/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8243966
It's a conspiracy by solar power industry and liberal academics. There's been no warming since 1893, in fact we're in a cooling phase.

What if they aren't looking for something logical ?
What if they just wanna watch the world burn ?

>>8243966
>~40% say conspiracy theory
>taking account of citizens with a computer the average IQ of 103
>hmmm let's not consider nor explore why people voted this way

Conspiracy
Misrepresentation

>>8243966
see
>>8243755

stop peddling hysterics.

>>8243972
Cite.

>>8244084
>hysterics
How else can draconian global governance be installed if not through global hysteric memes?

nothing left to deny

>>8244124
lmao wat ?
so it has not been steadily rising. this chart shows that its just another fluctuation. Otherwise we wouldn't have a colder summer in 2008 than 2004

>>8243997
Oh Noes! The Captain of Denial Science has spoken.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=227

"This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade."

http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

>>8244149

>>8244159
Remember what our captain and supreme climatologist John Cook said about denial:
>>8243997
Evil deniers cherry pick.
This graph is NOT cherry picking because it begins 1997
>>8244124
This attached graph IS cherry picking because it shows 10,000 years of temperatures.

>>8244177
kek. the world is actually cooling down.

>>8244177
Is that really your best argument? That climate change is natural therefore humans can't cause climate change?

That is literally equivalent to saying forest fires are natural therefore humans can't cause forest fires

>>8244159

>>8244211
> Ad Hominem!!!
Wah, wah, wah...
Insisting that only official Climate Scientists can voice opinions on the subject.
Ooooops.>>8244159

Endlessly calling Climate Skeptics conspiracy theorists
>>8243972
>>8243997

Endlessly calling them "deniers"
>>8243966
A not-so-subtle reference to holocaust deniers.

Poor baby, a victim of ad hominem. Listen to the music.

>>8244230
The music is playing for you.

>>8244177
Oh, great, each of those x-axis ticks represents 1000 years. That means that the 1900s onward, the modern age of cars and industry and what have you, all happened in that last 1/10th of a tick.

1 tick is ~40 pixels. That means the industrial age covers the part of the graph in pic related. Seems like the graph you cited is rising at an increasing rate to me.
..

>>8244230

>>8244247
Once again, the profound statistical mistake of mixing high resolution data (daily recordings from instrumental record) with low resolution data from proxies (approximately 50 year resolution). Put that 100 year spike through a 50 year mean value smoother and it will completely disappear.

>>8244251
Conspiracy theorist!
[Holocaust like] Denier!
Oil company shill!
If you don't have a Ph.D. in climatology, Shut Up!

>>8244283
needs moar exclam

>>8244276
>mean value smoother
Lrn2trend-analysis, Professor Tukey

>>8244203
False equivalence

Burning down trees in a nearby forest takes a lot less effort and a lot less energy than say heating up a 5.972 × 10^24 kg ball of mass by 2 degrees C.

clearly american meteorologists are lying motherfuckers

>>8244352
>Burning down trees
... increases carbon dioxide and heat content
in the atmosphere, while simultaneously
depleting the carbon-dioxide removal rate.
Good example, Anon!

>>8244230
>Endlessly calling them "deniers"
"deniers" appears only in the post below,
Lrn2endlessly and cease to hysteric, fgt pls
>>8244177

>>8244352
Global warming is caused by a lot more effort than burning down trees in a nearby forest. What is your point?

>>8244393
>>8244405
>reading comprehension

I'm pointing out how his statement "That climate change is natural therefore humans can't cause climate change? That is literally equivalent to saying forest fires are natural therefore humans can't cause forest fires" is a false equivalence.

The effort it takes to burn down trees is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the amount of effort needed to warm up the planet by man-made pollution, without the help of natural geological and extraterrestrial changes.

Humans can cause forest fires without nature's help. Humans cannot warm up the entire planet by tens of degrees alone without nature's cycles stepping in. That's what I'm saying.

>>8244405
Lrn2false-equivalence fgt pls

>>8244409
>I'm pointing out
just stop fgt pls

>>8244409
Then you clearly no nothing about climate at all or you would realize that my statement is not false equivalence at all.

But go ahead and keep being an uneducated dick

I understand that GHGs cause warming but I'm against any costly actions that would try to mitigate their release as I don't see much harm in having more CO2. Mesozoic Earth had huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and that didn't prevent life from thriving. Maybe it's way cheaper to just build walls to bar the sea level rise than to try limit fossil fuel use. Maybe corals don't die from acidification if they survived 10-times bigger CO2 levels in ancient times. Maybe it would be fun to have Antarctica ice free and warm again.

>>8244413
>its a false equivalence guise
Maher ? is that you ?

>unironically making global warming threads on /sci/
Nobody can be this retarded

>>>/x/

>>8244409
>That is literally equivalent to
>a false equivalence
You are literally equivalent to
an illiterate equivocator.

>>8244950
O'Reilly? Is that you?

>>8244950
>>8244962

Two hosts, both alike in dignity
On fair /sci/, where we lay our scene
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed faggots take their life...

>>8244962
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPdkF0ehCZo

>>8244971

>>8243966
disregarding the hilarity of trying to ascribe a "global temperature" to a system as dynamic and complicated as the earth....

ask them by how much was it a record? then ask them what is the standard error on the relevant measurements.

>>8245006
>ask them
no U

>>8244955
clearly you can be
even more retarded

>>8245025
the "record" is less than a tenth of a degree difference, which is ten times smaller than the standard error.

you couldn't publish that result in fucking highschool.

>>8245313
back to >>>/x/ dumdum

>>8244400
What's the name of the picture here?
"DENIAL-response"
What's the title of the graph in that picture?
"Response to Global Warming by climate change DENIERS"
What's the term used at the end of anon's comments?
>What do you DENIALISTS say?

Three times in one post. And endlessly used by AGW believers everywhere.

>>8244392
>>8243966

Actually only 52% of meteorologists accept climate change. Not exactly an overwhelming consensus. Why? Many of them aren't dependent on big government for their salary.

The government funded French meteorologist; well we know what happened to him.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/

>>8246704
Dumb shit that's 52% believe that humans are causing climate chance.

87% believe that it is happening. Christ how the hell do you fail at reading a figure so hard?

>>8243966
>let's test if the collective memory still remembers the doctoring of historic data in 2014 & 2015 where temperatures from 100 years ago dropped a few degrees, and let's see if anyone remembers warnings about sun's flares being extra active in 2015

Fuck off, shill

>>8243966
The world has gone through changes all along its history. No one is denying that the world climate changes. The bullshit factor is the idea that it's "human caused."

>>8246710
>a slight majority believes humans cause climate change therefore it's correct
Holy fuck democracy fucks with the heads of retards. That's not how science works.

Anthropological climate change is unfalsifiable and therefore inherently unscientific.

>>8245321
see:
>>8244334

>>8246721
>unfalsifiable
Lrn2science fgt pls

>>8246710
>Dumb shit that's 52% believe that humans are causing climate chance.
>87% believe that it is happening
Christ, don't get your panties in a bunch. The term "climate change" is usually used as a short-hand for "anthropogenic climate change." Sheesh, your autism is showing.

>>8246716
>>8243966

Did you say "doctoring of data." As this comparison gif shows, NASA would NEVER change the data!

http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Evaluating-The-Integrity-Of-Official-Climate-Records-4.pdf

>nb4 Evil denier.
You guys scream about the wrongness of ad hominem.

>>8246730
Can't provide a falsifiability criterion can you? How about it? Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for CAGW. It must distinguish from natural climate variance.

FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
If CO2 wasn't a [VERY WEAK, logarithmic temperature response] greenhouse gas.

>>8246778
Oh look, it's this crappy graph again.

>>8246808
>Can't provide a falsifiability criterion can you?
Do you even have the slightest idea about the subject you're trying to discredit?

Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification. For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause. Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.

>>8244944
You would not want to try and live during the Mesozoic. Most species on Earth alive today would not survive during the Mesozoic.

>>8244944

Who's Afraid of CO2?

According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256))

"Increasing atmospheric CO2 is an unmixed blessing - it will bring currently unproductive land into use and bring greater yield from existing land without additional fertilizer use. This is a wonderful benefit in being able to feed an increasing world population."
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate5.htm

New paper finds oceans net source of CO2

>>8247163
Great, more resources for third worlds to squander, endless dog days, and no more snow. Sounds like paradise.

>>8246778
>comparing a graph of 'Heat Wave Index' with a graph of 'Percent of Land Area'

What the fuck is this?

>>8247268
two different measures of
two different things, ya think?
Lrn2read fgt pls

>>8247163
>mine safety regulations
O RLY?

>>8246840
>falsifiability
>falsification
babby's new werdz for this week

>>8246808
>a plausible falsifiability criterion
Lrn2science fgt pls

>>8247351
Growers routinely supplement 1000ppm because 400ppm is still close to starvation level.
(resource=water)

>>8244203
>Is that really your best argument? That climate change is natural therefore humans can't cause climate change?

No, it's not the argument.

The argument is that humans aren't playing a large role and that change is not catastrophic.

1) Even the IPCC, the climate vatican, has been forced to admit global warming does not cause extreme weather.

2) 1/3 of the CO2 man has released since 1750 has been released since 1997. Since that year, as you saw before, there has been no global warming. A massive dump of what is supposed to be a primary climate forcing (whose effect is mostly immediate, with the lag effect being reduced) causing no warming should be cause for revision, not doubling down. If you believed in the scientific process, you would admit that.

And lastly, just to pile on here, climate science isn't science. There's no control Earth.

>>8244691
>Then you clearly no nothing about climate at all or you would realize that my statement is not false equivalence at all.

You certainly don't. Alarmist climate models don't include ocean oscillations, the wind, volcanoes, THE SUN and others. Their predictions therefore constantly fail. If our weather predictions fail within days, how can we claim to understand the climate? And no, weather and climate are not separate. That is an arbitrary distinction.

And your statement is.

>>8246840
>Do you even have the slightest idea about the subject you're trying to discredit?
>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification. For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause. Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.

Wow. The irony of this post is mind-blowing.

Neither of those standards work for a situation in which the global temperature goes up along with CO2. There would be no way to scientifically prove CO2 was or was not the cause. You can't go back in time and run the Earth again while changing only one variable.

I mean, your second example might even show up if you're right! CO2 might be causing huge amounts of warming while another factor is depressing the temperature. You would throw out your own hypothesis without ever knowing you were actually correct.

You need to learn about the scientific method before you try to argue about these things, man.

>>8243997
>FLICC
didn't know the greenbeanposters were putting together infographics now

>>8244177
>studying proposed effect operating on timescale of ~100 years
>selects 20-year and 10,000-year intervals
>HURR, ARE SHORT INTERVALS CHERRY-PICKED OR ARE LONG INTERVALS? IT CAN'T BE BOTH LOL

>>8244944
>maybe modern life will miraculously adapt to wholly different conditions, since there used to be life adapted to those conditions
hey, why not just switch to a reducing atmosphere entirely? just get rid of all the oxygen and replace it with CO2 and methane. after all, there was plenty of life before the Great Oxygen Catastrophe!
one lesson of paleontology is that while life survives massive disruptions, the organisms present after the event are not usually the same ones that dominated before.

>>8246704
>meteorologists
>climate
you might as well ask an astrologer about astronomy, faggot

>>8247163
>Increasing atmospheric CO2 is an unmixed blessing - it will bring currently unproductive land into use and bring greater yield from existing land without additional fertilizer use.
>CO2
>limiting factor of terrestrial primary productivity
>limiting factor of marine primary productivity
pick one and only one
saying more CO2 means more plant growth is like saying more flour means more cookies.

>>8248187
>Alarmist climate models don't include ocean oscillations, the wind, volcanoes, THE SUN and others.
literally a lie. don't think so? prove me wrong.

>>8248204
>There would be no way to scientifically prove CO2 was or was not the cause.

Take a chemistry class brainlet

>>8248171
>The argument is that humans aren't playing a large role and that change is not catastrophic.
And that runs directly against the current consensus.

>Even the IPCC, the climate vatican
For fuck's sake.

>has been forced to admit global warming does not cause extreme weather.
Do you have a reference? GW isn't the only driver of extreme weather, but AFAIK higher surface temperatures definitely have an effect.

>Since 1997 there has been no global warming.
That's simply not true.

>A massive dump of what is supposed to be a primary climate forcing (whose effect is mostly immediate, with the lag effect being reduced) causing no warming should be cause for revision, not doubling down.
What? Even if the "haitus" was a major thing (and given whether it exists at all is debated, it's not), short-term noise doesn't contradict the existence of long-term trends.

>>8248187
>Alarmist climate models don't include ocean oscillations, the wind, volcanoes, THE SUN and others.
Volcanic activity can't really be predicted, but all the other tings definitively part of most climate models. Why would you assume climatologists don't understand that the sun affects the climate? That's high-school shit.

>If our weather predictions fail within days, how can we claim to understand the climate?
Because those are two different things.

>And no, weather and climate are not separate.
Your ignorance isn't very convincing.

>>8248204
>Neither of those standards work for a situation in which the global temperature goes up along with CO2.
They were two EXAMPLES. There's no single test that can falsify AGW, because it's a massive topic of study spanning multiple fields. Instead you would need to falsify different components of it separately. Actual science is different from what gets drawn on a whiteboard in high school - very little gets thrown away due to a single experiment.

>You need to learn about the scientific method before you try to argue about these things, man.
Yes. You do.

>>8248252
>>meteorologists
>>climate
>you might as well ask an astrologer about astronomy, faggot
Faggot hypocrite, what's this thread about?
>>8243966
>American Meteorologists say 2015

>>8246840
>Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.
You idiot, can't read, can you? What did I say?
>>8246808
>FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
Your phony falsification criterion fails because "multi-decadal" always means longer than we've waited!

There was no warming from 1945 to 1975! 3 decades. Despite a huge increase in anthropogenic CO2. So by your criterion, Anthropogenic Climate Change theory has been falsified.

Now you're going to come back and say that doesn't count, proving the theory is unfalsifiable.

>>8246840
>>>8246778
>Oh look, it's this crappy graph again.
> Oh gosh, those are actual NASA graphs! They show how fraudulent the modern temperature record is.
> I'll call them crappy, because ad hominem proves these graphs don't count
Warmists are supreme hypocrites >>8244211 >>8244251

So you posted a graph that completely rewrites the history of temperature and cherry picks the starting point.
>>8244177

Gosh, by your own words, cherry-picking is a sign of bogus science.
>>8243997

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification. For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution,
GREAT! Your theory has been falsified, see refs below.


Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
Airborne Fraction Rate: 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade since 1850
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ZERO CHANGE SINCE 1850!

More science below.


Quirk, Tom. "Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide." Energy & environment 20.1 (2009): 105-121.
"The yearly increases of atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the change to seasonal variation which implies that the fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year that it is emitted."
C13 temporal peaks correlate with ENSO events.


Segalstad, T. V. "The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. American Geophysical Union." Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. 1992.
Stable 13C/12C isotope ratios (expressed as δ13CPDB) can be used to compute the composition of atmospheric CO2. The natural atmo-spheric CO2reservoir has δ13C .-7lwhen in isotopic equilibrium with marine HCO3Gand CaCO3
. CO2from burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials has δ13C .-26l. δ13C reported for atmospheric CO2was -7.489lin Dec. 1978, decreasing to -7.807lin Dec. 1988 (Keeling et al. 1989; AGU Geophys. Mono. 55, 165-236). In -300 years old Antarctic ice δ13C = -6.31 of trapped CO2(Friedli et al. 1986; Nature 324, 237-238). If the decreasing δ13C was only caused by mixing natural CO2with CO2from burning of fossil fuels or plants (current -79%/-21% CO2mix; lifetime 50-200 years; IPCC 1989), the current atmospheric CO2δ13C should be much lower than reported.

>>8246840
Response here:
>>8249146

>>8246840

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

A flat out lie. The predicted hot spot didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.

>>8249161
>>8246840

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

Another flat out lie. The increased upper troposphere water vapor didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.

>>8249166
>>8246840

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

And another flat out lie. The predicted warming was supposed to flat line no longer than 17 years. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count. As I've said before, There was no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. Prof. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval).
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."

Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

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

>>8249161
>nb4 We didn't predict that!
References right here

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf . P. 675, 9.1(f).

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

>>8246840
>For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause

Great, so if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlated to anthropogenic CO2 flux, that's a nice falsification of the theory.

So here's your reminder. Mass change of atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT correspond to the flux of anthropogenic CO2. Jaworski 1997, pic related. That's right, the increase of atmospheric CO2 is linked mostly to a warming world, not anthropogenic CO2. Despite all the paid shills, atmospheric CO2 has a very short half-life. About 5 years, here's a few of MANY references.

CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9: 18–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

ARNOLD, J. R. (1957), The Distribution of Carbon-14 in Nature. Tellus, 9: 28–32. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01850.x
CO2 Half-life: 10 years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Carbon dioxide: its natural cycle and anthropogenic perturbation." The role of air-sea exchange in geochemical cycling. Springer Netherlands, 1986. 209-247.
CO2 Half-life: 4-9 years.

Also, C-12 to C-13 carbon:
"Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning (~60 GtC vs. 8 GtC, with about the same average d13C level)." Roy Spencer, evil denier.

>>8249031
>>>8248204
>>Neither of those standards work for a situation in which the global temperature goes up along with CO2.
>They were two EXAMPLES. There's no single test that can falsify AGW, because it's a massive topic of study spanning multiple fields.

Nonsense. Its a house of cards.
>>8249096
>>8249146
>>8249161
>>8249166
>>8249177
>>8249191

>CO2 half-life 5 years
This has been the result of studies for years.
Do the IPCC modelers still use 50..200 years?

It's funny how global warming is only an issue when the weather is warm, but not when the weather is cold. Interesting psychology.

The truth is that global warming will cause some adaptation costs in the far future, but they will be a small fraction of economic growth by then. The international coordination required to prevent it is unprecedented and unrealistic, while the adaptation can be done in a dynamic, bottom-up and local way.

>>8249554
>The international coordination required to prevent it is unprecedented and unrealistic, while the adaptation can be done in a dynamic, bottom-up and local way.

This.

Australia gave up their green tax because it was doing nothing but making life difficult. China continues to burn high-sulfur coal. India continues to make charcoal. Africa continues to burn everything. Brazil continues to cut down the rainforest. Raising taxes in the vain hope that it would do anything is a solution?

>>8246699
just say no

>>8249710
Yep. UFO denialists and santa claus denialists too amirite ?
>>>/x/

>>8244084
>>8244104

When you stop selling it I won't buy it.

>>8249096
>FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
That's not what I said. Also, that's not how the UN works.

>Your phony falsification criterion fails because "multi-decadal" always means longer than we've waited!
It generally means >=30 years. We have more data than that.

>There was no warming from 1945 to 1975
Which would be a really big deal, except we have strong reasons to believe that was due to post-WWII aerosol emissions.
Like I said, the climate is a big complex thing. You can't just point to a single graph and claim that falsifies everything.

>Now you're going to come back and say that doesn't count, proving the theory is unfalsifiable.
It does count, it's just not a falsification because it's not inconsistent with the model we have.
If you could show that the known forcing COULDN'T explain a change in trend, then you might have something worth looking into. But ignoring some of the known factors going into global temperatures means your falsifying a model that doesn't actually exist.

>>8249115
> I'll call them crappy, because ad hominem proves these graphs don't count
That's not what ad-hominem means.
Also, that image is crappy because it's almost impossible to read, and blatantly assumes that any change in the temperature record is done to deceive people, rather than to correct for discovered artefacts. You can't just point to climatologists doing their jobs and assert that the work they're doing is part of a grand conspiracy.

>So you posted a graph that completely rewrites the history of temperature and cherry picks the starting point.
The start of the graph is the start of that temperature series. That's hardly "cherry picking".

>>8249146
>Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
>Airborne Fraction Rate: 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade since 1850
>THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ZERO CHANGE SINCE 1850!
Okay. So what?
That paper doesn't contradict andything I've actually said.

>Quirk, Tom. "Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide." Energy & environment 20.1 (2009): 105-121.
>Energy & environment
No.

>Segalstad, T. V. "The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. American Geophysical Union." Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. 1992.
I can barely even find any references to this. It's mentioned once in E&E, and that's it.

>>8249161
>A flat out lie. The predicted hot spot didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.
The "hot spot" wasn't a prediction of AGW. It was a prediction from atmospheric physics, completely divorced from the source of the warming. That it didn't happen is interesting, but has nothing to do with the presence or lack of CO2-driven warming. The actual prediction from AGW was stratospheric cooling, which DID occur.

>>8249177
>The predicted warming was supposed to flat line no longer than 17 years.
It didn't. Go look at and surface or ocean measurements, rather than the satellite proxies. RSS underestimates the hell out of warming trends (I think they fixed that in newer graphs?), and that trend you like strongly requires the use of 1997 or 1998 as a start point. Not terribly impressive.

>There was an actual pause: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
>McKitrick
I honestly don't give a fuck about that guy.

>>8249191
>Great, so if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlated to anthropogenic CO2 flux, that's a nice falsification of the theory.
Only on long timescales. The year-to-year carbon exchange is pretty large, so there's no point comparing every 12 minute interval.

>Despite all the paid shills, atmospheric CO2 has a very short half-life. About 5 years
Yeah, no.
You're confusing the exhange rate with the ground and ocean, with the actual residence time for added CO2. The size of the hole in the bucket is distinct from how fast you stir the bucket.

Here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
Read box 6.1, page 472-473. There's a pretty good explanation of the mechanisms that remove CO2 from the atmosphere-surface-ocean system, with references to some fairly modern papers.

>"Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning"
I am speechless. That is literally the fucking "how can the globe be warming if it's snowing outside?" argument.

>>8249550
>CO2 half-life 5 years
>This has been the result of studies for years.
>Do the IPCC modelers still use 50..200 years?
You're still confusing the atmospheric half-life with the residence time. They're two different values, with two different meanings.
Stop.

>>8249554
>The truth is that global warming will cause some adaptation costs in the far future, but they will be a small fraction of economic growth by then. The international coordination required to prevent it is unprecedented and unrealistic, while the adaptation can be done in a dynamic, bottom-up and local way.
Every study I've ever seen puts the costs of managing AGW as increasing significantly with time. In addition, a pure adaption strategy is completely infeasible, because the climate is still a moving target - until CO2% stops climbing, the cost of adaption is effectively infinite.

>>8249572
>Australia gave up their green tax because it was doing nothing but making life difficult.
No, Australia gave up their green tax because of pure politics - the current Liberal party wanted to burn everything the Labour party had touched to the ground. It didn't hurt that they're blatantly in the pockets of the coal industry either.

>>8249781
>Every study I've ever seen puts the costs of managing AGW as increasing significantly with time.
Yes, but of course so does economic growth and technological know-how.

>In addition, a pure adaption strategy is completely infeasible, because the climate is still a moving target - until CO2% stops climbing, the cost of adaption is effectively infinite.
Of course CO2 will eventually stop climbing, when the scarcity of fossil fuels makes them lose market share relative to other energy sources, which can be sped up if other sources innovate.

>>8249788
>Yes, but of course so does economic growth and technological know-how.
Technological know-how would require actual experience, which won't happen if we stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not going to happen. And the economical capacity to manage global warming is far from universal, and given that rising temperatures is going to impact the economies of many poorer countries disproportionately it's unlikely to be getting closer for everyone.

Even IF western nations are in a position where they could sit out AGW and wait for better tech (and no study I've seen agrees with that) the death toll in less well-off places would be terrible. Large-scale food shortages and flooding are the kinds of thing you want to avoid. And that's without touching on the environmental effects, or the potential international effects as poorer counties require increasing support from well-off countries, or the projected rise in conflict and violence.

The first rule of climbing out of holes is to stop digging.

>Of course CO2 will eventually stop climbing, when the scarcity of fossil fuels makes them lose market share relative to other energy sources
Ahahahaha NO.
There's more than enough coal in the ground to ruin absolutely everything for absolutely everyone. "Burn it all and see what happens next" is a TERRIBLE plan.

>>8249805
>digging holes
>stick our heads in the sand
>sit out AGW and wait for better tech
You are missing the fact that economic growth is itself exponential. Our capacity to adapt is not growing linearly, let alone stagnating. It is growing exponentially.

>There's more than enough coal in the ground to ruin absolutely everything for absolutely everyone.
Humbug. It came from natural sources that originally took the carbon from the atmosphere, and the world was perfectly livable back then.

>>8243966
I'll try to give an... explanation?... that may give some here food for thought. Some of us went to college back in the 80's and 90's, when you had to actually pick up your grades, and professors used chalk boards, and we've seen and heard a few things. I'm guessing the average age on this board is maybe 20? Anyone heard of the hole in the ozone layer? Everyone in the southern hemisphere should be dead from skin cancer by now, yet I haven't heard anything about that for 20 years. We had a program on our computers that let us adjust oil usage worldwide, it even let us adjust so that ALL of the interior of the earth was oil. It said we'd be out of oil ten years ago. Global warming was a topic then too, and then somewhere in the 90's they said, "No! First it'll heat up, then it'll go ice age!" Something about the Atlantic conveyer or whatever. All of this, and more, is why some of us sit back and watch and are so skeptical.

You guys aren't old enough to have seen this stuff. You think you're looking at things objectively, scientifically, but you're actually pretty much spouting what you've been taught. Not pointing fingers or blaming, just calling a spade a spade.

>Inb4 "stopped reading at..."

>“Wow, we were way, way off,”
>said Dr. Chris Eula of the UN.
>“It’s really sad so many scientists wasted
>their careers studying climate change and
>climate science only to find out that the
>whole thing was a giant hoax.”
http://thesciencepost.com/united-nations-cancels-climate-change-conferences-internet-commenter-proves-hoax/

>>8249810
>It came from natural sources that originally took the carbon from the atmosphere, and the world was perfectly livable back then.
You can't be fucking serious.

>>8249837
>Anyone heard of the hole in the ozone layer? Everyone in the southern hemisphere should be dead from skin cancer by now, yet I haven't heard anything about that for 20 years.
That's because it was fixed. The chemicals responsible were banned / taxed heavily, and the hole has been slowly shrinking ever since.
You know, the exact same kind of thing we're pushing for here.

>We had a program on our computers that let us adjust oil usage worldwide, it even let us adjust so that ALL of the interior of the earth was oil. It said we'd be out of oil ten years ago.
????
I think there must have been a horrible mistake in your maths. The Earth is rather large.

>Global warming was a topic then too, and then somewhere in the 90's they said, "No! First it'll heat up, then it'll go ice age!"
I'm not sure which "they" you have in mind, but the scientific consensus was definitely on CO2-driven global warming then.

>All of this, and more, is why some of us sit back and watch and are so skeptical.
Yeah, it's called the Dunning–Kruger effect.
You don't understand the subject, so you'll listen to your own half-remembered news soundbites over the actual reports from climatologists.

>>8249926
>You can't be fucking serious.
I notice you don't have a factual response, therefore the blustering.

We're not talking about Venus here. We're talking about a time when the carbon which is now in the fossil fuels was in the atmosphere and life on earth was fine and thriving.

Is there a shred of evidence for manmade global warming at all ?

>>8249936
>I notice you don't have a factual response, therefore the blustering.
I've just never encountered an opinion on climatology that dumb before.

>We're talking about a time when the carbon which is now in the fossil fuels was in the atmosphere and life on earth was fine and thriving.
"Life on earth" might have been fine, but the things I care about are a little more specific than that. Like things that are alive NOW.

Also, thanks to the rise in solar output, if all the coal was burned global temperatures would be considerably higher than they were back then.

>>8249942
>Is there a shred of evidence for manmade global warming at all ?
Yes.
The subject is rather large; do you have something specific you want to see?

>>8249884
Eula? Too good to be true.

>>8249959
>the things I care about are a little more specific than that. Like things that are alive NOW.
I can't agree, there are many things alive right now that I don't particularly appreciate. Including lots of people. Also, they will all die anyway, the future will by its very nature be different and filled with different forms of life. The process that will allow us to adapt so easily - exponential growth based on technology - will also change us in unforeseen ways and cause other risks as well. Taking that into account makes climate change almost a laughable priority.

>Also, thanks to the rise in solar output, if all the coal was burned global temperatures would be considerably higher than they were back then.
Can we quantify this?

>>8249959
>do you have something specific you want to see?
The temperature records we have as far as it goes. I wanna see if the temperature is actually rising or if these are big ass fluctuations.
Also I want evidence that these are manmade and not natural.

>>8249965
>I can't agree, there are many things alive right now that I don't particularly appreciate. Including lots of people.
Yay, genocide.

>Also, they will all die anyway, the future will by its very nature be different and filled with different forms of life.
How about you colonize some other planet first? This one is currently occupied.

>The process that will allow us to adapt so easily - exponential growth based on technology
You seem to have a lot of confidence that future tech will solve our problems, but nothing we currently have under development is even coming close to being the kind of magical fix you would need.

>Taking that into account makes climate change almost a laughable priority.
"My house is on fire, but that's okay. One day I will be immune to burning"?

Also, none of what you said will do any good for any of the people who have to live between now and the day your magical adaption technology is invented, or any of the people who will be to poor to afford it.


>>8249966
>The temperature records we have as far as it goes
Here's a good start. We have records that go back further, but the accuracy falls away.

>I wanna see if the temperature is actually rising or if these are big ass fluctuations.
How would you distinguish the two?

>Also I want evidence that these are manmade and not natural.
That's slightly harder. Here's the short version:

Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen considerably since the industrial revolution. By looking at the isotopic ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can tell that the rise is originating from fossil sources. We know from physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we can show that the contribution of human-emitted CO2 (plus the feedback from water vapor) is enough to produce between 80% and 120% of the warming seen since the industrial revolution. We can confirm that the greenhouse effect is the cause of this warming by observing the reduction in outgoing infrared radiation, using satellites.

>>8250003
doesn't this chart go against global warming ?...

>>8250010
>doesn't this chart go against global warming?
No. Why do you think it does?

>>8250003
I notice you were not able to quantify your assertion that "global temperatures would be considerably higher than they were back then" because of the rise in solar output. I take that to mean you really have no idea and were just winging it. Okay.

>Yay, genocide.
The child-shitting countries can reduce their birth rates, then the population will naturally decline to a point that is sustainable even with hotter climates.

>How about you colonize some other planet first? This one is currently occupied.
No logical connection to what I wrote earlier, namely that life in the far future will by nature be different. Just like we are different from our ancestors. No one controls that, and it's inevitable.

>You seem to have a lot of confidence that future tech will solve our problems, but nothing we currently have under development is even coming close to being the kind of magical fix you would need.
No one's talking about magic. Economic growth is exponential, all of the problems climate change can cause are solvable with current technology + more purchasing power.

>"My house is on fire, but that's okay. One day I will be immune to burning"?
Failed analogy. What you are advocating is like planning out the minutes you will go to the toilet 20 years in advance. Too many unknown details and utterly unnecessary. Climate adaptation will be solved by generations that are much richer, knowledgable and technologically advanced, and they will have values and cultures we can't predict. We don't even know if they will be human at that point, and all kinds of other shit can go wrong, all of which would happen long before climate change becomes a real issue.

>>8250019
>I notice you were not able to quantify your assertion that "global temperatures would be considerably higher than they were back then" because of the rise in solar output. I take that to mean you really have no idea and were just winging it. Okay.
My mistake, I missed that.
Go look up the "Faint Young Sun Paradox". It's not something I actually have hard data for, but it's pretty widely accepted.

>the population will naturally decline to a point that is sustainable even with hotter climates.
Like I said: lots of people would die.
Also, you're pretty naive if you think that wouldn't affect you too.

>No one's talking about magic. Economic growth is exponential,
Until it crashes into real-world limits. Which are probably going to be pretty common things to see as the more severe consequences start to kick in.

>No logical connection to what I wrote earlier, namely that life in the far future will by nature be different.
Except we're not talking about the far future. We're talking about the next 50-100 years.
Many of the people who are alive today are going to see how bad things are going to get in their own lifetimes.

>Too many unknown details and utterly unnecessary.
How is avoiding large numbers of deaths unnecessary?

>Climate adaptation will be solved by generations that are much richer, knowledgable and technologically advanced
Newsflash: We already did that.
We knew global warming was going to be a major issue in the future, and we left solving it to a future generation: THIS one. It's now much harder to solve than it was then. Let's hear some actual predictions rather than futurist hand-waving: How long do we have to wait until solving it starts to get cheaper again? Because most of the actual studies I've seen say "Never".

>>8250041
>Like I said: lots of people would die.
Yes, lots of people will die. All of them, in fact. From ageing, if nothing else. Doesn't change the fact that they can reduce their birth rates and the resulting population is sustainable even in hotter climates. If we even need a reduction.

>Until it crashes into real-world limits.
Yes, like the light-speed limit or human malice, or synthetic pathogens. But certainly not climate change. We have all the tech we need to shelter against storms, build artificial agriculture in closed environments, desalinate and purify water, refrigerate our food and control our indoor climate, recycle waste material, create new domesticated plants and animals, and manufacture all kinds of substitutes for scarce input. The only thing is really energy, but solar is only a few times more expensive and fusion is a possibility. If we develop a seed technology that allows us to build a growing infrastructure in space using extraterrestrial matter and energy, we can scale our manufacturing capacity up by a gigantic factor and then interface it with the surface of earth using fuel generated from sunlight off-world.

>We're talking about the next 50-100 years.
Dude, 100 years with world GDP growing at 2% p.a. is fucking utopian.

>Many of the people who are alive today are going to see how bad things are going to get in their own lifetimes.
You mean, they're going to be rich.

>How is avoiding large numbers of deaths unnecessary?
All humans die, but not from climate change. It's a minor risk compared to other risks we face.

>We knew global warming was going to be a major issue in the future, and we left solving it to a future generation: THIS one. It's now much harder to solve than it was then.
And we're richer than the last generation, and the next generation is going to be richer still. Relative to wealth, it's easier now, not harder.

>>8250056
>Yes, lots of people will die. All of them, in fact. From ageing, if nothing else.
Are you being intentionally fucking dumb?
One of major predictions for the impacts of global warming is crop failures and a reduction in food production. People die if they can't get food. Another prediction is an increase in conflicts in already unstable areas. People die if they get shot.
I don't know about you, but I would consider any plan that will cause a large number of deaths a bad plan.

>If we develop a seed technology that allows us to build a growing infrastructure in space using extraterrestrial matter and energy, we can scale our manufacturing capacity up by a gigantic factor and then interface it with the surface of earth using fuel generated from sunlight off-world.
Fuck this, I'm out. I can't deal with this kind of crazy directly.
Do you have any ACTUAL STUDIES that show that adaption and mitigation will be cheaper in the long run? Not "Wawawa, singularity sprinkles on my morning cornflakes!", but actual published research?

>>8250085
I see you are emotionally unstable.

>One of major predictions for the impacts of global warming is crop failures and a reduction in food production.
>Another prediction is an increase in conflicts in already unstable areas.
Again, ignoring economic growth and technological advancement.

>Fuck this, I'm out.
Good riddance.

>>8250092
>Again, ignoring economic growth and technological advancement.
No, not ignoring anything. This is a thing that is already occurring.

>I see you are emotionally unstable.
Good job on finding those studies that support your wild assumptions?

>>8250011
Because it shows that the globe actually cooled down, now its raising again but at a much lower temperature than before ? Like these are just fluctuations and it's not any warmer than before ?

>>8250113
>Because it shows that the globe actually cooled down, now its raising again but at a much lower temperature than before ?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Why does that matter?

> Like these are just fluctuations
On the timescale in that graph, these ARE just fluctuations.
The trends that cause the long term climate changes (Milankovitch Cycles and so on) are on vastly longer timescales than human activity. On human scales they're just flat lines.

>and it's not any warmer than before ?
We weren't around back then, so we don't have any experience surviving in those conditions.

Who gives a shit. Humanity is overrated.

If this were to be the last generation, that would be perfectly fine.

Not that it matters, climate change is perfectly benign.

>>8250202
>Who gives a shit.
People who are going to be harmed by global warming give a shit.

>Humanity is overrated.
k.

>If this were to be the last generation, that would be perfectly fine.
This isn't going to be the last generation. No-one reputable is saying that.

>Not that it matters, climate change is perfectly benign.
Climate change is going to flood significant areas that are currently inhabited. It's going to reduce crop yeilds in many places, especially those most vulnerable to food shortages. It's going to increase the damage done by severe weather events. None of those are "perfectly benign".

>>8250207
>This isn't going to be the last generation. No-one reputable is saying that.
Missing the point. If it was the last generation, that still would be fine.

>Climate change is going to flood significant areas that are currently inhabited. It's going to reduce crop yeilds in many places, especially those most vulnerable to food shortages. It's going to increase the damage done by severe weather events.
>People who are going to be harmed by global warming give a shit.
Irrelevant. We have no obligation to bring future generations into existence at all, so we also can't have an obligation to leave them an agreeable climate. We could leave them a radioactive wasteland and it would still be perfectly moral, because we don't have to bring them into existence at all. If they don't like it, they can pass a law that everybody should get a suicide kit for free.

But none of that matters, since climate change is the most overrated "problem" of all times.

2010-2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010%E2%80%9311_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

2012
The coldest year globally

"""Global warming"""" is a meme pushed by leftist media like scientific american. You are the ones denying reality, denialist is a term that should be used as a reference to all you popsci plebs

>only to find out that the whole thing was a giant hoax
Read the emails, get a glimpse of the climate twilight:
- they forge the data till they fit the fiction
- they know damn well they're lying
- lying for security reasons
- for job security reasons
- and for the good money
- in a civil religion
- they game the review system
- some may want a new identity
- like other agents of the DoE

Defund the Charade
Defund and Recover

>>8250207
Actually increasing carbon dioxide increases crop yields.

You see this image?

Instead of Monsanto, you can just add in any name for any side of any argument you want and it will be the exact same.

>>8243972
Just like the moon landing, I am impressed about how many mouths they managed to shut.

>>8250586
dude just think about it. we have been industrializing every country globally, which means more CO2, more electicity, more heat output, more gasses in the atmosphere, etc...Don't you think these had any cumulative effect on the average heat over the years ? Whats so bad about taking it down a notch ?

>>8250590
Are you an idiot? Because you responded like an idiot. Which makes that image quite ironic.

>>8250600
is that a no ? you think all this industrialization won't effect the average heat at all ?

>>8250512
>Fuck everyone else, only I matter.
That's nice, you can go away now.

>>8250578
>Actually increasing carbon dioxide increases crop yields.
In ideal conditions, sure.
In the real world? Not so much. Benefits from the increased CO2 will generally be overshadowed by the increased temperature stress, water use, and pest burden:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2153.html
That's not to say that adaption isn't possible, but it's something that we would need to do a lot better at then we are.

>>8250546
>Read the emails
Jesus, are you trapped in some kind of time loop?
We already did read the emails - climategate happened years ago. Most sane people recognized that there wasn't any evidence of a conspiracy there, just coworkers talking about their work in jargon and informal terms. Hell, I think there was something like three different investigations into the CRU, and none of them found shit.

the speak about the coming icetime,
that the modern warm period is over
and no amount of co2 can change it.

>>8251651
>That's nice, you can go away now.
Missing the point AGAIN. How is that even possible? Let me guess: You are literally brain-damaged. What is a retarded person like you doing on a science board?

Here's an idea: Why don't you take your thoughtless whining to a forum more tailored to your faggot needs? Somewhere where everyone is a transgender PC who will give you a safe space from criticism.

>>8251786
>Missing the point AGAIN. How is that even possible?
As far as I could tell, you didn't seem to HAVE a point. You were just bitching about how everyone else expects you to care about other people.

>>8251695
>that the modern warm period is over
What?
Your graph is just the 11-year solar cycle. It's news to precisely no-one here, and not nearly as major as you seem to think it is.

>>8251811
>As far as I could tell, you didn't seem to HAVE a point.
Except for the ones explicitly written. But okay. Let's ignore all those and substitute them for rhetorical distortions.

>You were just bitching about how everyone else expects you to care about other people.
So you're just making shit up now. Ok. Why don't you go piss off then?

What are you even trying to accomplish here? You're not convincing anyone with your distortions and evasions, neither about the science nor about the policitical demands. What do you think will happen, ALL countries will just choose to deindustrialize simultaeously, against all rationality and national interests, because an unlikable faggot whines about it on the internet?

>>8251843
>Except for the ones explicitly written.
You wrote, explicitly, "We have no obligation to bring future generations into existence at all, so we also can't have an obligation to leave them an agreeable climate.
I can't see any way of parsing that other than "fuck other people if their needs get in my way" - the obligation not to harm other people is normally considered pretty important.
And anyone with any degree of actual concern for other's health and wellbeing is not going to agree that "We could leave them a radioactive wasteland and it would still be perfectly moral".

>So you're just making shit up now.
What did I make up?

>What are you even trying to accomplish here?
There are plenty of people around who don't actually understand climatology, and so have limited ability to recognize flawed arguments. Therefore I'd rather not have threads sitting around on /sci/ with nothing but deniers re-posting the same misunderstandings and cherry-picked (or made up) graphs over and over, because without someone challenging them it's much harder to identify the flaws in those claims.

>What do you think will happen, ALL countries will just choose to deindustrialize simultaeously, against all rationality and national interests
Where is this coming from?
Massive deindustrialization isn't really one of the major proposed responses to AGW.. Most proposed solutions tend to revolve around creating efficiency gains across the board, electrification combined with nuclear and/or renewables, or large-scale sequestration.

>Let me guess: You are literally brain-damaged.
>Why don't you take your thoughtless whining to a forum more tailored to your faggot needs?
>Somewhere where everyone is a transgender PC who will give you a safe space from criticism.
>because an unlikable faggot whines about it on the internet?
Are you 12? That kind of vapid, context-free trash talk doesn't make people more inclined to take you seriously; it's just boring.

>>8249115
>le unlabeled blurry memegraph
>putting two different unlabeled graphs on the same axes
[CURRENT YEAR]

>>8249182
I suppose you thought that nobody would notice that neither figure (nor the associated data) appears in either of the references you cite?
of course, that's small potatoes in light of the fact that the "predicted" and "measured" plots are on different altitudes, over different intervals, and using different scales of temperature. you're literally comparing entirely different quantities and complaining that they're not the same.

>>8249191
>let's compare a state variable to a rate of change and complain that their derivatives don't sync up!

>>8251906
>I can't see any way of parsing that other than "fuck other people if their needs get in my way"
Parse the basic logic: Do we have an obligation to bring future generations into existence? No, that would imply an obligation to have sex and go through pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing. No one has such an obligation if he or she doesn't want to. Outside of totalitarian regimes, this is universally accepted as a moral truth.

If we - the current generations - don't have an obligation to bring future generations into existence, what obligation could we possibly have to leave them an agreeable climate? Sure, it would be generous of us, just like it would be generous if we saved up a lot of money and left it to them as an inheritance. But it is not a moral obligation.

>the obligation not to harm other people is normally considered pretty important.
Except we're not harming other people, we're emitting CO2 and CH4. That violates no one's rights. It may warm up the climate and reduce the present value of assets like arable land or coastal areas. But that is so indirect per emitter, and so far in the future that you cannot reasonably frame it as "harming other people". And again, we have no obligation to bring future generations into existence, therefore we also can't have an obligation to leave them assets with high present value.

>And anyone with any degree of actual concern for other's health and wellbeing is not going to agree that "We could leave them a radioactive wasteland and it would still be perfectly moral".
Since we don't have an obligation to bring them into existence at all, that's exactly what it implies. The omission of generosity is still perfectly moral.

>Most proposed solutions tend to revolve around creating efficiency gains across the board, electrification combined with nuclear and/or renewables, or large-scale sequestration.
This does not reduce CO2 emissions to 0. So accodring to you, we'd still harm other people.

>>8251998
>If we - the current generations - don't have an obligation to bring future generations into existence, what obligation could we possibly have to leave them an agreeable climate?
That doesn't follow at all. Your lack of obligation to have children is entirely distinct from your obligation not to harm others, including those in the next generation.

>Except we're not harming other people, we're emitting CO2 and CH4.
That's akin to claiming that shooting someone isn't harming them, it's just launching bits of metal at high speed at them. We have a done quite a large amount of work to predict what the medium and long term effect of global warming are, and they're not pretty. Changing the climate to one we know will cause harm absolutely counts as harming other people.

>But that is so indirect per emitter, and so far in the future that you cannot reasonably frame it as "harming other people".
Why not? If I buried a bomb under the site of a future shopping mall with a ten-year timer, does the length of time and my remoteness from the harm that will happen lessen the fact that it's a horrible thing to do?

>The omission of generosity is still perfectly moral.
Emitting CO2 is an act. Raising CO2 levels will harm people. Performing actions that will harm people is generally immoral. I'm not sure how you're interpreting any of this as "the omission of generosity".

>This does not reduce CO2 emissions to 0. So accodring to you, we'd still harm other people.
Correct. But we'd harm people less, and that's a good start. "In for a penny, in for a pound" is not actually responsible ethics.

>>8252188
>That doesn't follow at all. Your lack of obligation to have children is entirely distinct from your obligation not to harm others, including those in the next generation.
But if people didn't have children, there wouldn't be a next generation, so it's not a harm that the emitter causes. Whatever harm future generations may experience as a result from global warming is really a harm caused by their parents, by bringing them into existence. Since we usually assume that it's still okay to have children even in conditions that are sub-optimal, they can't complain about being brought into existence (or we could define suicide rights so extensive that even children can opt out of it again painlessly).

Imagine a world where no one reproduces. No future generation would be harmed by global warming, right? So how can the harm to future generations be attributed to the emitter, rather than the people who reproduce? You might just as well blame them.

Again, omission of generosity is not harm. Your children might be happier if you leave them a large estate, but you do not harm them by spending the money instead. CO2 is exactly equivalent.

>That's akin to claiming that shooting someone isn't harming them
That's nonsense, no emitter is harmful enough for that. It is the net effect of all emitters distributed over all the people affected by global warming that constitutes the aggregate harm. Perhaps a better analogy would be to say wearing a coloful t-shirt is harming people because you ever so slightly increase the risk of distracting someone in traffic so they might have an accident and die. Not at all equivalent to shooting people. The individual emitter is near irrelevant for climate change.

>But we'd harm people less, and that's a good start.
That's like saying if we give more money to future, that's a good start. Yeah more generosity is nicer than less generosity. But it's not a moral obligation.

>>8252258
You're still talking about generosity. Reducing CO2 emissions isn't giving something good, it's not doing something harmful.

>Imagine a world where no one reproduces. No future generation would be harmed by global warming, right? So how can the harm to future generations be attributed to the emitter, rather than the people who reproduce? You might just as well blame them.
You are proposing an incredibly broken model of harm and ethics. If I shoot someone in a bar, is the bartender responsible? If he wasn't there, there wouldn't be anyone for me to shoot.

Also, are you seriously suggesting human extinction as a response to AGW?

>Again, omission of generosity is not harm.
Again, avoiding breaking something essential isn't "generosity". I could go around setting my neighbor's house on fire. Am I generous for not doing that?

>That's nonsense, no emitter is harmful enough for that.
No single emitter is, but we're talking about the combined effects of a lot of people's actions, doing harm to a lot of people.

>Perhaps a better analogy would be to say wearing a coloful t-shirt is harming people because you ever so slightly increase the risk of distracting someone in traffic
That's a terrible analogy. Even if everyone wore bright shits, the increase in harm would be tiny. Most predictions for the harm from AGW place it as having a major impact on many countries.
Avoiding causing significant harm to others is a ethical requirement.

>That's like saying if we give more money to future, that's a good start. Yeah more generosity is nicer than less generosity. But it's not a moral obligation.
It's not fucking generosity.
Avoiding harming people is not fucking "being generous". And it is an obligation.
I don't understand why you're still repeating this - it's just nonsense.

>>8252288
>Also, are you seriously suggesting human extinction as a response to AGW?
I'm not suggesting any response because I don't think it's a big issue, but I wouldn't mind if all humans stopped having children now. If life is a gift, then giving it to future generations may be generous, but it is not an obligation, as mentioned many times before.

>No single emitter is, but we're talking about the combined effects of a lot of people's actions, doing harm to a lot of people.
You're still equating shooting people and setting stuff on fire with CO2 emissions. But each emitter is individually irrelevant. And there is no coherent agency that coordinates all emitters. So we're not talking about "combined efforts of a lot of people's actions", we're talking about individual actions who happen to lead to noticable climate change in aggregate.

From any individual's perspective, reducing CO2 emissions or doing climate advocacy is just as much generosity as donating money to future generations. Hence I don't share your view that individual emitters are causing harm to individual affected people.

Even if you could somehow push a button and force all emitters to stop emitting, you'd be harming *them* by pushing the button.

>>8252288
>Also, are you seriously suggesting human extinction as a response to AGW?

I really can't tell who's more autistic here, the other guy for putting that much effort into troll-tier arguments, or you for your inability to ignore him

>>8252367
>S-someone w-wrote something I don't agree with p-please ignore him ;_;

You are the cancer that is killing /sci/

>>8243966
That means 2016 wasn't the warmest year on record. So much for global warming.

>>8252367
Fair point.

>>8252373
>L-look at my high school level understanding of climate science
>obviously the problem doesn't exist because the climatologist simply forgot to consider these fundamental effects and account for them in their models
>why is my massive intellect not recognized by the establishment, there must be a conspiracy

>If we stop breeding, nobody is harmed xDDDDD those environmental organizations sure are fucking stupid for not advocating population control

>>8252453
You didn't even read what was written.

Anyway, perhaps we should just agree that you are morally superior for being Very Concerned About Climate Change On The Internet.

Not that it changes anything, because we both know you're going to do nothing for other people and you're not going to forgo any consumption, and no one will ever care about your opinion.

>>8249770 >>8243966
>>>8249096
>>FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
>That's not what I said. Also, that's not how the UN works.
That's exactly how the UN works. They couldn't care less about the facts; it's all about the money. And Climate Change "Scientists" will be retired by then.

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…”

>>8249770 >>8243966
>>>8249096
>>Your phony falsification criterion fails because "multi-decadal" always means longer than we've waited!
>It generally means >=30 years. We have more data than that.
>>There was no warming from 1945 to 1975
>Which would be a really big deal, except we have strong reasons to believe that was due to post-WWII aerosol emissions.
>Like I said, the climate is a big complex thing. You can't just point to a single graph and claim that falsifies everything.

>>Now you're going to come back and say that doesn't count, proving the theory is unfalsifiable.
>It does count, it's just not a falsification because it's not inconsistent with the model we have.

Look at our Highly Falsifiable Theory!!
Temps go up, CO2 goes up for 30+ years => Climate Change is TRUE!
Temps don't go up while CO2 goes up for 30+ years, Hurr durr aerosols => Climate Change is TRUE!

Sweet unfalsifiability, the heart of a pseudo-science.
Pic related. 37 years of documented non-warming. 1940 – 1977: -0.1°C Cooling with +23 ppm CO2
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1977/trend

>>>8249115 >>8243966
>> I'll call them crappy, because ad hominem proves these graphs don't count
That's NASA data.
>Also, that image is crappy because it's almost impossible to read, and blatantly assumes that any change in the temperature record is done to deceive people, rather than to correct for discovered artefacts.
>You can't just point to climatologists doing their jobs and assert that the work they're doing is part of a grand conspiracy.
> Conspiracy! Anyone who believes that institutions would use suspect techniques to "correct" data so that they could guarantee their funding is an evil conspiracy nut job. Banks would never do that. Corporations would never do that. And NASA is a paragon of integrity, pic related.

Ah yes, the inevitable resort to ad hominem. I cannot believe your hypocrisy. >>8244211 >>8244251 .

>>So you posted a graph that completely rewrites the history of temperature and cherry picks the starting point.
>The start of the graph is the start of that temperature series. That's hardly "cherry picking".
> Blah, blah, blah.
By pure coincidence most AGW graphs start at about 1975 (end of a cooling period from 1945) or about 1850, end of the little ice age. Yup that's not cherry picking. >>8243997
I never cease to be amazed at what hypocrites you are.

>>8249773 >>8243966
>>>8249146
>>Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
>>Airborne Fraction Rate: 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade since 1850
>>THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ZERO CHANGE SINCE 1850!
>Okay. So what?
>That paper doesn't contradict andything I've actually said.
Are you acting stupid, or are you doing the usual warmist thing of denying the data?
The rete of Airborne Fraction change is Statistically the Same as ZERO!
If all this increased atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic it would be changing. ITS NOT.

Your theory has been falsified.

>>Quirk, Tom. "Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide." Energy & environment 20.1 (2009): 105-121.
>>Energy & environment
>No.
Non-answer.
>>Segalstad, T. V. "The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. American Geophysical Union." Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. 1992.
>I can barely even find any references to this. It's mentioned once in E&E, and that's it.
Non-answer.

>>>8249161 >>8243966
>>A flat out lie. The predicted hot spot didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.
>The "hot spot" wasn't a prediction of AGW. It was a prediction from atmospheric physics, completely divorced from the source of the warming. That it didn't happen is interesting, but has nothing to do with the presence or lack of CO2-driven warming.

Yeah right. Let's have a look at how the hot spot occurs:
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. DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CO2/WARMING
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. This is the creation of the "hot spot."

Ah yes, the expected response from the Mikey Mann School of Deliberate Prevarication. How clever to ignore the change in the lapse rape due to anthropogenic influence.

>The actual prediction from AGW was stratospheric cooling, which DID occur.
And more dissembling. Pic related. No stratospheric cooling for 20 years.
Climate Change "Science" has been falsified.
What weaselly excuse do you have this time? Make Mikey Mann proud.


>>>8249177
>>The predicted warming was supposed to flat line no longer than 17 years.
>It didn't. Go look at and surface or ocean measurements, rather than the satellite proxies.
>Lots of spectacular rewriting of data there! And RSS had to be tampered to get the desired outcome
FTFY >>8246778
>(I think they fixed that in newer graphs?), and that trend you like strongly requires the use of 1997 or 1998 as a start point. Not terribly impressive.
> 1997 El Nino = Cherry - Picking, 2015 El Nino - Climate Change!

The predictions discussed were for the troposphere. Not the surface or ocean. Disingenuous, as always.

>>There was an actual pause: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
>>McKitrick
>I honestly don't give a fuck about that guy.
> I disagree with the measurement, so I ignore it
Spoken like a true pseudo-scientist.

>>8251910 >>8243966
>>>8249115
>>le unlabeled blurry memegraph
National Center for Atmospheric Research (part of the NOAA) right on the graph. And NASA buddy.
>>putting two different unlabeled graphs on the same axes
Which part of years and "Degrees Centigrade" don't you understand?
>[CURRENT YEAR]
The NASA data is current. Look it up yourself.

>>>8249182
>I suppose you thought that nobody would notice that neither figure (nor the associated data) appears in either of the references you cite?

EVERYONE, LOOK AT SOURCES BELOW
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf . P. 675, 9.1(f).
And you can also get the same data at
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap1-1/sap1-1-final-all.pdf, p. 25.
Radiosonde data from Synthesis and Assessment report 1.1, 2006, CSSP, Ch. 5, P. 116. Or see Singer, S. Fred. "Lack of consistency between modeled and observed temperature trends." Energy & Environment 22.4 (2011): 375-406.
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/22/4/375.full.pdf

>of course, that's small potatoes in light of the fact that the "predicted" and "measured" plots are on different altitudes,
One goes to 24 km, the other to 28 km. I can't ignore the extra 4 km at the top!
How's the autism going?

>over different intervals,
Left one goes from 75S to 75N the right one goes from 75S to 75N. Your autism is terrible!

>and using different scales of temperature.
The predicted hot spot is at 1.2 degrees Centigrade (left plot), the measured values where the hot spot should be is between -0.1 and 0.1 degrees Centigrade.
>Gosh I don't know how to use a scale.
Sheesh. Lrn2Scienz


>>>8249191
>>let's compare a state variable to a rate of change and complain that their derivatives don't sync up!
You idiot. That's a graph of yearly CO2 MASS CHANGE compared to Anthropogenic CO2 flux. THEY'RE BOTH (discrete) DERIVATIVES!

>>8249776 >>8243966
>>>8249191
>>Great, so if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlated to anthropogenic CO2 flux, that's a nice falsification of the theory.
>Only on long timescales. The year-to-year carbon exchange is pretty large, so there's no point comparing every 12 minute interval.
Complete hemisphere dispersion by 3 months. Total earth dispersion by 12 months.

>>Despite all the paid shills, atmospheric CO2 has a very short half-life. About 5 years
>Yeah, no.
>You're confusing the exhange rate with the ground and ocean, with the actual residence time for added CO2. The size of the hole in the bucket is distinct from how fast you stir the bucket.
>Here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
>Read box 6.1, page 472-473. There's a pretty good explanation of the mechanisms that remove CO2 from the atmosphere-surface-ocean system, with references to some fairly modern papers.

Let's have a look. P. 472 " Atmospheric CO2 is exchanged with the surface ocean through gas exchange. This exchange flux is driven by the partial CO2 pressure difference between the air and the sea." That's Henry's law. WHICH DOESN'T APPLY TO THE OCEAN SURFACE BECAUSE ITS A BUFFERED SOLUTION!
And this: "Within several decades of CO2 emissions, about a third to half of an initial pulse of anthropogenic CO2 goes into the land and ocean, while the rest stays in the atmosphere." Several decades? A flat-out lie, it's about 5-7 years as the papers I referenced showed. I can post many more.
This is terrible "science." And in no ways demonstrates that CO2 has a long "residence" time or whatever euphemism you want to use for "Anthropogenic CO2 has a atmospheric half-life of 5 years, but it is immediately and perfectly replaced by other CO2 because of Henry's law (with very long term changes noted)." RUBBISH.

Continued
>>8249776 >>8243966
>>>8249191

>>"Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning"
>I am speechless. That is literally the fucking "how can the globe be warming if it's snowing outside?" argument.
You are making zero sense. If a small signal is obscured by a large signal, it's very hard , if not impossible to measure. Deal with it.

>>>8249550
>>CO2 half-life 5 years
>>This has been the result of studies for years.
>>Do the IPCC modelers still use 50..200 years?
>You're still confusing the atmospheric half-life with the residence time. They're two different values, with two different meanings.
>Stop.
Why don't you stop? Henry's law does not apply. Atmospheric CO2 is mostly from natural sources. The majority of the increase is probably from ocean out-gassing.

Pic related, from Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

Ahlbeck, Jarl. "On the Increased Rate of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation 1980-2008." Energy & environment 20.7 (2009): 1149-1154.
Atmospheric CO2 increase DOES NOT correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It correlates with and lags temperature.
Quirk, Tom. "Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide." Energy & environment 20.1 (2009): 105-121.
"The yearly increases of atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the change to seasonal variation which implies that the fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year that it is emitted."
C13 temporal peaks correlate with ENSO events.
Read up buddy.

>>8250003
> Pic of Marcott fraudulent graph.
Marcott redated proxies; changing published dates to ad hoc dates to reverse the direction of recent proxies. Pic related. He got caught so he walked his nonsense back in unRealClimate, "Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

>nb4 Better not say anything bad about Marcott, he's my buddy.
I will never hesitate to point out crap science that lies somewhere between deceptive and fraudulent. Deal with it.

>>8254184 >>8254185 >>8254188
>>8254188 >>8254191 >>8254197
>>8254198 >>8254203 >>8254207
>>8254210 >>8254214
Oh hey, it's Fuckface. I was wondering where you had run off to.
Tell me, were did you copy-paste your talking points from this time? Was it WUWT again?

>>8254203
>National Center for Atmospheric Research (part of the NOAA) right on the graph. And NASA buddy.
saying which agency the data come from is useless. you seem to be under the delusion that it's the job of your reader to hunt down the sources for your figures and their data, rather than your job to actually cite things. neither trend is labeled, and the red line has been detached from its scale entirely.

>EVERYONE, LOOK AT SOURCES BELOW
pic related is figure 9.1 from the IPCC document you claim is your source. can you show me where in that figure either of the figures your pic >>8249161 contains? it'll be a good trick, given that figure 9.1 is simulations over the interval of 1890 to 1999, and the figures you posted start at 1958 and 1979
now, the first image DOES appear in the USCCSP document, but it's entirely different from the IPCC prediction to which you have repeatedly attributed your figure.
you appear unable to distinguish between two vaguely similar graphs; I suggest actually reading the captions?

>>over different intervals,
>Left one goes from 75S to 75N the right one goes from 75S to 75N. Your autism is terrible!
TIME INTERVALS, dimwit. the left one is over the 1958-1999 interval; the right one is over the 1979-1999 interval. do you not see why this difference might cause a problem in attempting to compare the two?

>>and using different scales of temperature.
>The predicted hot spot is at 1.2 degrees Centigrade (left plot), the measured values where the hot spot should be is between -0.1 and 0.1 degrees Centigrade.
>>Gosh I don't know how to use a scale.
>Sheesh. Lrn2Scienz
This is where you really make a fool of yourself.
As if it weren't already apparent that you don't read captions, you've gone ahead and compared the units on the left (total change over a 41-year span) to those on the right (change per decade) without bothering to convert the units. Who doesn't know how to use a scale NOW?