medieval warming period in the 11th century. This was an inconvenient truth, so Mikey Mann erased it. They also believed in significant warming in the 1930s, before data tampering erased it: >>7749994

>Significantly more papers were Cherry Picked by a person trying to rewrite the past.
>cherry picks a few articles, mostly from media sources and not from actual scientific papers
You can't make this shit up folks.

>>7751693
>Is it really just inconceivable to you that scientists re-evaluate their data as new methods of analysis arise?
It is inconceivable to me that a real scientist wouldn't do a fundamental check of temp measurements; namely comparing to clean data. If there is disagreement,then the "re-evaluation" AKA tampering is wrong.

Here, clean data. Data without UHI, TOB problems and instrument problems shows that "re-evaluated" data over-estimates warming by more than 50% from about 1979. Whoops, that turns a 'massive' warming of 0.5 degrees C to 0.3 degrees C.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/

This study will be ignored, except to be pilloried. Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative designed to scare people into coughing up $100,000,000,000 for the U.N. and its cronies.>>7750007


>nb4 evil denier.
Prove it wrong without "corrections are true, so clean data is not true."

>>7753254
>hurr durr, just because Dr. Hubert Lamb, head of Hadley CRU and the father of modern climatology believed in global cooling doesn't changed the fact that its an Exxon conspiracy.
unSkepticalScienz can't rewrite the past. They do trick chumps like you into coughing up your hard earned tax money, so their U.N. buddies can steal $100,000,000,000 >>7750007

>>7753240
>>7753243
>>7753245
>>7753247
>>7753253
>>7753258
>>7753263
>>7753269
>>7753273
>>7753277
>>7753281
>>7753283
>>7753292
they try to overwhelm by using the "Gish Gallop" technique. A technique name in honor of the Creationist debator Duane Gish. Like Mr. Gish, they defend their fundamentalist dogma by spewing large amounts of posts, often with references which are not what they claim to be an statements filled with half-truths and outright lies:

I know /sci/ is smarter than this but still, you can't even see the irony?

>>7753302
Prove it. Show articles from the 60s and early 70s showing Hubert Lamb believing in AGW.
Show a global temp graph from that time which did not have the cooling period from about 1945 to 1975
Show an article written by James Hansen during that time period that says there wasn't a cooling period.
Show an article from NCAR/NOAA stating there was no global cooling during that time.

The deceptive article referenced by our favorite paid shill: >>7751766
mostly references articles that consider possible future warming. This is not the same as saying no global cooling. Once again, the paid shill, does a bait and switch and you fall for it. When my taxes go up to pay $100,000,000,000 to 3rd world dictators who work for the U.N. I'll have useful idiots like you to thank.

Paid Shill technique: post irrelevant/strawman references.

>>7753320
Referencing the factual past =/= strawman/irrelevant/factiods

>yfw you realize the guy babbling about "paid shills" and "$100,000,000,000" is a false flag to make skeptics look like loons

>>7753286

I think that image is the map of the part of Dallas that I got lost in the last time I was there.

>>7753333
Do you have proof you're not a paid shill? With the speed and effort you're putting into this it looks like you have far too much to lose from people believing in the opposition.

>>7753240
>>7753243
>>7753245
>>7753247
>>7753253
>>7753258
>>7753263
>>7753269
>>7753273
>>7753277
>>7753281
>>7753283
>>7753292

I don't see your point with posting evidence of a cooling trend in the 60s and 70s. The 1960-1970 cooling trend was linked to industrial aerosols per, for example, Rasool and Schneider 1971 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138).). They state, "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K." However, aerosol levels decreased with the passing of the US Clean Air Acts and other measures in the late 1970s. Thus, aerosol levels did not quadruple, but decreased, pic related from Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf).). This permitted the effect of rising carbon dioxide levels to resume warming, confirming the findings of the majority of papers which reported on that trend instead.

So, you accuse me of cherry-picking scientific papers, but then show no scientific papers that conflict with my evidence. You just cherry picked random newspaper articles, presumably picking up on media hysteria. You have yet to show that more scientists were actually publishing on global cooling; all you've shown is that newspapers reported more on global cooling in the 60s and 70s, because there was an ongoing cooling trend at the time due to industrial aerosols.

>>7753333

>mostly references articles that consider possible future warming. This is not the same as saying no global cooling.

Except I never said there was no cooling trend in the 60s or 70s. All I showed was that more people predicted warming than predicted cooling, and in response you showed that there was cooling from 1940 to 1975, which is completely irrelevant. You haven't shown more people predicted cooling than warming.

>>7753343
I'd love to be getting that kind of money. Since you believe in the evil Exxon and Koch conspiracy, why don't you call them up and tell them to send me some big money.

In all seriousness, you've got to get your conspiracy theories straight. Shell, Exxon etc. WANT a carbon tax. Google shell and carbon tax.

Why? because it would destroy the coal industry, giving them more business. You really need to start talking about a coal conspiracy.

>>7742325

[math] \displaystyle R = \bigg\{ x \neq R \;\; \bigg| \;\; x \notin x \bigg\} [/math]

THERE. I just fixed your stupid thing and saved you two long, boobless hours.

>inb4 no you didn't

Yes, I did, so. Oh no, something doesn't work or acts goofy or leads to contradictions. Then you just reject it. We plug singularity-holes in functions all the time and nobody bats an eye, but apparently this meme required an overhaul of everything (it didn't). Now we can chuck ZFC et al and go back to using "naive" terminology for everything.

>>7753303

>>7753303

>This study will be ignored, except to be pilloried.

You have pushed so far outside the realm of rational discourse that highly credible sources that disagree with you can only be flawed and part of a grand conspiracy, and any information you post is absolute fact, regardless of the credibility of its source. Case and point: this, literally just a self-published article from some random guy's blog. Also, you didn't even read it right; it says that it changed a 0.324 degree trend into a 0.204 degree trend. Also, it does that by ignoring roughly two-thirds of the temperature meters.

>>7753346
>Except I never said there was no cooling trend in the 60s or 70s. All I showed was that more people predicted warming than predicted cooling, and in response you showed that there was cooling from 1940 to 1975,

Welcome back, paid shill. My wallet is already getting lighter.
What was that you said:
>>7751766
>Significantly more papers were published on warming.
What was that reference?, Oh yeah:
>>7751766 >Peterson 2008
Title: THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Notice that doesn't say "the myth of future predicted global cooling." And notice how the cooling period has been erased, pic related >>7747097

So what gives? As the graph of NASA GISS temps shows, Climate "Scientists" have erased the majority of cooling from 1940 to 1970. And you reference a revisionist paper saying that scientists didn't believe in Global Cooling. But you got caught, so you do a bait and switch to pretend that you didn't say there wasn't Global Cooling, but instead there wasn't much predicted Global Cooling. But the paper you referenced did say it, and NASA GISS erased it. If modern climate "science" doesn't deny significant global cooling, why did they erase it?

Paid Shill technique: misrepresent what you said when you get caught being wrong.

>>7753383
>with you can only be flawed and part of a grand conspiracy, and any information you post is absolute fact, regardless of the credibility of its source.
>Gosh, you nailed me with the demand that data "corrections" must show results similar to clean data.
You: projecting conspiracy theory ideation onto someone making a strong, rational argument.

> 60% error in rate of warming ain't nothing. But 0.5 degrees will kill us!

Paid shill technique: Resort to ad hominem when confronted with fundamental facts that don't fit the narrative.

>>7749979
The fuck, this graph only shows central greenland. WHY IS THIS RELEVANT?

>>7753388

>Notice that doesn't say "the myth of future predicted global cooling."

From the abstract:

"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was
predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming."

Don't judge a book by its cover. This paper is definitely discussing predictions of global cooling, not global cooling in general.

And the rest of your argument is irrelevant. You showed no papers predicting global cooling, just statements that the world was cooling in the 60s and 70s, which I have no quarrel with.

Also, it does not appear that period was erased; it appears to have just been flattened out by the longer time scales.

1/2

>>7753436

>>7753396

>You: projecting conspiracy theory ideation onto someone making a strong, rational argument.

Your argument is neither strong nor rational when the only sources you can bring up to support it are not credible. I have no reason to believe what is supposed to be solid scientific information, when in fact that information is from untrustworthy sources.

>Gosh, you nailed me with the demand that data "corrections" must show results similar to clean data.

Because there is no requirement that this be; you've just insisted that it must be true. There are dozens of possible effects that are outside of your control that you can account for when analyzing climate data; it can be perfectly justifiable to remove such effects well to reveal underlying trends.

Also, your paper makes corrections to the station sites by removing almost 2/3rds of them, and this correction does not even closely match the data from the other 808, which in turn is more similar to the data of all stations, adjusted slightly. There's also no comparison to the raw data from all 1218 stations, presumably because it too was fairly similar to the corrections, and the author didn't like that. So, by your own requirements, your data is less trustworthy.

2/2

So "greenhouse gases" reflect long-wave radiation more than short-wave radiation?

>>7742716
>how can people be so stupid
• half of population has double-digit IQ
• media pander to lowest common denominator
• gullible, unsophisticated, credulous, simple-minded majority easy to manipulate
dumbocracy in action

>>7742716
>The real question is how can people be so stupid to believe this global warming ISN'T caused by humans. Such dumb people.
Because it's entirely within the realm of possibility that if the world dropped it's human-caused emissions to zero tomorrow that the Earth would keep on heating, and we still have no clear understanding of how much humans are actually contributing to climate effects (current models have failed predictions). It is something a lot bigger than we are.

It's still obvious that we should be focused on cutting emissions because pollution if nothing else. But nobody really cares about the world or the environment, they just care about being right and playing the politics war.

>>7745394
>when here in Australia we're just digging up every rock that'll burn.

Our economy pretty much runs on mining export

>>7742325
I know this isnt specific but... essentially we can infer through many different sources/methods that the earth has gone through many temperature variations over time, very hot very cold, etc. We know that the gasses in the atmosphere are directly related to these changes (high levels of this substance directly related to higher temp/lower temp bla bla). But so far thats basically all that is concrete. We know that these things are related. This is a fact. What we dont reeeeeaaaally understand is the cause. So does more of this substance lead to or cause this temperature change??
We arent 100% solid in that area.
HOWEVER.
The changes that we are seeing (if actually part of a bigger trend) are absolutely insane.
We are almost sure that what humans are doing is leading to climate change, we are seeing changes, but the fickle nature of weather in general and having no "control" to compare the data to kind of makes it really confusing.
The thing is it doesnt fucking matter! Who doesnt want to work towards a cleaner future? I mean really

>>7753998
yes

If you're wondering about the poltard shilling in this thread, some of these cultists have come up with the idea of "meme magic," that reality can be changed if enough people believe in it. It's white nationalism meets new-age Tinker Bell bullshit.

This contingent wants to will global cooling so that all the white Nordic Ice People will thrive and all the bad brown people from warm places will starve.

It seems like a huge troll, but if you delve into the depths of poltard stupidity you'll see that there's many mental defectives that wholeheartedly believe it. The poltard in this thread is one of them. To his mindset the validity of his opinion doesn't matter, only the memeing.

>>7754504
Meme magic is a meme. As in people posting it ironically with only autists who can't into innuendo thinking they're sincere.

Literally the equivalent of a Nigerian forum poster who thinks Ebolachan is real.

>>7754513
There's a lot who are posting it ironically, but you're underestimating the number of shitposters who are sincere about it. Such people tend to be full-blown mentally ill with paranoid delusions of conspiracies, and so are suckered into the worst kinds of woo imaginable. Illuminati, the paranormal, and white nationalism / neoreactionism is a trifecta of stupid that's commonly seen together off 4chan as well.

Our shitposter here has shown strong indications of being of the same flock, which led to my appraisal.

>>7744545
Holy fuck get off /sci/

>>7744395
>genetic fallacy
Also, nice rebuttal.

>>7747921
>It should be a clue that you're arguing with strawmen when you're the one that has to introduce the supposed argument.
That's right guys, all the arguments on this thread simply existed and were not actually introduced to this thread by anyone. Or they're all strawmen...?

Daily Reminder that most of Earth's biomass is locked up in the oceans and 99% of fossil fuels come from microorganisms in the ocean

>>7753441
>Also, your paper makes corrections to the station sites by removing almost 2/3rds of them, and this correction does not even closely match the data from the other 808,

Removing bad data is the antithesis of attempting to "correct" data. It's what real scientists do. Please stop the false re-labeling to deceive. The other 2/3 of the data are bad because of UHI, instrumentation problems etc. That's why they were removed; they didn't fit NOAA class 1 or 2 station requirements etc. So of course those removed data don't match; they're bad data.

In all seriousness, you have an incredible lack of ability to think in a scientific fashion. The fact that you can't understand a principle so basic as "to test if data corrections are right, the corrected data must correspond to clean data" is telling. This explains your belief in a pseudo-scientific dogma.

>>7753436
>>Notice that doesn't say "the myth of future predicted global cooling."
>From the abstract:
>"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was
>predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming."

As usual, the paper is a bait and switch. The paper is touted as proof that scientists weren't worrying about global cooling in the 70s. That is the bait. In reality, the paper is an assertion that scientists didn't agree on the cause of global cooling. It falsely attempts to show that there was much more worry about global warming. As usual, the author cherry-picked the papers. A little effort can show that there were many more papers worrying about global cooling; with varying theories of the cause, though including anthropogenic turbidity/aerosols.

So what is really going on here? The huge worry about global cooling was very real in the 60s and 70s. The cooling began in about 1945, at the same time as a huge upswing in CO2, pic. related.

continued

>>7755416
continued.

However the embarrassing lack of warming during this period has lead to a rewrite of the cooling period. Pic related. So NASA rewrote the global cooling cutting the temperature drop from almost 0.30 degrees to about 0.15. Similarly, they shortened its length from 30 years to less than 10. In short, the altered the past to protect a pseudo science. Interestingly, scientists of the time rightfully concluded that CO2's effect was weak. This, of course, is not discussed now.

Bray, J. R. 1959. An analysis of the possible recent change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Tellus 11: 220-230.
Plass G.N., 1956. The carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Tellus 8, 140-154.

>>7753436
Lots of ignored Global Cooling papers:

Mitchell Jr, J. Murray. "The effect of atmospheric aerosols on climate with special reference to temperature near the earth's surface." Journal of Applied Meteorology 10.4 (1971): 703-714. Definite cooling, unclear cause.

Braslau, Norman, and J. V. Dave. "Effect of aerosols on the transfer of solar energy through realistic model atmospheres. Part I: Non-absorbing aerosols." Journal of applied meteorology 12.4 (1973): 601-615.

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971.

EUSAESSER, HUGH W. "HAS MAN. THROUGH INCREASING EMISSIONS OF PARTICIPATES, CHANGED THE CLIMATE?." Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants (1974): 41.

Frisken, W. R. "Extended industrial revolution and climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 52.7 (1971): 500-508.

NEEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. "LAWRENCE UVERMORE LABORATORY." (1972). "Global cooling of natural origin could exceed in magnitude changes experienced in historical times.

Potter, Gerald L., et al. "Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation." (1975): 697-698.

Kukla, George J., and Robert K. Matthews. "When will the present interglacial end?." Science 178.4057 (1972): 190-202.

Gribbin, John. "Cause and effects of global cooling." Nature 254 (1975): 14.

Lamb, Hubert H. The current trend of world climate: A report on the early 1970's and a perspective. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1974. "Much has been written about the global cooling... has been overstressed as regards to its practical implications... There are solid grounds for regarding this as a dangerous misconception."

continued

>>7755421
Kukla, George J., and Helena J. Kukla. "Insolation regime of interglacials." Quaternary Research 2.3 (1972): 412-424. "...the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experiened hitherto by civilized mankind."

Lamb, H. H. "Changes of climate." Wright & Moseley (1975): 169-188.

Fletcher, Joseph O. MANAGING CLIMATE RESOURCES. No. RAND-P-4000. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1969. "We may already be inadvertantly influencing global climate. ... a weakening circulation, southward shifts of ice boundary..."

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have Had An Ambiguous Climatic Influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.

Carter, L. J. 1970. The global environment: M.I.T. study looks for danger signs. Science 169: 660-662. Increased turbidity causes gobal cooling.

Lamb, H. H. 1969. Activite volcanique et climat. Revue de Geographie Physique et de Geologie Dynamique 11: 363-380.

Paterson, J.T. and Bryson, R.A. 1968. Atmospheric aerosols: increased concentrations during the last decade. Science 162: 120-121.

Bryson 1974. A perspective on Climate Change. Science. 184:753-760. The "debunking" paper falsely classifies this as "neutral." Bryson thought anthropogenic aerosols were causing global cooling.

>>7755415

>Removing bad data is the antithesis of attempting to "correct" data. It's what real scientists do.

So when your side makes corrections, it's removing bad data. But when my side does it, it's making faulty corrections. What a pleasant double standard you've set up.

>The fact that you can't understand a principle so basic as "to test if data corrections are right, the corrected data must correspond to clean data" is telling.

To begin with, you haven't really defined what "corrected data corresponding to clean data" means. Should it be exactly the same? Should you see the same general trend? What exactly?

Next, for example, correcting for air resistance when comparing the acceleration of a dropped a feather and a dropped ball will give you a completely different result than if you compare it without accounting for air resistance. But, according to you, data corrections must "correspond" to clean data, so we can't correct for air resistance to show that all objects actually fall at the same rate.

Also, your paper even fails in this regard because it leaves out the full raw data set of the 1218 sites to compare to its "corrected" set of 410 sites. You can't even see if the new set "corresponds" to the old. Why do you trust what doesn't even meet your own demands, unless it confirms your preconceived biases?

So, we conclude: the test for determining whether corrections are legitimate is not whether the corrected data "corresponds" to the clean data; it's whether or not the corrections are justified in and of themselves. For example, climatologists usually remove the effects of large volcanic eruptions, as they are basically random events that, though they have a significant impact on the Earth's climate, serve only to obscure underlying trends, and you do this with your study by suggesting that the data from unfavorable sites should be removed because of their problems.

1/?

>>7755416
Wow, that pic is hilarious. What kind of a caveman do you have to be for that argument to make sense to you? There are other factors affecting temperature, which is why you see variation. But the overall trend is the temperature rising as emissions rise.

>>7755418
In the previous pic, Global Cooling ended in 1968 and there was a huge upswing in temps from 1970 to 1980. Thus we see that Peterson (2008) cherry-picked the dates to look for "global cooling" papers from 1965 to 1979. Effectively concentrating their search during a significant period of global warming. So surprise! they found a lot of global warming papers. Again, bait and switch. This is how dishonest climate "scientists" can be.

>>7755456
>>Removing bad data is the antithesis of attempting to "correct" data. It's what real scientists do.
>So when your side makes corrections, it's removing bad data. But when my side does it, it's making faulty corrections. What a pleasant double standard you've set up.

At this point, you're not even reading or thinking. By the definitions of the NOAA, those data were not used. Not based on what the data said, but on the status of the temperature station. That's good science. To equated ignoring data taken from bad conditions with after-the-fact tampering is absurd. You're really desperate.

>>7755461
Hurr durr, resort to insults. Muh other factors. For 30 long years of cooling. More unfalsifiability, and that is the fundamental problem with Climate Change: it is not a science. As the philosopher of science, Karl Popper pointed out, in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. And he meant this in a very real way; not just an abstraction (see the quote below). He said, essentially, "every experiment is a falsifiability test." If negative results of experiments do not falsify a theory it's an unscientific testing of the theory.

But all plausible observations are compatible with Climate Change. Whether snow becomes rare, or snow becomes more common; it's all good. Troposphere temperatures go up significantly or they don't, either way, it's OK. If the "hot spot" signature is found, that's proof of climate change, but if it's not found, no problem. Or if the Antarctic sea ice melts or it grows either is compatible with Climate Change. Extreme weather increases or it doesn't increase, well that's OK too.

>>7755418
>A little effort can show that there were many more papers worrying about global cooling; with varying theories of the cause, though including anthropogenic turbidity/aerosols.
Well let's see

>Mitchell Jr, J. Murray. "The effect of atmospheric aerosols on climate with special reference to temperature near the earth's surface." Journal of Applied Meteorology 10.4 (1971): 703-714. Definite cooling, unclear cause.

>Braslau, Norman, and J. V. Dave. "Effect of aerosols on the transfer of solar energy through realistic model atmospheres. Part I: Non-absorbing aerosols." Journal of applied meteorology 12.4 (1973): 601-615.
No, these papers discuss the effect of aerosols on temperature. They do not even attempt to predict the global temperature trend. Since you have apparently not read these papers I suggest you do and then directly quote the parts where you claim they predict global cooling.

>>7755469
I think you'll have to choose between "aha this chart from some guy's blog proves global warming is false!" and "global warming is unfalsifiable!" because those arguments contradict each other. Just because your argument was debunked and you have failed to argue your point does not mean what you are arguing against is not falsifiable. It just means you are arguing without the support of evidence, in which case you should stop and rethink your position.

All it would take to falsify AGW is to show that CO2 does not trap heat. Or that humans are not adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Shouldn't that be easy?

>>7755416

>Lots of ignored Global Cooling papers

Let's go through these, shall we? These are the ones I could find:

Mitchell 1971: "Suggestions by several previous authors to the effect that the apparent worldwide cooling of climate in recent decades is attributable to large-scale increases of particulate pollution of the atmosphere by human activities are not supported by this analysis." Definitely not cooling.

Braslau et al. 1973: "Extensive calculations aimed at determining the effect of aerosols on the solar energy absorbed, reflected and transmitted by cloudless, nonhomogeneous, plane-parallel atmospheric models were recently carried out with the object of treating the radiation transfer in as comprehensive a manner as possible consistent with reasonable computing time." Neutral.

Bray 1971: "These relationships support the results of a previous study and suggest that the effect of 500 supersonic transport aircraft may lead to reduced surface temperatures and possibly an intensfication of alpine glaciation." You read one sentence from the abstract and assumed it supported your conclusion. The paper is actually examining something completely different: what would happen if there were 500 supersonic aircraft flying around. You also cited this twice.

Frisken 1971: "We must understand how the climate is going to change and whether man's activities can influence climate." Neither warming nor cooling.

Gribbin 1975: This is actually cited by the Peterson paper. It was not predicting cooling, but discussing the current cooling trend.

And I see no reason to go through any more these as it would just be a giant waste of my time, considering you failed to give links to any of these and I'm not going to go around Googling for papers that may or may not even be online. So, congratulations, you have failed to find any papers that actually predicted cooling. You just found a bunch of irrelevant articles and have yet to show evidence of cherrypicking.

>>7755467

How is ignoring certain data points to make a subset that shows a trend different from the full data set not making a correction to the full data set?

>>7755463

Those dates were chosen because that is the time period generally cited for when there was hysteria about global cooling. Also, none of the papers you showed were from outside that period either, so I don't see what your point is.

>>7755467
Actually the Watts paper you posted has nothing to do with NOAA's rating of its own station. The classifications and "compliancy" of the stations discussed in the paper are Watt's own system from data gathered by commenters on his blog. Basically he classified stations only according to whether they are affected by UHI. So there is nothing "clean" about these stations and the results of the study are completely expected. If you ignore all sources of error that cause lower temperature readings and only focus on UHI, you will get a temperature record that's cooler than NOAAs. That's really the only thing that can be concluded from this study. It's rather silly.

>>7755418

>Bray, J. R. 1959. An analysis of the possible recent change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

"Criteria minimizing differences in operators, location, and time of observation are established for selecting comparative data on atmospheric CO2 concentration during the past 100 years." This is just about carbon dioxide concentrations, not whether or not carbon dioxide's effect is weak.

>Plass G.N., 1956. The carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Tellus 8, 140-154.

"Simple explanations are provided by the CO2 theory for the increased precipitation at the onset of a glacial period, the time lag of millions of years between periods of mountain building and the ensuing glaciation, and the severe glaciation at the end of the Carboniferous. The extra CO2 released into the atmosphere by industrial processes and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise during the present century. In contrast with other theories of climate, the CO2 theory predicts that this warming trend will continue, at least for several centuries."

I don't know about you, mate, but this seems to be saying carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate.

>>7742325
">" Trump will fix

>>7755469
>But all plausible observations are compatible with Climate Change. Whether snow becomes rare, or snow becomes more common; it's all good. Troposphere temperatures go up significantly or they don't, either way, it's OK. If the "hot spot" signature is found, that's proof of climate change, but if it's not found, no problem. Or if the Antarctic sea ice melts or it grows either is compatible with Climate Change. Extreme weather increases or it doesn't increase, well that's OK too.
Out of curiosity: are you making this bullshit up on the spot, or are you just regurgitating shit off of a crappy denier blog? Because none of that is widely held as predictions of climate change, except by people trying to discredit it.

Snow may become more common due to warming winters, but the number of factors involved makes that far from clear.
The "tropospheric hot spot" was never a signature of AGW.
Global Warming is strongly biased northwards. Antarctica hasn't seen much of it.
"Extreme Weather" is incredibly hard to predict, and its causes and nature vary between locations.

If you want to see actual falsifiable predictions, I suggest you start with the IPCC reports - at least then you'll be looking in the right direction.

>>7755425
Byerknes, J., 1958: "Related Fluctuations of Trade Winds and Northern Climates," Geophysics Helsinki, Vol.6 , No. 3-4. 169-177

Budyko, Mikhail I. "The future climate." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 53.10 (1972): 868-874.

Bryson, Reid A. "“All Other Factors Being Constant…”: A Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climatic Change." Weatherwise 21.2 (1968): 56-94.

Budyko, M.I., 1962: "Certain Means of Climate Modification," Meterologlia i Gidrologlia, No. 2:3-8.

Budyko, MI, Drozdov, Yudin, 1966: "Influence of Economic Activity on Climate," Contemporary Problems of Climatology, Leningrad.

Budyko, M.I., 1967: "Variations of Climate," NMet. i Gid., No. 11.

Lamb, H.W. 1966: The Changing Climate, London, Methuen.

Lamb, H.W. 1966: "On Climatic Variations Affecting the Far South," 1966 WMO Technical Note No. 87, Geneva.

Lamb, H.W. 1966: "Climate in the 1960's" Geophys. J., Vol. 132, Part 2.

Maximov, S.1954: "Secular Fluctuations of Ice Conditions in the Northern Part of the Atlantic Ocean," Trudy Inst. oceanology, Vol. VIII, Moscow.

Mitchell, .H. Jr., 1963: "On the Worldwide Pattern of Secular Temperature Change," Changes in Climate, Proc. Rome Symposium, UNESCO.

Nazarov, V.S., 1963: "Amount of Sea Ice in the World Ocean and Its Variation." Okeanologiya, Vol. 3, No. 2.

Rubenstein, E.S. and L.G. Polozova, 1966: "Contemporary Climatic Variations," Hydrometerological publishing House, Leningrad.

>>7755421
>>7755425
>>7755949
Big oil&gas and Big coal already debunked these so no one reads them.

>>7754380
>we still have no clear understanding of how much humans are actually contributing to climate effects
>It's still obvious that we should be focused on cutting emissions because pollution if nothing else.

/thread

>>7755756

That's a good point about the Global Warming bias to the North (or to the poles).

Many people seem to think that an average increase of 2 C means that everywhere is 2 C warmer. We can see the hysteria on this thread and elsewhere. The reality is that Global Warming will be more at higher latitudes.

Locations at the equator may see some increase in temperature, but it will hardly be noticeable. In contrast, it could easily be 5C or more at the poles.

So while the tropics aren't going to be affected much, it will open up new areas for productive farming. It's a win-win.

>>7756241

Farm areas aren't going to exactly be productive if they're in near-constant drought or flooded, or if that greater farming area comes at the cost of old growth boreal forests and other biomes that help to further regulate carbon dioxide levels. Furthermore, the US, for example, already produces more food than it actually needs. We pay farmers not to grow on their land so that the grain market doesn't crash from oversupply. Why would we even need more farmland?

>>7756266

You do realize, don't you, that warmer air can carry more moisture than cold air?

>>7755974
>still obvious that we should be focused on cutting emissions
OK, let's start by dismantling the UN and their globalist cobgobbling buffets of bullshit and bureaucratic buffoonery?

>>7742332
correlation does not imply causation

>>7756433

To bad northern soil it too shit to grow anything.

>>7756241
>That's a good point about the Global Warming bias to the North (or to the poles).
It's not to the poles, it's to the north.

>We can see the hysteria on this thread and elsewhere.
No-one is being hysterical.

>Locations at the equator may see some
increase in temperature, but it will hardly be noticeable.
That's not a widespread prediction. Hell, many places on the equator have already seen noticeable warming.

>So while the tropics aren't going to be affected much, it will open up new areas for productive farming. It's a win-win.
You're either incredibly ill-informed, or actually delusional.
The tropics are going to be strongly affected, due to their strong connection to the ocean's climate. And basically every study is predicting a LOSS of farmland, with some showing it happening already.

>>7754625
You just suck at banter and get trolled easily.

>>7755756
>The "tropospheric hot spot" was never a signature of AGW.
As always rewriting history to protect an unfalsfiable dogma.

>Hurr durr, IPCC doesn't care about the hot spot:
Translation, after utter failure, they dropped it in IPCC AR5 to maintain unfalsifiability. But, they certainly included in their previous work:
IPCC, Assessment Report 4, (2007), Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14 Page 631 shows the numerical prediction of water vapor increase. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
And see the attached figure for a graphic of the modeling results of that prediction. Sure looks like hot spot.

Funny how NOAA data don't show the hot spot (and see attached for a graphic of the data). That's why warmists hate satellite and radiosonde data; you can't tamper with it via UHI, TOB and instrumental "adjustments." Look at the data yourself, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/igra/index.php

So now that you deny Atmospheric Physics, which part are you denying?
1. There are high water vapor levels above the equator.
2. The Hadley Cell above the equator features upward wind currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
3. The moist adiabatic lapse rate has decreased. (fundamental to AGW theory)
4. A decreased lapse rate means that water vapor will go higher into the troposphere above the equator.
5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense.
6. Water vapor condensation is an exothermic reaction.

>>7758353
Part II
> Global Warming is strongly biased northwards. Antarctica hasn't seen much of it.
And now you're rewriting the history of climate change/sea ice predictions about Antarctica:
Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

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

>If you want to see actual falsifiable predictions, I suggest you start with the IPCC reports
>I'll hide behind authority because I can't answer the question and neither can the IPCC.
Why don't you state these predictions? Oh yeah, there aren't any. Except regurgitations of things already falsified which are tweaked to make them unfalsifiable. Seriously who do you think you're fooling?

Name a plausible falsifiability condition/test. It must be casually connected to anthropogenic CO2 and show a significant possibility of Catastrophic/Disruptive/whatever-nom-du-jour climate change. Because that is the essence of Climate Change theory. And it must clearly distinguish from normal climate/weather.

Wrong answers: "CO2 isn't a green house gas," essentially no one says it has no effect. The correct skeptic position is that the effect is weak. And no, "You have to wait 100 years/until we're all retired." is not an answer.

There is no plausible observation that can falsify Climate Change theory and that is why it is not science.

>>7755511
This take NOAA classifications and makes them more substantive.

>>7758353
Why are you copy pasting posts from old threads?

>>7755509
>full data set not making a correction to the full data set?
Because the rest of the data set is considered bad data =/= corrected data.

>Those dates were chosen because that is the time period generally cited for when there was hysteria about global cooling. Also, none of the papers you showed were from outside that period either,

As usual, its a strawman argument. "Public hysteria" =/= "scientific worry." Science tends to be ahead of the public. So early 70s was coming out of the Global Cooling phase. This meant science worried about it then. However the 70s showed strong Global Warming, so science (ahead of the public) stopped worrying about it. A non-cherry-picking examination of papers would be around the dates 1955 - 1975. Its not a coincidence that the vast majority of papers cited in that study are from the second half of the 70s decade. After the strong uptick in temps had begun.

>>7758376
>Please stop asking that unanswerable question!
No one has answered the question because they can't

>>7758373
Ignoring most of the sources of error is not more substantive, it's less substantive. This is why homogenization is important as well, because records of TOB changes are very incomplete. But even if you ignore the massive flaws in the paper, the results are rather insignificant. It fails to show that homogenization creates the warming trend.

>>7758353
>As always rewriting history to protect an unfalsfiable dogma.
He's correct. The hotspot has zero bearing on whether or not man-made emissions are warming the planet. Can you explain why you think it does?

>That's why warmists hate satellite and radiosonde data; you can't tamper with it via UHI, TOB and instrumental "adjustments." Look at the data yourself, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/igra/index.php
LOL there were a number of problems with satellite and radiosonde data, which can seen by the simple fact that none of them agreed with each other. Instrument error seemed to be a big problem but they have been getting more accurate. The latest studies show even more warming in the troposphere than on the surface:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=D8E5F7E856EC070CB3A7ACC37B5015D2.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

The troposphere hotspot meme is rather outdated.

>>7758361
>The correct skeptic position is that the effect is weak.
OK, so prove the effect is weak and you've falsified AGW. Congratulations.

Again, you'll have to choose between "the evidence that AGW is false is right in front of your eyes!" and "AGW is unfalsifiable!"

>>7758353
>>The "tropospheric hot spot" was never a signature of AGW.
>As always rewriting history to protect an unfalsfiable dogma.
The hotspot isn't a prediction of AGW, because it isn't driven by the greenhouse effect.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm

Also, you're seriously overstating the degree of certainty in satellite troposphere measurements. There's a reason that surface measurements are used preferentially, and it's not "huur duur the conspirusy!".

>>7758361
>http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268
I'm not seeing the issue here. That effect doesn't contradict the overall northward trend.

>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
>The results of the simulation indicate a global annual warming of 3.5°C with enhanced warming found over land and at higher latitudes.
Okay?

>Name a plausible falsifiability condition/test.
Go dig one of of the IPCC reports yourself, you lazy bum.
I'm not an actual climatologist, why would it be reasonable to think my predictions are going to be anything like rigorous?

But if you must have a shit prediction: "Global temperatures will continue to rise on a multi-decadal scale to keep track with the known forcing from atmospheric CO2, independently of solar or volcanic activity. Atmospheric CO2 will show an isotope balance increasingly matching that of buried carbon."

Btw /sci/ bros
Exxon's guiding principles
The following principles guide our relationships with our shareholders, customers, employees, and communities.

Shareholders
We are committed to enhancing the long-term value of the investment dollars entrusted to us by our shareholders. By running the business profitably and responsibly, we expect our shareholders to be rewarded with superior returns. This commitment drives the management of our Corporation.

Customers
Success depends on our ability to consistently satisfy ever changing customer preferences. We commit to be innovative and responsive, while offering high quality products and services at competitive prices.

Employees
The exceptional quality of our workforce provides a valuable competitive edge. To build on this advantage, we will strive to hire and retain the most qualified people available and to maximize their opportunities for success through training and development. We are committed to maintaining a safe work environment enriched by diversity and characterized by open communication, trust, and fair treatment.

Communities
We commit to be a good corporate citizen in all the places we operate worldwide. We will maintain high ethical standards, obey all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and respect local and national cultures. Above all other objectives, we are dedicated to running safe and environmentally responsible operations.

Exxon Mobil Corporation aspires to be at the leading edge of competition in every aspect of our business. That requires the Corporation's resources — financial, operational, technological, and human — to be employed wisely and evaluated regularly.

We aspire to achieve our goals by flawlessly executing our business plans and by adhering to these guiding principles and the foundation policies that follow.

Hey dudes and dudettes
For more information pls go to http://corporate.exxonmobil.com
And remember we aren't BP, yet.

>>7759783
>>7759830
Wow I didn't know that Exxon™ had such a high quality of standards

>>7759857
I agree, and by the way there is no empirical evidence that shows global warming. It's just baseless conjecture from Big Solar and Big "science/research"

ITT: people who let the communist Jews control you with their made up "global warming"

>>7759864
Ikr

>>7759857
This tbqhfam

>>7759864
This

>>7759783
ExxonMobil Gift Helps Jonathan’s Place Serve North Texas Children
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-gift-helps-jonathans-place-serve-north-texas-children
He's right Exxon™ is such a caring company

>>7759783
>>7759830
>>7759857
>>7759860
>>7759866
>>7759873
>>7759864
>>7759894
>>7759892
Fucking stop this isn't funny

>>7759904
Why would you want us to stop talking about the ways Exxon™ helps the world?

>>7759783
>>7759830
>>7759857
>>7759860
>>7759866
>>7759873
>>7759864
>>7759894
>>7759892
>>7759908
Samefagging so hard

>>7759783
>>7759830
>>7759857
>>7759860
>>7759866
>>7759873
>>7759864
>>7759894
>>7759892